Accuracy of Dose Calibrators for 68Ga PET Imaging: Unexpected Findings in a Multicenter Clinical Pretrial Assessment

We report the discovery of a systematic miscalibration during the work-up process for site validation of a multicenter clinical PET imaging trial using 68Ga, which manifested as a consistent and reproducible underestimation in the quantitative accuracy (assessed by SUV) of a range of PET systems fro...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978) 2018-04, Vol.59 (4), p.636-638
Hauptverfasser: Bailey, Dale L, Hofman, Michael S, wood, Nicholas J, O'Keefe, Graeme J, Scott, Andrew M, van Wyngaardt, Winifred M, Howe, Bonnie, Kovacev, Olga, Francis, Roslyn J
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 638
container_issue 4
container_start_page 636
container_title The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978)
container_volume 59
creator Bailey, Dale L
Hofman, Michael S
wood, Nicholas J
O'Keefe, Graeme J
Scott, Andrew M
van Wyngaardt, Winifred M
Howe, Bonnie
Kovacev, Olga
Francis, Roslyn J
description We report the discovery of a systematic miscalibration during the work-up process for site validation of a multicenter clinical PET imaging trial using 68Ga, which manifested as a consistent and reproducible underestimation in the quantitative accuracy (assessed by SUV) of a range of PET systems from different manufacturers at several different facilities around Australia. Methods: Sites were asked to follow a strict preparation protocol to create a radioactive phantom with 68Ga to be imaged using a standard clinical protocol before commencing imaging in the trial. All sites had routinely used 68Ga for clinical PET imaging for many years. The reconstructed image data were transferred to an imaging core laboratory for analysis, along with information about ancillary equipment such as the radionuclide dose calibrator. Fourteen PET systems were assessed from 10 nuclear medicine facilities in Australia, with the aim for each PET system being to produce images within 5% of the true SUV. Results: At initial testing, 10 of the 14 PET systems underestimated the SUV by 15% on average (range, 13%-23%). Multiple PET systems at one site, from two different manufacturers, were all similarly affected, suggesting a common cause. We eventually identified an incorrect factory-shipped dose calibrator setting from a single manufacturer as being the cause. The calibrator setting for 68Ga was subsequently adjusted by the users so that the reconstructed images produced accurate values. Conclusion: PET imaging involves a chain of measurements and calibrations to produce accurate quantitative performance. Testing of the entire chain is simple, however, and should form part of any quality assurance program or prequalifying site assessment before commencing a quantitative imaging trial or clinical imaging.
doi_str_mv 10.2967/jnumed.117.202861
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1989561246</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1989561246</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-j227t-defaa8d4d2e4dea78454a0bdea53f1fadd965944c26a0a08710e272138286a043</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotj0FLwzAYhoMgOKc_wFuOXjqTNE1Tb6NuczBxh-08viVfR0qbziQF_fcW9PQ-vA-88BLyxNlCVKp8af3Yo11wXi4EE1rxGzLjRV5khVLlHbmPsWWMKa31jKSlMWMA80OHhr4NEWkNnTsHSEOItBkCVXoDdL860G0PF-cvr_To8fuKJqGla-ft1EXqPAX6MXbJGfQJA607552Bju4DpuAmWMaIMfaTfiC3DXQRH_9zTo7r1aF-z3afm2293GWtEGXKLDYA2korUFqEUstCAjtPWOQNb8DaShWVlEYoYMB0yRmKUvBcT6eByXxOnv92r2H4GjGmU--iwa4Dj8MYT7zSVaG4kCr_BRh0XwA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1989561246</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Accuracy of Dose Calibrators for 68Ga PET Imaging: Unexpected Findings in a Multicenter Clinical Pretrial Assessment</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Bailey, Dale L ; Hofman, Michael S ; wood, Nicholas J ; O'Keefe, Graeme J ; Scott, Andrew M ; van Wyngaardt, Winifred M ; Howe, Bonnie ; Kovacev, Olga ; Francis, Roslyn J</creator><creatorcontrib>Bailey, Dale L ; Hofman, Michael S ; wood, Nicholas J ; O'Keefe, Graeme J ; Scott, Andrew M ; van Wyngaardt, Winifred M ; Howe, Bonnie ; Kovacev, Olga ; Francis, Roslyn J</creatorcontrib><description>We report the discovery of a systematic miscalibration during the work-up process for site validation of a multicenter clinical PET imaging trial using 68Ga, which manifested as a consistent and reproducible underestimation in the quantitative accuracy (assessed by SUV) of a range of PET systems from different manufacturers at several different facilities around Australia. Methods: Sites were asked to follow a strict preparation protocol to create a radioactive phantom with 68Ga to be imaged using a standard clinical protocol before commencing imaging in the trial. All sites had routinely used 68Ga for clinical PET imaging for many years. The reconstructed image data were transferred to an imaging core laboratory for analysis, along with information about ancillary equipment such as the radionuclide dose calibrator. Fourteen PET systems were assessed from 10 nuclear medicine facilities in Australia, with the aim for each PET system being to produce images within 5% of the true SUV. Results: At initial testing, 10 of the 14 PET systems underestimated the SUV by 15% on average (range, 13%-23%). Multiple PET systems at one site, from two different manufacturers, were all similarly affected, suggesting a common cause. We eventually identified an incorrect factory-shipped dose calibrator setting from a single manufacturer as being the cause. The calibrator setting for 68Ga was subsequently adjusted by the users so that the reconstructed images produced accurate values. Conclusion: PET imaging involves a chain of measurements and calibrations to produce accurate quantitative performance. Testing of the entire chain is simple, however, and should form part of any quality assurance program or prequalifying site assessment before commencing a quantitative imaging trial or clinical imaging.</description><identifier>EISSN: 1535-5667</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.117.202861</identifier><language>eng</language><ispartof>The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978), 2018-04, Vol.59 (4), p.636-638</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bailey, Dale L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hofman, Michael S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>wood, Nicholas J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Keefe, Graeme J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scott, Andrew M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Wyngaardt, Winifred M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howe, Bonnie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kovacev, Olga</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Francis, Roslyn J</creatorcontrib><title>Accuracy of Dose Calibrators for 68Ga PET Imaging: Unexpected Findings in a Multicenter Clinical Pretrial Assessment</title><title>The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978)</title><description>We report the discovery of a systematic miscalibration during the work-up process for site validation of a multicenter clinical PET imaging trial using 68Ga, which manifested as a consistent and reproducible underestimation in the quantitative accuracy (assessed by SUV) of a range of PET systems from different manufacturers at several different facilities around Australia. Methods: Sites were asked to follow a strict preparation protocol to create a radioactive phantom with 68Ga to be imaged using a standard clinical protocol before commencing imaging in the trial. All sites had routinely used 68Ga for clinical PET imaging for many years. The reconstructed image data were transferred to an imaging core laboratory for analysis, along with information about ancillary equipment such as the radionuclide dose calibrator. Fourteen PET systems were assessed from 10 nuclear medicine facilities in Australia, with the aim for each PET system being to produce images within 5% of the true SUV. Results: At initial testing, 10 of the 14 PET systems underestimated the SUV by 15% on average (range, 13%-23%). Multiple PET systems at one site, from two different manufacturers, were all similarly affected, suggesting a common cause. We eventually identified an incorrect factory-shipped dose calibrator setting from a single manufacturer as being the cause. The calibrator setting for 68Ga was subsequently adjusted by the users so that the reconstructed images produced accurate values. Conclusion: PET imaging involves a chain of measurements and calibrations to produce accurate quantitative performance. Testing of the entire chain is simple, however, and should form part of any quality assurance program or prequalifying site assessment before commencing a quantitative imaging trial or clinical imaging.</description><issn>1535-5667</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNotj0FLwzAYhoMgOKc_wFuOXjqTNE1Tb6NuczBxh-08viVfR0qbziQF_fcW9PQ-vA-88BLyxNlCVKp8af3Yo11wXi4EE1rxGzLjRV5khVLlHbmPsWWMKa31jKSlMWMA80OHhr4NEWkNnTsHSEOItBkCVXoDdL860G0PF-cvr_To8fuKJqGla-ft1EXqPAX6MXbJGfQJA607552Bju4DpuAmWMaIMfaTfiC3DXQRH_9zTo7r1aF-z3afm2293GWtEGXKLDYA2korUFqEUstCAjtPWOQNb8DaShWVlEYoYMB0yRmKUvBcT6eByXxOnv92r2H4GjGmU--iwa4Dj8MYT7zSVaG4kCr_BRh0XwA</recordid><startdate>20180401</startdate><enddate>20180401</enddate><creator>Bailey, Dale L</creator><creator>Hofman, Michael S</creator><creator>wood, Nicholas J</creator><creator>O'Keefe, Graeme J</creator><creator>Scott, Andrew M</creator><creator>van Wyngaardt, Winifred M</creator><creator>Howe, Bonnie</creator><creator>Kovacev, Olga</creator><creator>Francis, Roslyn J</creator><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20180401</creationdate><title>Accuracy of Dose Calibrators for 68Ga PET Imaging: Unexpected Findings in a Multicenter Clinical Pretrial Assessment</title><author>Bailey, Dale L ; Hofman, Michael S ; wood, Nicholas J ; O'Keefe, Graeme J ; Scott, Andrew M ; van Wyngaardt, Winifred M ; Howe, Bonnie ; Kovacev, Olga ; Francis, Roslyn J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-j227t-defaa8d4d2e4dea78454a0bdea53f1fadd965944c26a0a08710e272138286a043</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bailey, Dale L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hofman, Michael S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>wood, Nicholas J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>O'Keefe, Graeme J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scott, Andrew M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Wyngaardt, Winifred M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Howe, Bonnie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kovacev, Olga</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Francis, Roslyn J</creatorcontrib><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bailey, Dale L</au><au>Hofman, Michael S</au><au>wood, Nicholas J</au><au>O'Keefe, Graeme J</au><au>Scott, Andrew M</au><au>van Wyngaardt, Winifred M</au><au>Howe, Bonnie</au><au>Kovacev, Olga</au><au>Francis, Roslyn J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Accuracy of Dose Calibrators for 68Ga PET Imaging: Unexpected Findings in a Multicenter Clinical Pretrial Assessment</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978)</jtitle><date>2018-04-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>59</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>636</spage><epage>638</epage><pages>636-638</pages><eissn>1535-5667</eissn><abstract>We report the discovery of a systematic miscalibration during the work-up process for site validation of a multicenter clinical PET imaging trial using 68Ga, which manifested as a consistent and reproducible underestimation in the quantitative accuracy (assessed by SUV) of a range of PET systems from different manufacturers at several different facilities around Australia. Methods: Sites were asked to follow a strict preparation protocol to create a radioactive phantom with 68Ga to be imaged using a standard clinical protocol before commencing imaging in the trial. All sites had routinely used 68Ga for clinical PET imaging for many years. The reconstructed image data were transferred to an imaging core laboratory for analysis, along with information about ancillary equipment such as the radionuclide dose calibrator. Fourteen PET systems were assessed from 10 nuclear medicine facilities in Australia, with the aim for each PET system being to produce images within 5% of the true SUV. Results: At initial testing, 10 of the 14 PET systems underestimated the SUV by 15% on average (range, 13%-23%). Multiple PET systems at one site, from two different manufacturers, were all similarly affected, suggesting a common cause. We eventually identified an incorrect factory-shipped dose calibrator setting from a single manufacturer as being the cause. The calibrator setting for 68Ga was subsequently adjusted by the users so that the reconstructed images produced accurate values. Conclusion: PET imaging involves a chain of measurements and calibrations to produce accurate quantitative performance. Testing of the entire chain is simple, however, and should form part of any quality assurance program or prequalifying site assessment before commencing a quantitative imaging trial or clinical imaging.</abstract><doi>10.2967/jnumed.117.202861</doi><tpages>3</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier EISSN: 1535-5667
ispartof The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978), 2018-04, Vol.59 (4), p.636-638
issn 1535-5667
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1989561246
source Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
title Accuracy of Dose Calibrators for 68Ga PET Imaging: Unexpected Findings in a Multicenter Clinical Pretrial Assessment
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-15T17%3A57%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Accuracy%20of%20Dose%20Calibrators%20for%2068Ga%20PET%20Imaging:%20Unexpected%20Findings%20in%20a%20Multicenter%20Clinical%20Pretrial%20Assessment&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20nuclear%20medicine%20(1978)&rft.au=Bailey,%20Dale%20L&rft.date=2018-04-01&rft.volume=59&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=636&rft.epage=638&rft.pages=636-638&rft.eissn=1535-5667&rft_id=info:doi/10.2967/jnumed.117.202861&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E1989561246%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1989561246&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true