↓ Skip to main content

Determination of gamma camera calibration factors for quantitation of therapeutic radioisotopes

Overview of attention for article published in EJNMMI Physics, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#25 of 182)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Determination of gamma camera calibration factors for quantitation of therapeutic radioisotopes
Published in
EJNMMI Physics, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40658-018-0208-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wei Zhao, Pedro L. Esquinas, Xinchi Hou, Carlos F. Uribe, Marjorie Gonzalez, Jean-Mathieu Beauregard, Yuni K. Dewaraja, Anna Celler

Abstract

Camera calibration, which translates reconstructed count map into absolute activity map, is a prerequisite procedure for quantitative SPECT imaging. Both planar and tomographic scans using different phantom geometries have been proposed for the determination of the camera calibration factor (CF). However, there is no consensus on which approach is the best. The aim of this study is to evaluate all these calibration methods, compare their performance, and propose a practical and accurate calibration method for SPECT quantitation of therapeutic radioisotopes. Twenty-one phantom experiments (Siemens Symbia SPECT/CT) and 12 Monte Carlo simulations (GATE v6.1) using three therapy isotopes (131I, 177Lu, and 188Re) have been performed. The following phantom geometries were used: (1) planar scans of point source in air (PS), (2) tomographic scans of insert(s) filled with activity placed in non-radioactive water (HS + CB), (3) tomographic scans of hot insert(s) in radioactive water (HS + WB), and (4) tomographic scans of cylinders uniformly filled with activity (HC). Tomographic data were reconstructed using OSEM with CT-based attenuation correction and triple energy window (TEW) scatter correction, and CF was determined using total counts in the reconstructed image, while for planar scans, the photopeak counts, corrected for scatter and background with TEW, were used. Additionally, for simulated data, CF obtained from primary photons only was analyzed. For phantom experiments, CF obtained from PS and HS + WB agreed to within 6% (below 3% if experiments performed on the same day are considered). However, CF from HS + CB exceeded those from PS by 4-12%. Similar trend was found in simulation studies. Analysis of CFs from primary photons helped us to understand this discrepancy. It was due to underestimation of scatter by the TEW method, further enhanced by attenuation correction. This effect becomes less important when the source is distributed over the entire phantom volume (HS + WB and HC). Camera CF could be determined using planar scans of a point source, provided that the scatter and background contributions are removed, for example using the clinically available TEW method. This approach is simple and yet provides CF with sufficient accuracy (~ 5%) to be used in clinics for radiotracer quantification.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 107 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 21%
Student > Master 15 14%
Researcher 14 13%
Other 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 26 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 31 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 18%
Engineering 8 7%
Computer Science 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 32 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 May 2018.
All research outputs
#6,197,889
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from EJNMMI Physics
#25
of 182 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,961
of 326,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from EJNMMI Physics
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 182 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,217 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them