Differences in 3D dose distributions due to calculation method of voxel S-values and the influence of image blurring in SPECT

Massimiliano Pacilio, Ernesto Amato, Nico Lanconelli, Chiara Basile, Leonel Alberto Torres, Francesca Botta, Mahila Ferrari, Nestor Cornejo Diaz, Marco Coca Perez, María Fernández, Michael Lassmann, Alex Vergara Gil, Marta Cremonesi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study compares 3D dose distributions obtained with voxel S values (VSVs) for soft tissue, calculated by several methods at their current state-of-the-art, varying the degree of image blurring. The methods were: 1) convolution of Dose Point Kernel (DPK) for water, using a scaling factor method; 2) an analytical model (AM), fitting the deposited energy as a function of the source-target distance; 3) a rescaling method (RSM) based on a set of high-resolution VSVs for each isotope; 4) local energy deposition (LED). VSVs calculated by direct Monte Carlo simulations were assumed as reference. Dose distributions were calculated considering spheroidal clusters with various sizes (251, 1237 and 4139 voxels of 3 mm size), uniformly filled with 131I, 177Lu, 188Re or 90Y. The activity distributions were blurred with Gaussian filters of various widths (6, 8 and 12 mm). Moreover, 3D-dosimetry was performed for 10 treatments with 90Y derivatives. Cumulative Dose Volume Histograms (cDVHs) were compared, studying the differences in D95%, D50% or Dmax (ΔD95%, ΔD50% and ΔDmax) and dose profiles. For unblurred spheroidal clusters, ΔD95%, ΔD50% and ΔDmax were mostly within some percents, slightly higher for 177Lu with DPK (8%) and RSM (12%) and considerably higher for LED (ΔD95% up to 59%). Increasing the blurring, differences decreased and also LED yielded very similar results, but D95% and D50% underestimations between 30-60% and 15-50%, respectively (with respect to 3D-dosimetry with unblurred distributions), were evidenced. Also for clinical images (affected by blurring as well), cDVHs differences for most methods were within few percents, except for slightly higher differences with LED, and almost systematic for dose profiles with DPK (-1.2%), AM (-3.0%) and RSM (4.5%), whereas showed an oscillating trend with LED. The major concern for 3D-dosimetry on clinical SPECT images is more strongly represented by image blurring than by differences among the VSVs calculation methods. For volume sizes about 2-fold the spatial resolution, D95% and D50% underestimations up to about 60 and 50% could result, so the usefulness of 3D-dosimetry is highly questionable for small tumors, unless adequate corrections for partial volume effects are adopted.

Original languageEnglish
Article number60
Pages (from-to)1945-1964
Number of pages20
JournalPhysics in Medicine and Biology
Volume60
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 21 2015

Fingerprint

Single-Photon Emission-Computed Tomography
Isotopes
Water
Neoplasms

Keywords

  • Monte Carlo
  • partial volume effects
  • SPECT
  • targeted radionuclide therapy
  • voxel S values

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Differences in 3D dose distributions due to calculation method of voxel S-values and the influence of image blurring in SPECT. / Pacilio, Massimiliano; Amato, Ernesto; Lanconelli, Nico; Basile, Chiara; Torres, Leonel Alberto; Botta, Francesca; Ferrari, Mahila; Diaz, Nestor Cornejo; Perez, Marco Coca; Fernández, María; Lassmann, Michael; Gil, Alex Vergara; Cremonesi, Marta.

In: Physics in Medicine and Biology, Vol. 60, No. 5, 60, 21.02.2015, p. 1945-1964.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Pacilio, M, Amato, E, Lanconelli, N, Basile, C, Torres, LA, Botta, F, Ferrari, M, Diaz, NC, Perez, MC, Fernández, M, Lassmann, M, Gil, AV & Cremonesi, M 2015, 'Differences in 3D dose distributions due to calculation method of voxel S-values and the influence of image blurring in SPECT', Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 60, no. 5, 60, pp. 1945-1964. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/60/5/1945
Pacilio, Massimiliano ; Amato, Ernesto ; Lanconelli, Nico ; Basile, Chiara ; Torres, Leonel Alberto ; Botta, Francesca ; Ferrari, Mahila ; Diaz, Nestor Cornejo ; Perez, Marco Coca ; Fernández, María ; Lassmann, Michael ; Gil, Alex Vergara ; Cremonesi, Marta. / Differences in 3D dose distributions due to calculation method of voxel S-values and the influence of image blurring in SPECT. In: Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2015 ; Vol. 60, No. 5. pp. 1945-1964.
@article{6b8582b76e7c43109887a9f42cf1b6a2,
title = "Differences in 3D dose distributions due to calculation method of voxel S-values and the influence of image blurring in SPECT",
abstract = "This study compares 3D dose distributions obtained with voxel S values (VSVs) for soft tissue, calculated by several methods at their current state-of-the-art, varying the degree of image blurring. The methods were: 1) convolution of Dose Point Kernel (DPK) for water, using a scaling factor method; 2) an analytical model (AM), fitting the deposited energy as a function of the source-target distance; 3) a rescaling method (RSM) based on a set of high-resolution VSVs for each isotope; 4) local energy deposition (LED). VSVs calculated by direct Monte Carlo simulations were assumed as reference. Dose distributions were calculated considering spheroidal clusters with various sizes (251, 1237 and 4139 voxels of 3 mm size), uniformly filled with 131I, 177Lu, 188Re or 90Y. The activity distributions were blurred with Gaussian filters of various widths (6, 8 and 12 mm). Moreover, 3D-dosimetry was performed for 10 treatments with 90Y derivatives. Cumulative Dose Volume Histograms (cDVHs) were compared, studying the differences in D95{\%}, D50{\%} or Dmax (ΔD95{\%}, ΔD50{\%} and ΔDmax) and dose profiles. For unblurred spheroidal clusters, ΔD95{\%}, ΔD50{\%} and ΔDmax were mostly within some percents, slightly higher for 177Lu with DPK (8{\%}) and RSM (12{\%}) and considerably higher for LED (ΔD95{\%} up to 59{\%}). Increasing the blurring, differences decreased and also LED yielded very similar results, but D95{\%} and D50{\%} underestimations between 30-60{\%} and 15-50{\%}, respectively (with respect to 3D-dosimetry with unblurred distributions), were evidenced. Also for clinical images (affected by blurring as well), cDVHs differences for most methods were within few percents, except for slightly higher differences with LED, and almost systematic for dose profiles with DPK (-1.2{\%}), AM (-3.0{\%}) and RSM (4.5{\%}), whereas showed an oscillating trend with LED. The major concern for 3D-dosimetry on clinical SPECT images is more strongly represented by image blurring than by differences among the VSVs calculation methods. For volume sizes about 2-fold the spatial resolution, D95{\%} and D50{\%} underestimations up to about 60 and 50{\%} could result, so the usefulness of 3D-dosimetry is highly questionable for small tumors, unless adequate corrections for partial volume effects are adopted.",
keywords = "Monte Carlo, partial volume effects, SPECT, targeted radionuclide therapy, voxel S values",
author = "Massimiliano Pacilio and Ernesto Amato and Nico Lanconelli and Chiara Basile and Torres, {Leonel Alberto} and Francesca Botta and Mahila Ferrari and Diaz, {Nestor Cornejo} and Perez, {Marco Coca} and Mar{\'i}a Fern{\'a}ndez and Michael Lassmann and Gil, {Alex Vergara} and Marta Cremonesi",
year = "2015",
month = "2",
day = "21",
doi = "10.1088/0031-9155/60/5/1945",
language = "English",
volume = "60",
pages = "1945--1964",
journal = "Physics in Medicine and Biology",
issn = "0031-9155",
publisher = "IOP Publishing Ltd.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Differences in 3D dose distributions due to calculation method of voxel S-values and the influence of image blurring in SPECT

AU - Pacilio, Massimiliano

AU - Amato, Ernesto

AU - Lanconelli, Nico

AU - Basile, Chiara

AU - Torres, Leonel Alberto

AU - Botta, Francesca

AU - Ferrari, Mahila

AU - Diaz, Nestor Cornejo

AU - Perez, Marco Coca

AU - Fernández, María

AU - Lassmann, Michael

AU - Gil, Alex Vergara

AU - Cremonesi, Marta

PY - 2015/2/21

Y1 - 2015/2/21

N2 - This study compares 3D dose distributions obtained with voxel S values (VSVs) for soft tissue, calculated by several methods at their current state-of-the-art, varying the degree of image blurring. The methods were: 1) convolution of Dose Point Kernel (DPK) for water, using a scaling factor method; 2) an analytical model (AM), fitting the deposited energy as a function of the source-target distance; 3) a rescaling method (RSM) based on a set of high-resolution VSVs for each isotope; 4) local energy deposition (LED). VSVs calculated by direct Monte Carlo simulations were assumed as reference. Dose distributions were calculated considering spheroidal clusters with various sizes (251, 1237 and 4139 voxels of 3 mm size), uniformly filled with 131I, 177Lu, 188Re or 90Y. The activity distributions were blurred with Gaussian filters of various widths (6, 8 and 12 mm). Moreover, 3D-dosimetry was performed for 10 treatments with 90Y derivatives. Cumulative Dose Volume Histograms (cDVHs) were compared, studying the differences in D95%, D50% or Dmax (ΔD95%, ΔD50% and ΔDmax) and dose profiles. For unblurred spheroidal clusters, ΔD95%, ΔD50% and ΔDmax were mostly within some percents, slightly higher for 177Lu with DPK (8%) and RSM (12%) and considerably higher for LED (ΔD95% up to 59%). Increasing the blurring, differences decreased and also LED yielded very similar results, but D95% and D50% underestimations between 30-60% and 15-50%, respectively (with respect to 3D-dosimetry with unblurred distributions), were evidenced. Also for clinical images (affected by blurring as well), cDVHs differences for most methods were within few percents, except for slightly higher differences with LED, and almost systematic for dose profiles with DPK (-1.2%), AM (-3.0%) and RSM (4.5%), whereas showed an oscillating trend with LED. The major concern for 3D-dosimetry on clinical SPECT images is more strongly represented by image blurring than by differences among the VSVs calculation methods. For volume sizes about 2-fold the spatial resolution, D95% and D50% underestimations up to about 60 and 50% could result, so the usefulness of 3D-dosimetry is highly questionable for small tumors, unless adequate corrections for partial volume effects are adopted.

AB - This study compares 3D dose distributions obtained with voxel S values (VSVs) for soft tissue, calculated by several methods at their current state-of-the-art, varying the degree of image blurring. The methods were: 1) convolution of Dose Point Kernel (DPK) for water, using a scaling factor method; 2) an analytical model (AM), fitting the deposited energy as a function of the source-target distance; 3) a rescaling method (RSM) based on a set of high-resolution VSVs for each isotope; 4) local energy deposition (LED). VSVs calculated by direct Monte Carlo simulations were assumed as reference. Dose distributions were calculated considering spheroidal clusters with various sizes (251, 1237 and 4139 voxels of 3 mm size), uniformly filled with 131I, 177Lu, 188Re or 90Y. The activity distributions were blurred with Gaussian filters of various widths (6, 8 and 12 mm). Moreover, 3D-dosimetry was performed for 10 treatments with 90Y derivatives. Cumulative Dose Volume Histograms (cDVHs) were compared, studying the differences in D95%, D50% or Dmax (ΔD95%, ΔD50% and ΔDmax) and dose profiles. For unblurred spheroidal clusters, ΔD95%, ΔD50% and ΔDmax were mostly within some percents, slightly higher for 177Lu with DPK (8%) and RSM (12%) and considerably higher for LED (ΔD95% up to 59%). Increasing the blurring, differences decreased and also LED yielded very similar results, but D95% and D50% underestimations between 30-60% and 15-50%, respectively (with respect to 3D-dosimetry with unblurred distributions), were evidenced. Also for clinical images (affected by blurring as well), cDVHs differences for most methods were within few percents, except for slightly higher differences with LED, and almost systematic for dose profiles with DPK (-1.2%), AM (-3.0%) and RSM (4.5%), whereas showed an oscillating trend with LED. The major concern for 3D-dosimetry on clinical SPECT images is more strongly represented by image blurring than by differences among the VSVs calculation methods. For volume sizes about 2-fold the spatial resolution, D95% and D50% underestimations up to about 60 and 50% could result, so the usefulness of 3D-dosimetry is highly questionable for small tumors, unless adequate corrections for partial volume effects are adopted.

KW - Monte Carlo

KW - partial volume effects

KW - SPECT

KW - targeted radionuclide therapy

KW - voxel S values

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84922575246&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84922575246&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1088/0031-9155/60/5/1945

DO - 10.1088/0031-9155/60/5/1945

M3 - Article

VL - 60

SP - 1945

EP - 1964

JO - Physics in Medicine and Biology

JF - Physics in Medicine and Biology

SN - 0031-9155

IS - 5

M1 - 60

ER -