voxel dosimetry
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

9
(FIVE YEARS 5)

H-INDEX

2
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlo Chiesa ◽  
Katarina Sjogreen-Gleisner ◽  
Stephan Walrand ◽  
Lidia Strigari ◽  
Glenn Flux ◽  
...  

AbstractThe aim of this standard operational procedure is to standardize the methodology employed for the evaluation of pre- and post-treatment absorbed dose calculations in 90Y microsphere liver radioembolization. Basic assumptions include the permanent trapping of microspheres, the local energy deposition method for voxel dosimetry, and the patient–relative calibration method for activity quantification.The identity of 99mTc albumin macro-aggregates (MAA) and 90Y microsphere biodistribution is also assumed. The large observed discrepancies in some patients between 99mTc-MAA predictions and actual 90Y microsphere distributions for lesions is discussed. Absorbed dose predictions to whole non-tumoural liver are considered more reliable and the basic predictors of toxicity. Treatment planning based on mean absorbed dose delivered to the whole non-tumoural liver is advised, except in super-selective treatments.Given the potential mismatch between MAA simulation and actual therapy, absorbed doses should be calculated both pre- and post-therapy. Distinct evaluation between target tumours and non-tumoural tissue, including lungs in cases of lung shunt, are vital for proper optimization of therapy. Dosimetry should be performed first according to a mean absorbed dose approach, with an optional, but important, voxel level evaluation. Fully corrected 99mTc-MAA Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography (SPECT)/computed tomography (CT) and 90Y TOF PET/CT are regarded as optimal acquisition methodologies, but, for institutes where SPECT/CT is not available, non-attenuation corrected 99mTc-MAA SPECT may be used. This offers better planning quality than non dosimetric methods such as Body Surface Area (BSA) or mono-compartmental dosimetry. Quantitative 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT can be used if dedicated correction methods are available.The proposed methodology is feasible with standard camera software and a spreadsheet. Available commercial or free software can help facilitate the process and improve calculation time.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 1939
Author(s):  
Alessia Milano ◽  
Alex Vergara Gil ◽  
Enrico Fabrizi ◽  
Marta Cremonesi ◽  
Ivan Veronese ◽  
...  

The aim was the validation of a platform for internal dosimetry, named MCID, based on patient-specific images and direct Monte Carlo (MC) simulations, for radioembolization of liver tumors with 90Y-labeled microspheres. CT of real patients were used to create voxelized phantoms with different density and activity maps. SPECT acquisitions were simulated by the SIMIND MC code. Input macros for the GATE/Geant4 code were generated by MCID, loading coregistered morphological and functional images and performing image segmentation. The dosimetric results obtained from the direct MC simulations and from conventional MIRD approach at both organ and voxel level, in condition of homogeneous tissues, were compared, obtaining differences of about 0.3% and within 3%, respectively, whereas differences increased (up to 14%) introducing tissue heterogeneities in phantoms. Mean absorbed dose for spherical regions of different sizes (10 mm ≤ r ≤ 30 mm) from MC code and from OLINDA/EXM were also compared obtaining differences varying in the range 7–69%, which decreased to 2–9% after correcting for partial volume effects (PVEs) from imaging, confirming that differences were mostly due to PVEs, even though a still high difference for the smallest sphere suggested possible source description mismatching. This study validated the MCID platform, which allows the fast implementation of a patient-specific GATE simulation, avoiding complex and time-consuming manual coding. It also points out the relevance of personalized dosimetry, accounting for inhomogeneities, in order to avoid absorbed dose misestimations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Raúl Antón ◽  
Javier Antoñana ◽  
Jorge Aramburu ◽  
Ana Ezponda ◽  
Elena Prieto ◽  
...  

AbstractRadioembolization (RE) with yttrium-90 (90Y) microspheres, a transcatheter intraarterial therapy for patients with liver cancer, can be modeled computationally. The purpose of this work was to correlate the results obtained with this methodology using in vivo data, so that this computational tool could be used for the optimization of the RE procedure. The hepatic artery three-dimensional (3D) hemodynamics and microsphere distribution during RE were modeled for six 90Y-loaded microsphere infusions in three patients with hepatocellular carcinoma using a commercially available computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software package. The model was built based on in vivo data acquired during the pretreatment stage. The results of the simulations were compared with the in vivo distribution assessed by 90Y PET/CT. Specifically, the microsphere distribution predicted was compared with the actual 90Y activity per liver segment with a commercially available 3D-voxel dosimetry software (PLANET Dose, DOSIsoft). The average difference between the CFD-based and the PET/CT-based activity distribution was 2.36 percentage points for Patient 1, 3.51 percentage points for Patient 2 and 2.02 percentage points for Patient 3. These results suggest that CFD simulations may help to predict 90Y-microsphere distribution after RE and could be used to optimize the RE procedure on a patient-specific basis.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Verónica Morán ◽  
Elena Prieto ◽  
Lidia Sancho ◽  
Macarena Rodríguez-Fraile ◽  
Leticia Soria ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Prior radioembolization, a simulation using 99mTc-macroaggregated albumin as 90Y-microspheres surrogate is performed. Gamma scintigraphy images (planar, SPECT, or SPECT-CT) are acquired to evaluate intrahepatic 90Y-microspheres distribution and detect possible extrahepatic and lung shunting. These images may be used for pre-treatment dosimetry evaluation to calculate the 90Y activity that would get an optimal tumor response while sparing healthy tissues. Several dosimetry methods are available, but there is still no consensus on the best methodology to calculate absorbed doses. The goal of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the impact of using different dosimetry approaches on the resulting 90Y-radioembolization pre-treatment absorbed dose evaluation based on 99mTc-MAA images. Methods Absorbed doses within volumes of interest resulting from partition model (PM) and 3D voxel dosimetry methods (3D-VDM) (dose-point kernel convolution and local deposition method) were evaluated. Additionally, a new “Multi-tumor Partition Model” (MTPM) was developed. The differences among dosimetry approaches were evaluated in terms of mean absorbed dose and dose volume histograms within the volumes of interest. Results Differences in mean absorbed dose among dosimetry methods are higher in tumor volumes than in non-tumoral ones. The differences between MTPM and both 3D-VDM were substantially lower than those observed between PM and any 3D-VDM. A poor correlation and concordance were found between PM and the other studied dosimetry approaches. DVH obtained from either 3D-VDM are pretty similar in both healthy liver and individual tumors. Although no relevant global differences, in terms of absorbed dose in Gy, between both 3D-VDM were found, important voxel-by-voxel differences have been observed. Conclusions Significant differences among the studied dosimetry approaches for 90Y-radioembolization treatments exist. Differences do not yield a substantial impact in treatment planning for healthy tissue but they do for tumoral liver. An individual segmentation and evaluation of the tumors is essential. In patients with multiple tumors, the application of PM is not optimal and the 3D-VDM or the new MTPM are suggested instead. If a 3D-VDM method is not available, MTPM is the best option. Furthermore, both 3D-VDM approaches may be indistinctly used.


2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kamal Hadad ◽  
Mahdi Saeedi-Moghadam ◽  
Banafsheh Zeinali-Rafsanjani

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document