Correction of iodine-123-labeled meta-iodobenzylguanidine uptake with multi-window methods for standardization of the heart-to-mediastinum ratio
Correction of iodine-123-labeled meta-iodobenzylguanidine uptake with multi-window methods for standardization of the heart-to-mediastinum ratio
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.nuclcard.2007.08.002
复制
发表时间：
2007-11-01
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Kinuya, Seigo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Nakajima, Kenichi;Matsubara, Kosuke;Kinuya, Seigo
背景为了克服在选择准直器的碘-123（I-123）-标记的间碘苄胍（（MIBG））心脏纵隔（H/M）比的差异，我们检查了多窗口校正方法与I-123双窗口（IDW）和三能量窗口（TEW）acquisition.Methods和结果。生成了由心脏、纵隔、肺和肝脏组成的标准体模。比较了三种校正方法：TEW和两种IDW方法（IDW 0和IDW 1）。低能量高分辨率（LEHR），中等能量（ME），和I-123特定的低-中等能量高分辨率（LMEHR）准直器被使用。在10名患者中进行了临床研究。在体模研究中，使用LEHR和ME准直器（真实值的70%和88%）时，HIM比率在未进行校正的情况下被显著低估。当使用LEHR准直器的H/M除以使用ME准直器的未校正HIM时，无校正、TEW、IDW 0和IDW方法的比值（平均值= SD）分别为80% +/-5%、98% +/-5%、104% +/-7%和98% +/- 5%。TEW和IDW校正后LEHR准直器的临床研究（未校正的平均HIM比率，1.86 +/- 0.23; TEW，2.47 +/- 0.46，P =.0015; IDW，2.46 +/- 0.46，P =.0017）提供了与未校正ME准直器相当的值（2.56 +/- 0.46，P = NS vs TEW和IDW）。应用TEW或IDW方法后，ME准直器的H/M比接近体模研究中的理论值。然而，在体模和临床研究中，使用LEHR准直器校正的HIM比提供了与未校正ME数据相当的H/M比。（J Nucl Cardiol 2007;14：843-51）。
Background. To overcome differences in the choice of collimator for an iodine-123 (I-123)-labeled meta-iodobenzylguanidine ((MIBG) heart-to-mediastinum (H/M) ratio, we examined multi-window correction methods with I-123 dual-window (IDW) and triple-energy window (TEW) acquisition.Methods and Results. Standard phantoms, which consisted of the heart, mediastinum, lung, and liver, were generated. Three correction methods were compared: TEW and two IDW methods (IDW0 and IDW1). Low-energy high-resolution (LEHR), medium-energy (ME), and I-123-specific low-medium-energy high-resolution (LMEHR) collimators were used. Clinical studies were performed in 10 patients. In the phantom study, the HIM ratio was significantly underestimated without correction, with both the LEHR and ME collimators (70% and 88% of the true value). When H/M with the LEHR collimator was divided by uncorrected HIM with the ME collimator, the ratio (mean = SD) was 80% +/- 5%, 98% +/- 5%, 104% +/- 7%, and 98% +/- 5% for the no-correction, TEW, IDW0, and IDW, methods, respectively. Clinical studies with the LEHR collimator after TEW and IDW correction (uncorrected average HIM ratio, 1.86 +/- 0.23; TEW, 2.47 +/- 0.46, P =.0015; IDW, 2.46 +/- 0.46, P =.0017) provided comparable values to the uncorrected ME collimator (2.56 +/- 0.46, P = NS vs TEW and IDW).Conclusions. The H/M ratio with the ME collimator, after application of the TEW or IDW methods, was close to the theoretical value in the phantom study. However, the corrected HIM ratios with the LEHR collimator provided comparable H/M ratios to the uncorrected ME data in phantom and clinical studies. (J Nucl Cardiol 2007;14:843-51).