4.2 Article

Multicenter cross-calibration of I-123 metaiodobenzylguanidine heart-to-mediastinum ratios to overcome camera-collimator variations

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR CARDIOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 5, Pages 970-978

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12350-014-9916-2

Keywords

Metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) imaging; standardization; heart-to-mediastinum ratio; calibration phantom; collimator

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The heart-to-mediastinum ratio (HMR) of I-123-metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) showed variations among institutions and needs to be standardized among various scinticamera-collimator combinations. A total of 225 phantom experiments were performed in 84 institutions to calculate cross-calibration coefficients of HMR. Based on phantom studies, a conversion coefficient for each camera-collimator system was created, including low-energy (LE, n = 125) and a medium-energy (ME, n = 100) collimators. An average conversion coefficient from the most common ME group was used to calculate the standard HMR. In clinical MIBG studies (n = 52) from three institutions, HMRs were standardized from both LE- and ME-type collimators and classified into risk groups of < 1.60, 1.60-2.19, and a parts per thousand yen2.20. The average conversion coefficients from the individual camera-collimator condition to the mathematically calculated reference HMR ranged from 0.55 to 0.75 for LE groups and from 0.83 to 0.95 for ME groups. The conversion coefficient of 0.88 was used to unify HMRs from all acquisition conditions. Using the standardized HMR, clinical studies (n = 52) showed good agreement between LE and ME types regarding three risk groups (kappa = 0.83, P < .0001, complete agreement in 90%, 42% of the patients reclassified into the same risk group). By using the reference HMR and conversion coefficients for the system, HMRs with various conditions can be converted to the standard HMRs in a range of normal to low HMRs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available