Search

The article presents information related to precise localisation of a sentinel lymph node in a rare drainage region with SPECT/MRI using interstitial injection and super-paramagnetic iron oxide. It reports that dynamic and static lymphoscintigraphy was performed on a patient with a 1-cm biopsy scar after excision of a superficial spreading melanoma in the left lumbar region. A highly uncommon sentinel lymph node was revealed near the upper pole of the left kidney. No other draining lymph nodes could be located. In particular, none were seen in the axillary, inguinal or cervical regions, which are common locations in patients with truncal melanomas.

The aim of this study was to investigate test methods to clarify whether the non-uniformity of a gamma camera depends on individual radionuclides, and whether it is necessary to measure a separate correction matrix for each radionuclide used in single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). Two methods were devised to verify the nuclide-dependence of the gamma camera. In order to test the energy correction of the detectors, the first approach was based on the evaluation of the intrinsic non-uniformity and on the production of images with asymmetrical energy window. The second method was based on the production of correction matrices for different radionuclides, as well as on the subsequent application to phantom data that were also generated with different radionuclides. The investigation of a dualhead gamma camera produced the same results with both methods. One detector head was found to be weakly dependent on the radionuclide, due to the insufficient quality of energy correction. In this case, the phantom or patient data should be corrected using a uniformity correction matrix measured with the same radionuclide. The second detector remained nuclide-independent; in this case the uniformity correction matrix acquired for only one radionuclide was sufficient.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cross-calibration of positron emission tomographs and their peripheral devices prior to a multicenter study. The instrumentation of 22 sites (including 24 dedicated PET scanners), including 21 that could be operated in 2D mode and 20 in 3D mode, was investigated according to standardized acquisition and reconstruction protocols, and the cross-calibration was checked against the dose calibrators (22 instruments) and the sample changer (20 instruments). The deviation of the cross-calibration to the dose calibrators was below 5% for 10 of 21 PET scanners (2D mode) and 6 of 20 (3D mode). For 6 (2D mode) and 6 (3D mode) scanners, the corresponding error was up to 10%. In turn, the deviation between dose calibrator and standard was less than 8% for 19 devices, and even less than 5% for 14 devices. In most of the well counters evaluated, the cross-calibration error was less than 10%. Although required in general, the cross-calibration between positron emission tomographs and their peripheral devices becomes even more critical when pooling data in the framework of quantitative clinical multicenter studies.