A 3D-printed anatomical pancreas and kidney phantom for optimizing SPECT/CT reconstruction settings in beta cell imaging using 111In-exendin

Contains fulltext : 165641.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Quantitative single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) is challenging, especially for pancreatic beta cell imaging with 111In-exendin due to high uptake in the kidneys versus much lower uptake in the nearby pancreas. Therefore, we designed a three-dimensionally (3D) printed phantom representing the pancreas and kidneys to mimic the human situation in beta cell imaging. The phantom was used to assess the effect of different reconstruction settings on the quantification of the pancreas uptake for two different, commercially available software packages. METHODS: 3D-printed, hollow pancreas and kidney compartments were inserted into the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) NU2 image quality phantom casing. These organs and the background compartment were filled with activities simulating relatively high and low pancreatic 111In-exendin uptake for, respectively, healthy humans and type 1 diabetes patients. Images were reconstructed using Siemens Flash 3D and Hermes Hybrid Recon, with varying numbers of iterations and subsets and corrections. Images were visually assessed on homogeneity and artefacts, and quantitatively by the pancreas-to-kidney activity concentration ratio. RESULTS: Phantom images were similar to clinical images and showed comparable artefacts. All corrections were required to clearly visualize the pancreas. Increased numbers of subsets and iterations improved the quantitative performance but decreased homogeneity both in the pancreas and the background. Based on the phantom analyses, the Hybrid Recon reconstruction with 6 iterations and 16 subsets was found to be most suitable for clinical use. CONCLUSIONS: This work strongly contributed to quantification of pancreatic 111In-exendin uptake. It showed how clinical images of 111In-exendin can be interpreted and enabled selection of the most appropriate protocol for clinical use

Lost in translation: true clinical impact of reflectance confocal microscopy overlooked in 'Biopsy outperforms reflectance confocal microscopy in diagnosing and subtyping basal cell carcinoma: results and experiences from a randomized controlled multicentre trial': reply from authors

Item does not contain fulltex

Succinylated Gelatin Improves the Theranostic Potential of Radiolabeled Exendin-4 in Insulinoma Patients

Contains fulltext : 204628.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access

Biopsy outperforms reflectance confocal microscopy in diagnosing and subtyping basal cell carcinoma: results and experiences from a randomized controlled multicentre trial

Background: Reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) is a noninvasive method for skin assessment, allowing entire lesion evaluation up to the papillary dermis. RCM is a potentially attractive alternative to punch biopsy (PB) in basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Objectives: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of RCM vs. PB in diagnosing and subtyping BCC, and to study patient satisfaction and preferences. Methods: Patients with a clinically suspected primary BCC were randomized between RCM and biopsy. Conventional surgical excision or follow-up were used as reference. Sensitivity and specificity for BCC diagnosis and subtyping were calculated for both methods. BCC subtype was stratified based on clinical relevance: aggressive (infiltrative/micronodular) vs. nonaggressive (superficial/nodular) histopathological subtype and superficial vs. nonsuperficial BCC. Data on patient satisfaction and preferences were collected using a questionnaire and a contingent valuation method. Results: Sensitivity for BCC diagnosis was high and similar for both methods (RCM 99·0% vs. biopsy 99·0%; P = 1·0). Specificity for BCC diagnosis was lower for RCM (59·1% vs. 100·0%; P < 0·001). Sensitivity for aggressive BCC subtypes was lower for RCM (33·3% vs. 77·3%; P = 0·003). Sensitivity for nonsuperficial BCC was not significantly different (RCM 88·9% vs. biopsy 91·0%; P = 0·724). Patient satisfaction and preferences were good and highly comparable for both methods. Conclusions: Biopsy outperforms RCM in diagnosing and subtyping clinically suspected primary BCC. This outcome does not support routine clinical implementation of RCM, as a replacement for PBs in this patient group