Evaluation reveals optimal lesion thresholding improves segmentation and dosimetric accuracy in Lu-177 SPECT imaging.
Background Accurate lesion volume estimation is essential for reliable voxel-based dosimetry in Lu-177 radionuclide therapy. Conventional fixed-threshold segmentation—particularly the commonly used 40% threshold—can markedly underestimate small lesions due to partial volume effects, leading to substantial errors in quantitative SPECT-based dosimetry. Purpose This study systematically evaluated the relationship between lesion size and optimal threshold values in Lu-177 SPECT/CT imaging, quantified deviations introduced by the fixed 40% threshold, and established size-specific adaptive thresholds to improve segmentation and activity recovery accuracy. Methods A NEMA IEC body phantom with six spherical inserts (0.52–26.5 cm³) was filled with 20 mCi (740 MBq) Lu-177 at an 8 : 1 lesion-to-background ratio. SPECT/CT data were acquired using 60–90 projections with 10–20 s per frame. Images were reconstructed under 180 parameter combinations varying iterations, subsets, and filters. For each sphere, segmentation was performed using the fixed 40% threshold (40%ThS) and an adaptive, volume-matched threshold (AV%ThS) that reproduced the true physical volume. Results Optimal thresholds showed a strong inverse correlation with lesion size, decreasing from ~83% (1.15 cm³) to ~42% (26.5 cm³). The fixed 40% threshold substantially underestimated volumes less than 25 cm³, with quantitative deviations reaching 45% compared to AV%ThS. Best quantitative recovery was achieved with 90 projections × 20 s and OSEM 10 × 10 iterations/subsets with Butterworth filtering (0.45 cycles/cm, order 10). Conclusion A single fixed threshold is insufficient for accurate Lu-177 SPECT/CT dosimetry across diverse lesion sizes. Size-adaptive thresholding combined with optimized reconstruction parameters improves lesion delineation, enhances quantitative accuracy, and reduces dosimetric uncertainty in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mutlu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: