ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Monte Carlo (MC) simulation in Nuclear Medicine is a powerful tool for modeling many physical phenomena which are difficult to track or measure directly. MC simulation in SPECT/CT imaging is particularly suitable for optimizing the quantification of activity in a patient, and, consequently, the absorbed dose to each organ. To do so, validating MC results with real data acquired with gamma camera is mandatory. The aim of this study was the validation of the calibration factor (CF) and the recovery coefficient (RC) obtained with SIMIND Monte Carlo code for modeling a Siemens Symbia Intevo Excel SPECT-CT gamma camera to ensure optimal [Formula: see text]Tc and [Formula: see text]Lu SPECT quantification. METHODS: Phantom experiments using [Formula: see text]Tc and [Formula: see text]Lu have been performed to measure spatial resolution and sensitivity, as well as to evaluate the CF and RC from acquired data. The geometries used for 2D planar imaging were (1) Petri dish and (2) capillary source while for 3D volumetric imaging were (3) a uniform filled cylinder phantom and (4) a Jaszczack phantom with spheres of different volumes. The experimental results have been compared with the results obtained from Monte Carlo simulations performed in the same geometries. RESULTS: Comparison shows good accordance between simulated and experimental data. The measured planar spatial resolution was 8.3[Formula: see text] mm for [Formula: see text]Tc and 11.8±0.6 mm for [Formula: see text]Lu. The corresponding data obtained by SIMIND for [Formula: see text]Tc was 7.8±0.1 mm, while for [Formula: see text]Lu was 12.4±0.4 mm. The CF was 110.1±5.5 cps/MBq for Technetium and 18.3±1.0 cps/MBq for Lutetium. The corresponding CF obtained by SIMIND for [Formula: see text]Tc was 107.3±0.3 cps/MBq, while for [Formula: see text]Lu 20.4±0.7 cps/MBq. Moreover, a complete curve RCs vs Volume (ml) both for Technetium and Lutetium was determined to correct the PVE for all volumes of clinical interest. In none of the cases, a RC coefficient equal to 100 was found. CONCLUSIONS: The validation of quantification parameters shows that SIMIND can be used for simulating both gamma camera planar and SPECT images of Siemens Symbia Intevo using [Formula: see text]Tc and [Formula: see text]Lu radionuclides for different medical purposes and treatments.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: This study was an open-label, 2-arms, monocentric, randomized clinical trial comparing Xonrid®, a topical medical device, versus standard of care (SOC) in preventing and treating acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) in Head and Neck Cancer (HNC) and Breast Cancer (BC) patients undergoing radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: Eligible HNC and BC patients were randomized 1:1 to receive Xonrid® + SOC or SOC during RT. Patients were instructed to apply Xonrid® on the irradiated area three times daily, starting on the first day of RT and until 2 weeks after RT completion or until the development of grade ≥ 3 skin toxicity. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the proportion of patients who developed an ARD grade < 2 at the 5th week in both groups. Secondary endpoints were median time to grade 2 (G2) skin toxicity onset; changes in skin erythema and pigmentation and trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL); patient-reported skin symptoms. All patients were evaluated at baseline, weekly during RT and 2 weeks after treatment completion. The evaluation included: clinical toxicity assessment; reflectance spectrometry (RS) and TEWL examination; measurement of patients' quality of life (QoL) through Skindex-16 questionnaire. RESULTS: Eighty patients (40 for each cancer site) were enrolled between June 2017 and July 2018. Groups were well balanced for population characteristics. All BC patients underwent 3-Dimensional Conformal RT (3D-CRT) whereas HNC patients underwent Volumetric-Modulated Arc Therapy (VMAT). At week 5 the proportion of BC patients who did not exhibit G2 ARD was higher in Xonrid® + SOC group (p = 0.091). In the same group the onset time of G2 ARD was significantly longer than in SOC-alone group (p < 0.0491). For HNC groups there was a similar trend, but it did not reach statistical significance. For both cancer sites, patients' QoL, measured by the Skindex-16 score, was always lower in the Xonrid® + SOC group. CONCLUSION: Despite the failure to achieve the primary endpoint, this study suggests that Xonrid® may represent a valid medical device in the prevention and treatment of ARD at least in BC patients, delaying time to develop skin toxicity and reducing the proportion of patients who experienced G2 ARD during RT treatment and 2 weeks later. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano (INT 52/14 - NCT02261181 ). Registered on ClinicalTrial.gov on 21st August 2017.
