Development of the quantitative PET prostate phantom (Q3P) for improved quality assurance of <sup>18</sup>F‐PSMA PET imaging in metastatic prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Phantoms are commonly used to evaluate and compare the performance of imaging systems given the known ground truth. Positron emission tomography (PET) scanners are routinely validated using the NEMA image quality phantom, in which lesions are modeled using 10 to 37 mm fillable spheres. The NEMA phantom neglects, however, to model focal (3–10‐mm), high‐uptake lesions that are increasingly observed in prostate‐specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET images. PSMA‐targeting radiopharmaceuticals allow for enhanced detection of metastatic prostate cancers. As such, there is significant need to develop an updated phantom which considers both the quantitative and lesion detectability of this new paradigm in oncological PET imaging. Purpose In this work, we present the Quantitative PET Prostate Phantom (Q3P); a portable and modular phantom that can be used to improve and harmonize imaging protocols for 18F‐PSMA PET scans. Methods A one‐piece cylindrical phantom was designed effectively in two halves, which we call modules. Module 1 was designed to mimic lesions in the presence of background, and Module 2 mimicked very high contrast conditions (i.e., very low background) that can be observed in 18F‐PSMA PET scans. Shell‐less radioactive spheres (3–16‐mm) were cast using epoxy resin mixed with sodium‐22 (22Na), a long half‐life positron emitter with positron range similar to 18F. To establish realistic lesion contrast, the 22Na spheres were mounted in a cylindrical chamber that can be filled with an 18F background (module 1). Thirteen exchangeable spherical cavity inserts (3–37‐mm) were machined in two parts and solvent welded together, and filled with 18F (50 kBq/mL) to model lesions with very high contrast (module 2). Five 2.5‐min PET scans were acquired on a 5‐ring GE Discovery MI PET/CT scanner (General Electric, USA). Lesions were segmented using 41% of SUVmax fixed thresholding (41% FT) and recovery coefficients (RCs) were computed from 5 noise realizations. Results The manufactured phantom is portable (5.7 kg) and scan preparation takes less than 40 min. The total 22Na activity is 250 kBq, allowing it to be shipped as an exempt package under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regulations. Recovery coefficients, computed using PSF modeling and no post‐reconstruction smoothing, were 130.3% (16 mm), 147.1% (10 mm), 87.2% (6 mm), and 7.0% (3 mm) for RCmax, which decreased to 91.1% (16 mm), 90.6% (10 mm), 53.2% (6 mm), and 3.6% (3 mm) for RCmean in the 22Na spheres. Comparatively, 18F sphere recovery was 110.7% (17 mm), 123.6% (10 mm), 106.5% (7 mm), and 23.3% (3 mm) for RCmax, which was reduced to 76.7% (17 mm), 77.7% (10 mm), 66.8% (7 mm), and 13.5% (3 mm), for RCmean. Conclusions A standardized imaging phantom was developed for lesion quantification assessment in 18F‐PSMA PET images. The phantom is configurable, providing users with the opportunity to modify background activity levels or sphere sizes according to clinical demands. Distributed to the community, the Q3P phantom has the potential to enable better assessment of lesion quantification and harmonization of 18F‐PSMA PET imaging, which may lead to more robust predictive metrics and better outcome prediction in metastatic prostate cancer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".