SPECT/CT in Pediatric Oncology

  • Helen Nadel
  • Lorenzo BiassoniEmail author
Part of the Pediatric Oncology book series (PEDIATRICO)


SPECT/CT hybrid technology is an important addition to the management of children with a diagnosis of cancer. This technique can reduce the number of equivocal studies, the need for further diagnostic tests, and the number of hospital visits. The study requires a tailored approach to determine the correct indication at time of study request and then optimize the protocol and study performance at the time of the scan acquisition for both the SPECT and CT portions of the study. Both of these hybrid techniques should be tailored to the specific clinical question at hand. This may include multiple SPECT acquisitions, optimized CT with dose modulation and appropriate kVp selection, as well as determining the necessity of intravenous contrast enhancement.

In pediatric oncology, one of the main uses of SPECT/CT is for 123I-mIBG scintigraphy in patients with neuroblastoma and for imaging of children with thyroid cancer. The added value of the co-registered optimized SPECT/CT can provide increased sensitivity for lesion detection and improved localization of lesions and help to identify benign physiologic activity and detect incidental potentially significant findings.

Continued advancements in detector technology and computer software display programs are likely to further enhance the utility of this technique.


Radionuclide imaging SPECT/CT Neuroblastoma Thyroid cancer Pediatric oncology Meta-iodobenzylguanidine 


  1. 1.
    Biermann M, Schwarzlmuller T, Fasmer KE, Reitan BC, Johnsen B, Rosendahl K. Is there a role for PET-CT and SPECT-CT in pediatric oncology? Acta radiologica. 2013;54:1037–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pfannenberg AC, Eschmann SM, Horger M, Lamberts R, Vonthein R, Claussen CD, et al. Benefit of anatomical-functional image fusion in the diagnostic work-up of neuroendocrine neoplasms. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003;30:835–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nadel HR. SPECT/CT in pediatric patient management. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(Suppl 1):S104–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Even-Sapir E, Keidar Z, Sachs J, Engel A, Bettman L, Gaitini D, et al. The new technology of combined transmission and emission tomography in evaluation of endocrine neoplasms. J Nucl Med. 2001;42:998–1004.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schillaci O, Danieli R, Manni C, Simonetti G. Is SPECT/CT with a hybrid camera useful to improve scintigraphic imaging interpretation? Nucl Med Commun. 2004;25:705–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Abikhzer G, Keidar Z. SPECT/CT and tumour imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(Suppl 1):S67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rozovsky K, Koplewitz BZ, Krausz Y, Revel-Vilk S, Weintraub M, Chisin R, et al. Added value of SPECT/CT for correlation of MIBG scintigraphy and diagnostic CT in neuroblastoma and pheochromocytoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:1085–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gelfand MJ, Parisi MT, Treves ST. Pediatric radiopharmaceutical administered doses: 2010 North American consensus guidelines. J Nucl Med. 2011;52:318–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lassmann M, Biassoni L, Monsieurs M, Franzius C, Jacobs F, Dosimetry E, et al. The new EANM paediatric dosage card. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34:796–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gelfand MJ, Lemen LC. PET/CT and SPECT/CT dosimetry in children: the challenge to the pediatric imager. Semin Nucl Med. 2007;37:391–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Fahey FH, Palmer MR, Strauss KJ, Zimmerman RE, Badawi RD, Treves ST. Dosimetry and adequacy of CT-based attenuation correction for pediatric PET: phantom study. Radiology. 2007;243:96–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peterson TE, Furenlid LR. SPECT detectors: the Anger Camera and beyond. Phys Med Biol. 2011;56:R145–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    London WB, Castleberry RP, Matthay KK, Look AT, Seeger RC, Shimada H, et al. Evidence for an age cutoff greater than 365 days for neuroblastoma risk group stratification in the Children’s Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:6459–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brisse HJ, McCarville MB, Granata C, Krug KB, Wootton-Gorges SL, Kanegawa K, et al. Guidelines for imaging and staging of neuroblastic tumors: consensus report from the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group Project. Radiology. 2011;261:243–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ladenstein R, Lambert B, Potschger U, Castellani MR, Lewington V, Bar-Sever Z, et al. Validation of the mIBG skeletal SIOPEN scoring method in two independent high-risk neuroblastoma populations: the SIOPEN/HR-NBL1 and COG-A3973 trials. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:292–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yanik GA, Parisi MT, Naranjo A, Nadel H, Gelfand MJ, Park JR, et al. Validation of postinduction curie scores in high-risk neuroblastoma: a Children’s Oncology Group and SIOPEN Group report on SIOPEN/HR-NBL1. J Nucl Med. 2018;59:502–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dubois SG, Geier E, Batra V, Yee SW, Neuhaus J, Segal M, et al. Evaluation of norepinephrine transporter expression and metaiodobenzylguanidine avidity in neuroblastoma: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Int J Mol Imag. 2012;2012:250834.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matthay KK, Shulkin B, Ladenstein R, Michon J, Giammarile F, Lewington V, et al. Criteria for evaluation of disease extent by (123)I-metaiodobenzylguanidine scans in neuroblastoma: a report for the International Neuroblastoma Risk Group (INRG) Task Force. Br J Cancer. 2010;102:1319–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vik TA, Pfluger T, Kadota R, Castel V, Tulchinsky M, Farto JC, et al. (123)I-mIBG scintigraphy in patients with known or suspected neuroblastoma: results from a prospective multicenter trial. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2009;52:784–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Taggart DR, Han MM, Quach A, Groshen S, Ye W, Villablanca JG, et al. Comparison of iodine-123 metaiodobenzylguanidine (MIBG) scan and [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography to evaluate response after iodine-131 MIBG therapy for relapsed neuroblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5343–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Suc A, Lumbroso J, Rubie H, Hattchouel JM, Boneu A, Rodary C, et al. Metastatic neuroblastoma in children older than one year: prognostic significance of the initial metaiodobenzylguanidine scan and proposal for a scoring system. Cancer. 1996;77:805–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lewington V, Lambert B, Poetschger U, Sever ZB, Giammarile F, McEwan AJ, et al. 123I-mIBG scintigraphy in neuroblastoma: development of a SIOPEN semi-quantitative reporting, method by an international panel. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bombardieri E, Giammarile F, Aktolun C, Baum RP, Bischof Delaloye A, Maffioli L, et al. 131I/123I-metaiodobenzylguanidine (mIBG) scintigraphy: procedure guidelines for tumour imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37:2436–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Snay ER, Treves ST, Fahey FH. Improved quality of pediatric 123I-MIBG images with medium-energy collimators. J Nucl Med Technol. 2011;39:100–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eksioglu A, Nadel H. Our experience of co-registered diagnostic CT scan for I-123-mIBG SPECT/CT in children with neuroblastoma. Reston, VA: Society of Pediatric Radiology; 2017.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dinauer C, Francis GL. Thyroid cancer in children. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am. 2007;36:779–806. vii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Francis GL, Waguespack SG, Bauer AJ, Angelos P, Benvenga S, Cerutti JM, et al. Management guidelines for children with thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer. Thyroid. 2015;25:716–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Parisi MT, Eslamy H, Mankoff D. Management of differentiated thyroid cancer in children: focus on the American Thyroid Association Pediatric Guidelines. Semin Nucl Med. 2016;46:147–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bailey DL, Willowson KP. An evidence-based review of quantitative SPECT imaging and potential clinical applications. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:83–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at StanfordStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyGreat Ormond Street Hospital NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK

Personalised recommendations