@article{BousquetAntoBachertetal.2021,
  author    = {Bousquet, Jean and Anto, Josep M. and Bachert, Claus and Haahtela, Tari and Zuberbier, Torsten and Czarlewski, Wienczyslawa and Bedbrook, Anna and Bosnic-Anticevich, Sinthia and Walter Canonica, G. and Cardona, Victoria and Costa, Elisio and Cruz, Alvaro A. and Erhola, Marina and Fokkens, Wytske J. and Fonseca, Joao A. and Illario, Maddalena and Ivancevich, Juan-Carlos and Jutel, Marek and Klimek, Ludger and Kuna, Piotr and Kvedariene, Violeta and Le, LTT and Larenas-Linnemann, D{\´e}sir{\´e}e E. and Laune, Daniel and Louren{\c{c}}o, Olga M. and Mel{\´e}n, Erik and Mullol, Joaquim and Niedoszytko, Marek and Odemyr, Mika{\"e}la and Okamoto, Yoshitaka and Papadopoulos, Nikos G. and Patella, Vincenzo and Pfaar, Oliver and Pham-Thi, Nh{\^a}n and Rolland, Christine and Samolinski, Boleslaw and Sheikh, Aziz and Sofiev, Mikhail and Suppli Ulrik, Charlotte and Todo-Bom, Ana and Tomazic, Peter-Valentin and Toppila-Salmi, Sanna and Tsiligianni, Ioanna and Valiulis, Arunas and Valovirta, Erkka and Ventura, Maria-Teresa and Walker, Samantha and Williams, Sian and Yorgancioglu, Arzu and Agache, Ioana and Akdis, Cezmi A. and Almeida, Rute and Ansotegui, Ignacio J. and Annesi-Maesano, Isabella and Arnavielhe, Sylvie and Basaga{\~n}a, Xavier and D. Bateman, Eric and B{\´e}dard, Annabelle and Bedolla-Barajas, Martin and Becker, Sven and Bennoor, Kazi S. and Benveniste, Samuel and Bergmann, Karl C. and Bewick, Michael and Bialek, Slawomir and E. Billo, Nils and Bindslev-Jensen, Carsten and Bjermer, Leif and Blain, Hubert and Bonini, Matteo and Bonniaud, Philippe and Bosse, Isabelle and Bouchard, Jacques and Boulet, Louis-Philippe and Bourret, Rodolphe and Boussery, Koen and Braido, Fluvio and Briedis, Vitalis and Briggs, Andrew and Brightling, Christopher E. and Brozek, Jan and Brusselle, Guy and Brussino, Luisa and Buhl, Roland and Buonaiuto, Roland and Calderon, Moises A. and Camargos, Paulo and Camuzat, Thierry and Caraballo, Luis and Carriazo, Ana-Maria and Carr, Warner and Cartier, Christine and Casale, Thomas and Cecchi, Lorenzo and Cepeda Sarabia, Alfonso M. and H. Chavannes, Niels and Chkhartishvili, Ekaterine and Chu, Derek K. and Cingi, Cemal and Correia de Sousa, Jaime and Costa, David J. and Courbis, Anne-Lise and Custovic, Adnan and Cvetkosvki, Biljana and D'Amato, Gennaro and da Silva, Jane and Dantas, Carina and Dokic, Dejan and Dauvilliers, Yves and De Feo, Giulia and De Vries, Govert and Devillier, Philippe and Di Capua, Stefania and Dray, Gerard and Dubakiene, Ruta and Durham, Stephen R. and Dykewicz, Mark and Ebisawa, Motohiro and Gaga, Mina and El-Gamal, Yehia and Heffler, Enrico and Emuzyte, Regina and Farrell, John and Fauquert, Jean-Luc and Fiocchi, Alessandro and Fink-Wagner, Antje and Fontaine, Jean-Fran{\c{c}}ois and Fuentes Perez, Jos{\´e} M. and Gemicioğlu, Bilun and Gamkrelidze, Amiran and Garcia-Aymerich, Judith and Gevaert, Philippe and Gomez, Ren{\´e} Maximiliano and Gonz{\´a}lez Diaz, Sandra and Gotua, Maia and Guldemond, Nick A. and Guzm{\´a}n, Maria-Antonieta and Hajjam, Jawad and Huerta Villalobos, Yunuen R. and Humbert, Marc and Iaccarino, Guido and Ierodiakonou, Despo and Iinuma, Tomohisa and Jassem, Ewa and Joos, Guy and Jung, Ki-Suck and Kaidashev, Igor and Kalayci, Omer and Kardas, Przemyslaw and Keil, Thomas and Khaitov, Musa and Khaltaev, Nikolai and Kleine-Tebbe, Jorg and Kouznetsov, Rostislav and Kowalski, Marek L. and Kritikos, Vicky and Kull, Inger and La Grutta, Stefania and Leonardini, Lisa and Ljungberg, Henrik and Lieberman, Philip and Lipworth, Brian and Lodrup Carlsen, Karin C. and Lopes-Pereira, Catarina and Loureiro, Claudia C. and Louis, Renaud and Mair, Alpana and Mahboub, Bassam and Makris, Micha{\"e}l and Malva, Joao and Manning, Patrick and Marshall, Gailen D. and Masjedi, Mohamed R. and Maspero, Jorge F. and Carreiro-Martins, Pedro and Makela, Mika and Mathieu-Dupas, Eve and Maurer, Marcus and De Manuel Keenoy, Esteban and Melo-Gomes, Elisabete and Meltzer, Eli O. and Menditto, Enrica and Mercier, Jacques and Micheli, Yann and Miculinic, Neven and Mihaltan, Florin and Milenkovic, Branislava and Mitsias, Dimitirios I. and Moda, Giuliana and Mogica-Martinez, Maria-Dolores and Mohammad, Yousser and Montefort, Steve and Monti, Ricardo and Morais-Almeida, Mario and M{\"o}sges, Ralph and M{\"u}nter, Lars and Muraro, Antonella and Murray, Ruth and Naclerio, Robert and Napoli, Luigi and Namazova-Baranova, Leyla and Neffen, Hugo and Nekam, Kristoff and Neou, Angelo and Nordlund, Bj{\"o}rn and Novellino, Ettore and Nyembue, Dieudonn{\´e} and O'Hehir, Robyn and Ohta, Ken and Okubo, Kimi and Onorato, Gabrielle L. and Orlando, Valentina and Ouedraogo, Solange and Palamarchuk, Julia and Pali-Sch{\"o}ll, Isabella and Panzner, Peter and Park, Hae-Sim and Passalacqua, Gianni and P{\´e}pin, Jean-Louis and Paulino, Ema and Pawankar, Ruby and Phillips, Jim and Picard, Robert and Pinnock, Hilary and Plavec, Davor and Popov, Todor A. and Portejoie, Fabienne and Price, David and Prokopakis, Emmanuel P. and Psarros, Fotis and Pugin, Benoit and Puggioni, Francesca and Quinones-Delgado, Pablo and Raciborski, Filip and Rajabian-S{\"o}derlund, Rojin and Regateiro, Frederico S. and Reitsma, Sietze and Rivero-Yeverino, Daniela and Roberts, Graham and Roche, Nicolas and Rodriguez-Zagal, Erendira and Rolland, Christine and Roller-Wirnsberger, Regina E. and Rosario, Nelson and Romano, Antonino and Rottem, Menachem and Ryan, Dermot and Salim{\"a}ki, Johanna and Sanchez-Borges, Mario M. and Sastre, Joaquin and Scadding, Glenis K. and Scheire, Sophie and Schmid-Grendelmeier, Peter and Sch{\"u}nemann, Holger J. and Sarquis Serpa, Faradiba and Shamji, Mohamed and Sisul, Juan-Carlos and Sofiev, Mikhail and Sol{\´e}, Dirceu and Somekh, David and Sooronbaev, Talant and Sova, Milan and Spertini, Fran{\c{c}}ois and Spranger, Otto and Stellato, Cristiana and Stelmach, Rafael and Thibaudon, Michel and To, Teresa and Toumi, Mondher and Usmani, Omar and Valero, Antonio A. and Valenta, Rudolph and Valentin-Rostan, Marylin and Pereira, Marilyn Urrutia and van der Kleij, Rianne and Van Eerd, Michiel and Vandenplas, Olivier and Vasankari, Tuula and Vaz Carneiro, Antonio and Vezzani, Giorgio and Viart, Fr{\´e}d{\´e}ric and Viegi, Giovanni and Wallace, Dana and Wagenmann, Martin and Wang, De Yun and Waserman, Susan and Wickman, Magnus and Williams, Dennis M. and Wong, Gary and Wroczynski, Piotr and Yiallouros, Panayiotis K. and Yusuf, Osman M. and Zar, Heather J. and Zeng, St{\´e}phane and Zernotti, Mario E. and Zhang, Luo and Shan Zhong, Nan and Zidarn, Mihaela},
  title     = {ARIA digital anamorphosis: Digital transformation of health and care in airway diseases from research to practice},
  series = {Allergy},
  volume    = {76},
  journal   = {Allergy},
  number    = {1},
  doi       = {10.1111/all.14422},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-228339},
  pages     = {168 -- 190},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Digital anamorphosis is used to define a distorted image of health and care that may be viewed correctly using digital tools and strategies. MASK digital anamorphosis represents the process used by MASK to develop the digital transformation of health and care in rhinitis. It strengthens the ARIA change management strategy in the prevention and management of airway disease. The MASK strategy is based on validated digital tools. Using the MASK digital tool and the CARAT online enhanced clinical framework, solutions for practical steps of digital enhancement of care are proposed.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{MonteliusLjungbergHornetal.2012,
  author    = {Montelius, Mikael and Ljungberg, Maria and Horn, Michael and Forssell-Aronsson, Eva},
  title     = {Tumour size measurement in a mouse model using high resolution MRI},
  series = {BMC Medical Imaging},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {BMC Medical Imaging},
  number    = {12},
  doi       = {10.1186/1471-2342-12-12},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-124049},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Background Animal models are frequently used to assess new treatment methods in cancer research. MRI offers a non-invasive in vivo monitoring of tumour tissue and thus allows longitudinal measurements of treatment effects, without the need for large cohorts of animals. Tumour size is an important biomarker of the disease development, but to our knowledge, MRI based size measurements have not yet been verified for small tumours (10-2-10-1 g). The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of MRI based tumour size measurements of small tumours on mice. Methods 2D and 3D T2-weighted RARE images of tumour bearing mice were acquired in vivo using a 7 T dedicated animal MR system. For the 3D images the acquired image resolution was varied. The images were exported to a PC workstation where the tumour mass was determined assuming a density of 1 g/cm3, using an in-house developed tool for segmentation and delineation. The resulting data were compared to the weight of the resected tumours after sacrifice of the animal using regression analysis. Results Strong correlations were demonstrated between MRI- and necropsy determined masses. In general, 3D acquisition was not a prerequisite for high accuracy. However, it was slightly more accurate than 2D when small (<0.2 g) tumours were assessed for inter- and intraobserver variation. In 3D images, the voxel sizes could be increased from 1603 μm3 to 2403 μm3 without affecting the results significantly, thus reducing acquisition time substantially. Conclusions 2D MRI was sufficient for accurate tumour size measurement, except for small tumours (<0.2 g) where 3D acquisition was necessary to reduce interobserver variation. Acquisition times between 15 and 50 minutes, depending on tumour size, were sufficient for accurate tumour volume measurement. Hence, it is possible to include further MR investigations of the tumour, such as tissue perfusion, diffusion or metabolic composition in the same MR session.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{TranGiaDenisBacelarFerreiraetal.2021,
  author    = {Tran-Gia, Johannes and Denis-Bacelar, Ana M. and Ferreira, Kelley M. and Robinson, Andrew P. and Calvert, Nicholas and Fenwick, Andrew J. and Finocchiaro, Domenico and Fioroni, Federica and Grassi, Elisa and Heetun, Warda and Jewitt, Stephanie J. and Kotzassarlidou, Maria and Ljungberg, Michael and McGowan, Daniel R. and Scott, Nathaniel and Scuffham, James and Gleisner, Katarina Sj{\"o}green and Tipping, Jill and Wevrett, Jill and Lassmann, Michael},
  title     = {A multicentre and multi-national evaluation of the accuracy of quantitative Lu-177 SPECT/CT imaging performed within the MRTDosimetry project},
  series = {EJNMMI Physics},
  volume    = {8},
  journal   = {EJNMMI Physics},
  doi       = {10.1186/s40658-021-00397-0},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-270380},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Purpose Patient-specific dosimetry is required to ensure the safety of molecular radiotherapy and to predict response. Dosimetry involves several steps, the first of which is the determination of the activity of the radiopharmaceutical taken up by an organ/lesion over time. As uncertainties propagate along each of the subsequent steps (integration of the time-activity curve, absorbed dose calculation), establishing a reliable activity quantification is essential. The MRTDosimetry project was a European initiative to bring together expertise in metrology and nuclear medicine research, with one main goal of standardizing quantitative \(^{177}\)Lu SPECT/CT imaging based on a calibration protocol developed and tested in a multicentre inter-comparison. This study presents the setup and results of this comparison exercise. Methods The inter-comparison included nine SPECT/CT systems. Each site performed a set of three measurements with the same setup (system, acquisition and reconstruction): (1) Determination of an image calibration for conversion from counts to activity concentration (large cylinder phantom), (2) determination of recovery coefficients for partial volume correction (IEC NEMA PET body phantom with sphere inserts), (3) validation of the established quantitative imaging setup using a 3D printed two-organ phantom (ICRP110-based kidney and spleen). In contrast to previous efforts, traceability of the activity measurement was required for each participant, and all participants were asked to calculate uncertainties for their SPECT-based activities. Results Similar combinations of imaging system and reconstruction lead to similar image calibration factors. The activity ratio results of the anthropomorphic phantom validation demonstrate significant harmonization of quantitative imaging performance between the sites with all sites falling within one standard deviation of the mean values for all inserts. Activity recovery was underestimated for total kidney, spleen, and kidney cortex, while it was overestimated for the medulla. Conclusion This international comparison exercise demonstrates that harmonization of quantitative SPECT/CT is feasible when following very specific instructions of a dedicated calibration protocol, as developed within the MRTDosimetry project. While quantitative imaging performance demonstrates significant harmonization, an over- and underestimation of the activity recovery highlights the limitations of any partial volume correction in the presence of spill-in and spill-out between two adjacent volumes of interests.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{TranGiaDenisBacelarFerreiraetal.2023,
  author    = {Tran-Gia, Johannes and Denis-Bacelar, Ana M. and Ferreira, Kelley M. and Robinson, Andrew P. and Bobin, Christophe and Bonney, Lara M. and Calvert, Nicholas and Collins, Sean M. and Fenwick, Andrew J. and Finocchiaro, Domenico and Fioroni, Federica and Giannopoulou, Katerina and Grassi, Elisa and Heetun, Warda and Jewitt, Stephanie J. and Kotzasarlidou, Maria and Ljungberg, Michael and Louren{\c{c}}o, Val{\´e}rie and McGowan, Daniel R. and Mewburn-Crook, Jamie and Sabot, Benoit and Scuffham, James and Sj{\"o}green Gleisner, Katarina and Solc, Jaroslav and Thiam, Cheick and Tipping, Jill and Wevrett, Jill and Lassmann, Michael},
  title     = {On the use of solid 133Ba sources as surrogate for liquid 131I in SPECT/CT calibration: a European multi-centre evaluation},
  series = {EJNMMI Physics},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {EJNMMI Physics},
  organization    = {The MRT Dosimetry Collaboration},
  doi       = {10.1186/s40658-023-00582-3},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-357740},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Introduction Commissioning, calibration, and quality control procedures for nuclear medicine imaging systems are typically performed using hollow containers filled with radionuclide solutions. This leads to multiple sources of uncertainty, many of which can be overcome by using traceable, sealed, long-lived surrogate sources containing a radionuclide of comparable energies and emission probabilities. This study presents the results of a quantitative SPECT/CT imaging comparison exercise performed within the MRTDosimetry consortium to assess the feasibility of using 133Ba as a surrogate for 131I imaging. Materials and methods Two sets of four traceable 133Ba sources were produced at two National Metrology Institutes and encapsulated in 3D-printed cylinders (volume range 1.68-107.4 mL). Corresponding hollow cylinders to be filled with liquid 131I and a mounting baseplate for repeatable positioning within a Jaszczak phantom were also produced. A quantitative SPECT/CT imaging comparison exercise was conducted between seven members of the consortium (eight SPECT/CT systems from two major vendors) based on a standardised protocol. Each site had to perform three measurements with the two sets of 133Ba sources and liquid 131I. Results As anticipated, the 131I pseudo-image calibration factors (cps/MBq) were higher than those for 133Ba for all reconstructions and systems. A site-specific cross-calibration reduced the performance differences between both radionuclides with respect to a cross-calibration based on the ratio of emission probabilities from a median of 12-1.5\%. The site-specific cross-calibration method also showed agreement between 133Ba and 131I for all cylinder volumes, which highlights the potential use of 133Ba sources to calculate recovery coefficients for partial volume correction. Conclusion This comparison exercise demonstrated that traceable solid 133Ba sources can be used as surrogate for liquid 131I imaging. The use of solid surrogate sources could solve the radiation protection problem inherent in the preparation of phantoms with 131I liquid activity solutions as well as reduce the measurement uncertainties in the activity. This is particularly relevant for stability measurements, which have to be carried out at regular intervals.},
  language  = {en}
}