Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38499797›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2024

Comparison of a 3D CZT and conventional SPECT/CT system for quantitative Lu-177 SPECT imaging.

Victor Nuttens, Georg Schramm, Yves D'Asseler, Michel Koole

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Quantitative accuracy ofEJNMMI physics · 2026
    Article
  3. QuantitativeEJNMMI physics · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Fast [EJNMMI physics · 2026
    Article
  8. Inter-institutional variability in kidney dosimetry duringRadiological physics and technology · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Recommendations for Standardizing Nuclear Medicine Terminology and Data in the Era of Theranostics and Artificial Intelligence.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Bias and precision of SPECT-basedEJNMMI physics · 2024
    Article
  13. 360° CZT-SPECT/CT cameras:EJNMMI physics · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Victor NuttensNuclear Medicine, OLV Aalst, Aalst, Belgium. victor.nuttens@olvz-aalst.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6797-8789
Georg SchrammNuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Yves D'AsselerNuclear Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Michel KooleNuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BEGhent University Hospital · BEOnze Lieve Vrouwziekenhuis Hospital · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeNext-generation SPECT/CT systems with CdZnTe (CZT) digital detectors in a ring-like setup are emerging to perform quantitative Lu-177 SPECT imaging in clinical routine. It is essential to assess how the shorter acquisition time might affect the image quality and uncertainty on the mean absorbed dose of the tumors and organs at risk compared to a conventional system.

methodsA NEMA Image Quality phantom was scanned with a 3D CZT SPECT/CT system (Veriton, by Spectrum Dynamics) using 6 min per bed position and with a conventional SPECT/CT system (Symbia T16, by Siemens) using 16 min per bed position. The sphere-to-background ratio was 12:1 and the background activity concentration ranged from 0.52 to 0.06 MBq/mL. A clinical reconstruction protocol for dosimetry purposes was determined for both systems by maximizing the sphere-to-background ratio while keeping the coefficient of variation of the background as low as possible. The corresponding image resolution was determined by the matching filter method and used for a dose uncertainty assessment of both systems following an established uncertainty model..

resultsThe optimized iterative reconstruction protocol included scatter and attenuation correction for both systems and detector response modeling for the Siemens system. For the 3D CZT system, 6 iterations and 8 subsets were combined with a Gaussian post-filter of 3 mm Full Width Half Maximum (FWHM) for post-smoothing. For the conventional system, 16 iterations and 16 subsets were applied with a Gaussian post-smoothing filter of 1 mm FWHM. For these protocols, the sphere-to-background ratio was 18.5% closer to the true ratio for the conventional system compared to the 3D CZT system when considering the four largest spheres. Meanwhile, the background coefficient of variation was very similar for both systems. These protocols resulted in SPECT image resolution of 14.8 mm and 13.6 mm for the 3D CZT and conventional system respectively. Based on these resolution estimates, a 50% dose uncertainty corresponded to a lesion volume of 28 mL for the conventional system and a lesion volume of 33 mL for the 3D CZT system.

conclusionsAn optimized reconstruction protocol for a Veriton system with 6 min of acquisition time per bed position resulted in slightly higher dose uncertainties than a conventional Symbia system using 16 min of acquisition time per bed position. Therefore, a 3D CZT SPECT/CT allows to significantly reduce the acquisition times with only a very limited impact on dose uncertainties such that quantitative Lu-177 SPECT/CT imaging becomes much more accessible for treatment concurrent dosimetry. Nevertheless, the uncertainty of SPECT-based dose estimates remains high.

Indexed as

DosimetryNuclear medicineQuantitative SPECT

Identifiers

PMID38499797
PMCPMC10948674
OpenAlexW4392967583

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.