ArticleEJNMMI physics2024
Accuracy of holmium-166 SPECT/CT quantification over a large range of activities.
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 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Towards harmonized holmium-166 SPECT image quality for dosimetry: a multi-center, multi-vendor study.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundQuantitative imaging is a crucial step for dosimetry in radionuclide therapies. Traditionally, SPECT/CT imaging is quantified based on scanner-specific conversion factors or self-calibration, but recently absolute quantification methods have been introduced in commercial SPECT reconstruction software (Broad Quantification, Siemens Healthineers). In this phantom study we investigate the accuracy of three quantification methods for holmium-166 SPECT/CT imaging, and provide recommendations for clinical dosimetry.
methodsOne cylindrical phantom, filled with a homogeneous holmium-166-chloride activity concentration solution, was imaged at one time point to determine a scanner-specific conversion factor, and to characterize the spatial dependency of the activity concentration recovery. One Jaszczak phantom with six fillable spheres, 10:1 sphere-to-background ratio, was imaged over a large range of holmium-166 activities (61-3130 MBq). The images were reconstructed with either an ordered subset expectation maximization (OSEM, Flash3D-reconstruction; scanner-specific quantification or self-calibration quantification) or an ordered subset conjugate gradient (OSCG, xSPECT-reconstruction; Broad Quantification) algorithm. These three quantification methods were compared for the data of the Jaszczak phantom and evaluated based on whole phantom recovered activity, activity concentration recovery coefficients (ACRC), and recovery curves.
resultsThe activity recovery in the Jaszczak phantom was 28-115% for the scanner-specific, and 57-97% for the Broad Quantification quantification methods, respectively. The self-calibration-based activity recovery is inherently always 100%. The ACRC for the largest sphere (Ø60 mm, ~ 113 mL) ranged over (depending on the activity level) 0.22-0.89, 0.76-0.86, 0.39-0.72 for scanner-specific, self-calibration and Broad Quantification, respectively.
conclusionOf the three investigated quantification methods, the self-calibration technique produces quantitative SPECT images with the highest accuracy in the investigated holmium-166 activity range.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.