Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40102311›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2025

Towards harmonized holmium-166 SPECT image quality for dosimetry: a multi-center, multi-vendor study.

Lovisa E L Westlund Gotby, Martina Stella, Camille D E Van Speybroeck, Daphne Lobeek, Floris H P van Velden, Mette K Stam, Petra Dibbets-Schneider, Daphne M V de Vries-Huizing, Erik-Jan Rijkhorst, Berlinda J de Wit-van de Veen and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

12 authors.

Lovisa E L Westlund Gotby *Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Lovisa.WestlundGotby@radboudumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1059-6616
Martina Stella *Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9794-3184
Camille D E Van SpeybroeckDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-5532-0728
Daphne LobeekDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10, 6525 GA, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1282-0826
Floris H P van VeldenDepartment of Radiology, Section of Nuclear Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2859-2119
Mette K StamDepartment of Radiology, Section of Nuclear Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Petra Dibbets-SchneiderDepartment of Radiology, Section of Nuclear Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0538-8270
Daphne M V de Vries-HuizingDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1967-8148
Erik-Jan RijkhorstDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-1770-6552
Berlinda J de Wit-van de VeenDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7860-2904
Roel WiertsDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Maastricht University Medical Center, P. Debyelaan 25, 6299 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9955-8754
Rob van RooijDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584CX, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8546-8283

Funding

European Fund for Regional Development (OP-oost) 00942Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek NWA.ID.17.059
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReliable dosimetry based on SPECT/CT imaging is essential to achieve personalized

methodsCylindrical and NEMA IEC phantoms, filled with

resultsTEW scatter correction resulted in superior uniformity and higher CRCs compared to the DEW (CRC for the largest sphere over all scanners, mean ± SD (range): TEW 0.54 ± 0.07 (0.36-0.65), DEW 0.44 ± 0.04 (0.34-0.51)). DEW resulted in lower noise levels compared to TEW (16% lower on average). The DEW and TEW images resulted in comparable CNRs. The system sensitivities and the vendor-neutral image reconstructions demonstrated differences in hardware between the two vendors, most likely due to the characteristics of the vendor-specific medium energy collimator.

conclusionThis study demonstrates that TEW scatter correction increases the accuracy of

Indexed as

DosimetryDual-energy window scatter correctionHolmium-166Image qualityMonte Carlo-based scatter correctionPhantom studyRadioembolizationSPECT/CTTriple-energy window scatter correction

Identifiers

PMID40102311
PMCPMC11920561

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.