ArticleEJNMMI physics2026
Multicenter comparison of radionuclide calibrators and SPECT/CT protocols for quantitative
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeFollowing the clinical success of [Formula: see text]-based therapies for neuroendocrine tumors and prostate cancer, accurate quantification of [Formula: see text] using radionuclide calibrators (RNCs) and SPECT/CT is gaining importance as prerequisite for accurate treatment delivery and dosimetry. However, the lack of standardization can introduce inter-system variability, compromising multi-center clinical trials. This study aimed to assess the accuracy and variability of [Formula: see text] measurements using RNCs and SPECT/CT across different systems and hospitals.
methodsA uniform cylindrical phantom and a NEMA phantom with hot spheres were prepared using traceable activities and imaged at 8 different hospitals using 13 SPECT/CT systems (9 conventional and 4 3D CZT). Acquisitions and reconstructions were performed using both site-specific and standardized protocols. The cylindrical phantom images were used to evaluate the system calibration and establish image calibration factors (ICFs), the NEMA images to evaluate effective resolution by calculating recovery coefficients (RCs). In parallel, two vials were measured to test RNC accuracy.
resultsRNC measurements differed up to 11% between centers, while SPECT quantification of the cylindrical phantom differed up to 20%. While ICFs were consistent for systems of the same type, image quality varied strongly when using clinical protocols (36% difference in RCs in the largest sphere). Standardized reconstruction reduced variability in RCs for each system type (maximum 12% difference), regardless of acquisition protocol, but differences between system types persisted when standardizing acquisition and reconstruction (33% difference).
conclusionCurrent [Formula: see text] measurement practices yield significant variability in quantification and image quality. Harmonization efforts should prioritize standardized calibration and reconstruction protocols to improve multicenter reproducibility of quantitative [Formula: see text]-SPECT/CT.
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.