ArticleEJNMMI physics2026
Optimising [Formula: see text] PET imaging for dosimetry in SIRT: insights from phantom and simulation studies on the Discovery MI scanner.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to optimise the acquisition and reconstruction parameters for [Formula: see text] imaging on a digital PET scanner (Discovery MI 4-ring) under high (3 GBq), intermediate (1 GBq), and low (200 MBq) activity conditions. First, quantitative linearity was evaluated. Then, NEMA IEC body phantom acquisitions were reconstructed using various scan durations and Q.Clear reconstruction parameters. Next, optimal protocols were identified by minimising the discrepancies between absorbed dose maps derived from images (using the Local Deposition Model (LDM)) and those obtained from Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. The images reconstructed with these optimal protocols were then used to evaluate effective spatial resolution and to compare the accuracy of LDM with that of the Dose Voxel Kernel (DVK) approach.
resultsQuantitative linearity analysis revealed an underestimation of phantom activity at high activity (up to - 15.7% at 3.6 GBq) and an overestimation at lower levels (up to 52.1% at 208 MBq). At high activity, the most accurate results were produced by 15- and 20-minute acquisitions with intermediate beta values (2000-5000). In contrast, intermediate and low activity levels required longer acquisition times and higher beta values (> 6000). Effective spatial resolution ranged from 7 mm at high activity to 24.9 mm at low activity. In terms of absorbed dose accuracy, the mean absorbed dose was underestimated in all spheres of the phantom. However, the error in the mean absorbed dose could be kept within 10% in the background by applying non-linearity corrections. Using MC as reference, LDM achieved greater accuracy in terms of mean absorbed dose and Dose Volume Histogram (DVH) agreement in the spheres, while DVK performed better in the background.
conclusionsThis study enabled the optimisation of scan duration and beta parameter values for Q.Clear reconstructions for dosimetric purposes. Although accurate dosimetry remains challenging in [Formula: see text] PET imaging due to quantitative nonlinearity and limited spatial resolution, an error of less than 10% on the mean absorbed dose can be achieved in large structures if model-specific nonlinearities are corrected for.
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.