Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 38 references

Multicenter Comparison of Radionuclide Calibrators and SPECT/CT Protocols for Quantitative 177Lu Imaging in Clinical Practice

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-05-16 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read 177Lu measurements vary up to 20 percent across hospitals because of inconsistent calibrator readings and SPECT reconstruction settings.

desk verdict This paper documents useful real-world numbers on 177Lu variability across centers but the attribution to protocols alone rests on an unverified assumption about phantom preparation. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.20549 v2 submitted 2026-01-28 physics.med-ph

Wies Claeys , Kristof Baete , Laurence Beels , Claire Bernard , Rachele Danieli , Yves D' Asseler , An De Crop , Michel Hesse
show 3 more authors
Victor Nuttens Bruno Vanderlinden Michel Koole
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.med-ph
keywords 177LuSPECT/CTquantificationradionuclidecalibratorrecoverycoefficientharmonizationmulticenterdosimetry
checked against Foundation.AbsoluteFloorClosureCost.FunctionalEquation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The study measured the same traceable 177Lu sources at eight hospitals on thirteen different SPECT/CT systems. Radionuclide calibrator readings differed by as much as 11 percent, and image quantification of a uniform cylinder differed by as much as 20 percent. When each center used its own clinical reconstruction, recovery coefficients in the largest sphere varied by 36 percent. Switching to a common reconstruction protocol cut that variability to 12 percent within each system type. The remaining 33 percent gap between conventional and CZT systems persisted even after standardization of both acquisition and reconstruction.

What carries the argument

Uniform cylindrical and NEMA sphere phantoms prepared with traceable activity, used to derive image calibration factors and recovery coefficients under both site-specific and standardized acquisition-reconstruction protocols.

What would settle it

A follow-up experiment in which every site prepares identical phantoms from the same batch of activity and still records greater than 5 percent spread in recovery coefficients after applying the common reconstruction protocol.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Current 177Lu 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 177Lu-SPECT/CT.

Load-bearing premise

That the measured differences arise chiefly from calibration and reconstruction choices rather than from inconsistencies in phantom filling, activity measurement, or operator technique at each site.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Standardized reconstruction alone reduces recovery-coefficient spread from 36 percent to 12 percent for systems of the same type.
  • Radionuclide calibrator readings must be brought within tighter tolerances before quantitative SPECT can be trusted for dosimetry.
  • Even after protocol harmonization, conventional and CZT systems continue to produce systematically different recovery coefficients.
  • Multicenter clinical trials that rely on absolute 177Lu activity will need cross-calibration factors or common phantoms to reach acceptable reproducibility.
  • Image quality metrics such as recovery coefficients become comparable only after both acquisition and reconstruction parameters are fixed.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Dosimetry calculations that feed into treatment planning will inherit the same 20 percent uncertainty unless calibration chains are unified.
  • Future protocol recommendations could include a short list of phantom-based acceptance tests that any new system must pass before joining a trial.
  • The 33 percent residual difference between system types suggests that absolute quantification may still require type-specific correction tables rather than a single universal factor.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a multicenter study at 8 hospitals with 13 SPECT/CT systems (9 conventional, 4 3D CZT) that prepared a uniform cylindrical phantom and NEMA phantom with traceable 177Lu activities to quantify inter-system variability in radionuclide calibrator (RNC) readings and SPECT/CT quantification. Key findings include up to 11% RNC differences, up to 20% SPECT quantification variability for the cylinder, and 36% RC spread in the largest sphere under clinical protocols; standardized reconstruction reduced within-type RC variability to 12% while inter-type differences remained at 33%. The central claim is that current practices produce clinically significant variability and that harmonization of calibration and reconstruction protocols will improve multicenter reproducibility for quantitative 177Lu-SPECT/CT.

Significance. If the variability is shown to arise primarily from calibration and reconstruction differences rather than preparation artifacts, the work supplies directly actionable empirical data for harmonization initiatives in 177Lu dosimetry, which is essential for accurate personalized treatment and dosimetry in clinical trials of 177Lu-based therapies. The inclusion of both site-specific and standardized protocols across multiple system types adds practical value for translating results into guidelines.

major comments (2)
  1. [Methods] Methods: The statement that phantoms were 'prepared using traceable activities' at each site provides no quantitative data on post-preparation activity verification (e.g., re-measurement with a reference RNC), volume precision, or mixing uniformity. Without these checks, site-to-site preparation discrepancies could account for a substantial fraction of the reported 20% SPECT quantification spread and 36% RC differences, weakening the attribution of variability primarily to RNC/SPECT calibration and reconstruction protocols.
  2. [Results] Results: The 36% RC difference under clinical protocols versus 12% with standardized reconstruction is presented without error bars, standard deviations, or statistical tests across the 13 systems, making it impossible to determine whether the observed reduction is robust or sensitive to small per-system sample sizes and potential outliers.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The description of RNC testing mentions 'two vials' but omits the nominal activity levels, reference standard, and exact comparison metric used to arrive at the 11% maximum difference.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed review of our manuscript. The comments highlight important aspects of methodological transparency and statistical rigor that we have addressed through targeted revisions. Below we respond point by point to the major comments.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Methods: The statement that phantoms were 'prepared using traceable activities' at each site provides no quantitative data on post-preparation activity verification (e.g., re-measurement with a reference RNC), volume precision, or mixing uniformity. Without these checks, site-to-site preparation discrepancies could account for a substantial fraction of the reported 20% SPECT quantification spread and 36% RC differences, weakening the attribution of variability primarily to RNC/SPECT calibration and reconstruction protocols.

    Authors: We agree that additional quantitative details on phantom preparation would strengthen the manuscript and help rule out preparation artifacts. In the revised version we have expanded the Methods section to describe the standardized preparation protocol supplied to all sites (including gravimetric volume verification, repeated inversion for mixing, and use of locally traceable 177Lu sources). We have also added a limitations paragraph noting that centralized post-preparation re-measurement with a single reference RNC was not performed, as the study intentionally reflected real-world site practices. However, the separate vial-based RNC accuracy assessment and the fact that variability decreased markedly with standardized reconstruction (independent of acquisition) still support our primary attribution to system calibration and reconstruction differences rather than preparation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results] Results: The 36% RC difference under clinical protocols versus 12% with standardized reconstruction is presented without error bars, standard deviations, or statistical tests across the 13 systems, making it impossible to determine whether the observed reduction is robust or sensitive to small per-system sample sizes and potential outliers.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the RC variability results would benefit from explicit statistical support. We have revised the Results section and updated the relevant figures and tables to include standard deviations as error bars for RC values grouped by system type. We have also added statistical comparisons (F-tests for equality of variances and paired t-tests) demonstrating that the reduction in within-type variability under standardized reconstruction is statistically significant (p < 0.05). Outlier screening was performed; no individual system drove the reported trends, and the improvement remains consistent when any potential outliers are excluded. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity in empirical multicenter comparison

full rationale

The paper reports direct empirical measurements of RNC accuracy and SPECT quantification variability across 8 hospitals and 13 systems using phantoms prepared with traceable activities. No derivations, equations, or theoretical chains exist that reduce to self-defined inputs, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation load-bearing steps. All reported differences (up to 11% RNC, 20% SPECT, 36% RC) are presented as observed outcomes from standardized vs. site-specific protocols. The conclusion on harmonization follows from these measurements without any self-referential reduction. This is a standard observational study whose central claims remain independent of any circular construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 0 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Empirical study using standard phantoms and traceable standards; no theoretical components or new parameters introduced beyond standard practices in nuclear medicine imaging.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multicenter Comparison of Radionuclide Calibrators and SPECT/CT Protocols for Quantitative 177Lu Imaging in Clinical Practice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2601.20549

@misc{pith2026260120549,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multicenter Comparison of Radionuclide Calibrators and SPECT/CT Protocols for Quantitative 177Lu Imaging in Clinical Practice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2601.20549}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.20549}
}
read the original abstract

Purpose: Following the clinical success of 177Lu-based therapies, accurate quantification of 177Lu 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 177Lu measurements using RNCs and SPECT/CT across different systems and hospitals. Methods: A 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. Results: RNC 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). Conclusion: Current 177Lu 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 177Lu-SPECT/CT.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Sartor, O., Bono, J., Chi, K.N., Fizazi, K., Herrmann, K., Rahbar, K., Tagawa, S.T., Nordquist, L.T., Vaishampayan, N., El-Haddad, G., Park, C.H., Beer, T.M., Armour, A., P´ erez-Contreras, W.J., DeSilvio, M., Kpamegan, E., Gericke, G., Messmann, R.A., Morris, M.J., Krause, B.J., VISION Investigators: Lutetium- 177-PSMA-617 for metastatic castration-resis...

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Lancet397(10276), 797–804 (2021)

    Hofman, M.S., Emmett, L., Sandhu, S., Iravani, A., Joshua, A.M., Goh, J.C., Pattison, D.A., Tan, T.H., Kirkwood, I.D., Ng, S., Francis, R.J., Gedye, C., Rutherford, N.K., Weickhardt, A., Scott, A.M., Lee, S.-T., Kwan, E.M., Azad, A.A., Ramdave, S., Redfern, A.D., Macdonald, W., Guminski, A., Hsiao, E., Chua, W., Lin, P., Zhang, A.Y., McJannett, M.M., Stoc...

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Kratochwil, C., Fendler, W.P., Eiber, M., Hofman, M.S., Emmett, L., Calais, J., Osborne, J.R., Iravani, A., Koo, P., Lindenberg, L., Baum, R.P., Bozkurt, M.F., Delgado Bolton, R.C., Ezziddin, S., Forrer, F., Hicks, R.J., Hope, T.A., Kabasakal, L., Konijnenberg, M., Kopka, K., Lassmann, M., Mottaghy, F.M., Oyen, W.J.G., Rahbar, K., Schoder, H., Virgolini, ...

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Strosberg, J., El-Haddad, G., Wolin, E., Hendifar, A., Yao, J., Chasen, B., Mit- tra, E., Kunz, P.L., Kulke, M.H., Jacene, H., Bushnell, D., O’Dorisio, T.M., Baum, R.P., Kulkarni, H.R., Caplin, M., Lebtahi, R., Hobday, T., Delpassand, E., Van Cutsem, E., Benson, A., Srirajaskanthan, R., Pavel, M., Mora, J., Berlin, J., Grande, E., Reed, N., Seregni, E., ¨...

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Lancet Oncol.22(12), 1752–1763 (2021) 32

    Strosberg, J.R., Caplin, M.E., Kunz, P.L., Ruszniewski, P.B., Bodei, L., Hendifar, A., Mittra, E., Wolin, E.M., Yao, J.C., Pavel, M.E., Grande, E., Van Cutsem, E., Seregni, E., Duarte, H., Gericke, G., Bartalotta, A., Mariani, M.F., Demange, A., Mutevelic, S., Krenning, E.P., NETTER-1 investigators: 177Lu-Dotatate plus long-acting octreotide versus high-d...

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Sj¨ ogreen Gleisner, K., Chouin, N., Gabina, P.M., Cicone, F., Gnesin, S., Stokke, C., Konijnenberg, M., Cremonesi, M., Verburg, F.A., Bernhardt, P., Eberlein, U., Gear, J.: EANM dosimetry committee recommendations for dosimetry of 177lu- labelled somatostatin-receptor- and PSMA-targeting ligands. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging49(6), 1778–1809 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    EJNMMI Phys.8(1), 78 (2021)

    Staanum, P.F., Frellsen, A.F., Olesen, M.L., Iversen, P., Arveschoug, A.K.: Prac- tical kidney dosimetry in peptide receptor radionuclide therapy using [177Lu]Lu- DOTATOC and [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE with focus on uncertainty estimates. EJNMMI Phys.8(1), 78 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Seminars in Nuclear Medicine48(4), 348–358 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2018.02

    Ljungberg, M.: Absolute quantitation of spect studies. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine48(4), 348–358 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2018.02. 009 . Instrumentation

    work page doi:10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2018.02 2018

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Bailey, D.L., Willowson, K.P.: An evidence-based review of quantitative SPECT imaging and potential clinical applications. J. Nucl. Med.54(1), 83–89 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    23: quantitative SPECT for patient- specific 3-dimensional dosimetry in internal radionuclide therapy

    Dewaraja, Y.K., Frey, E.C., Sgouros, G., Brill, A.B., Roberson, P., Zanzonico, P.B., Ljungberg, M.: MIRD pamphlet no. 23: quantitative SPECT for patient- specific 3-dimensional dosimetry in internal radionuclide therapy. J. Nucl. Med. 53(8), 1310–1325 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    26: Joint EAN- M/MIRD guidelines for quantitative 177lu SPECT applied for dosimetry of radiopharmaceutical therapy

    Ljungberg, M., Celler, A., Konijnenberg, M.W., Eckerman, K.F., Dewaraja, Y.K., Sj¨ ogreen-Gleisner, K., SNMMI MIRD Committee, Bolch, W.E., Brill, A.B., Fahey, F., Fisher, D.R., Hobbs, R., Howell, R.W., Meredith, R.F., Sgouros, G., Zanzonico, P., EANM Dosimetry Committee, Bache...

    2016

  4. [12]

    EJNMMI Physics5(1), 17 (2018)

    Wevrett, J., Fenwick, A., Scuffham, J., Johansson, L., Gear, J., Schl¨ ogl, S., Seg- bers, M., Sj¨ ogreen-Gleisner, K., Soln´ y, P., Lassmann, M., Tipping, J., Nisbet, A.: Inter-comparison of quantitative imaging of lutetium-177 (177lu) in european hospitals. EJNMMI Physics5(1...

    2018

  5. [13]

    EJNMMI Phys.7(1), 9 (2020)

    Peters, S.M.B., Meyer Viol, S.L., Werf, N.R., Jong, N., Velden, F.H.P., Meeuwis, A., Konijnenberg, M.W., Gotthardt, M., Jong, H.W.A.M., Segbers, M.: Vari- ability in lutetium-177 SPECT quantification between different state-of-the-art SPECT/CT systems. EJNMMI Phys.7(1), 9 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    EJNMMI Physics8(1), 55 (2021)

    Tran-Gia, J., Denis-Bacelar, A.M., Ferreira, K.M., Robinson, A.P., Calvert, N., Fenwick, A.J., Finocchiaro, D., Fioroni, F., Grassi, E., Heetun, W., Jewitt, S.J., Kotzassarlidou, M., Ljungberg, M., McGowan, D.R., Scott, N., Scuffham, J., Gleisner, K.S., Tipping, J., Wevrett, J...

    2021

  7. [15]

    EJNMMI Phys.6(1), 29 (2019)

    Peters, S.M.B., Werf, N.R., Segbers, M., Velden, F.H.P., Wierts, R., Blokland, K.J.A.K., Konijnenberg, M.W., Lazarenko, S.V., Visser, E.P., Gotthardt, M.: Towards standardization of absolute SPECT/CT quantification: a multi-center and multi-vendor phantom study. EJNMMI Phys.6(...

    2019

  8. [16]

    Aide, N., Lasnon, C., Veit-Haibach, P., Sera, T., Sattler, B., Boellaard, R.: EAN- M/EARL harmonization strategies in PET quantification: from daily practice to multicentre oncological studies. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging44(Suppl 1), 17–31 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging45(8), 1344–1361 (2018)

    Kaalep, A., Sera, T., Rijnsdorp, S., Yaqub, M., Talsma, A., Lodge, M.A., Boellaard, R.: Feasibility of state of the art PET/CT systems performance har- monisation. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging45(8), 1344–1361 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Journal of Nuclear Medicine66(supplement 1), 251783–251783 (2025) https://jnm.snmjournals.org/content

    Dickson, J., Claeys, W., Denis-bacelar, A., Hristova, I., Lassmann, M., Koole, M., Tran-gia, J.: An eanm/earl accreditation standard for quantitative lu-177 spect-ct imaging. Journal of Nuclear Medicine66(supplement 1), 251783–251783 (2025) https://jnm.snmjournals.org/content

    2025

  11. [19]

    Saldarriaga Vargas, C., Rodr´ ıguez P´ erez, S., Baete, K., Pomm´ e, S., Paepen, J., Van Ammel, R., Struelens, L.: Intercomparison of 99m tc, 18 F and 111 in activity measurements with radionuclide calibrators in belgian hospitals. Phys. Med.45, 134–142 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Fenwick, A., Baker, M., Ferreira, K., Keightley, J.: Comparison of 90y and 177lu measurement capability in UK and european hospitals. Appl. Radiat. Isot.87, 10–13 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging45(13), 2456–2474 (2018)

    Gear, J.I., Cox, M.G., Gustafsson, J., Gleisner, K.S., Murray, I., Glatting, G., Konijnenberg, M., Flux, G.D.: EANM practical guidance on uncertainty analy- sis for molecular radiotherapy absorbed dose calculations. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging45(...

    2018

  14. [22]

    Bourdeau, C., Haddad, F., Viertl, D., Deville, C., Naidoo, C., Søborg Pedersen, K., Mikael, J., K¨ oster, U., Galamba Correia, J., Gano, L., Bruchertseifer, F., Baete, K., Decristoforo, C., Feldkamp Hayashi, S., Mikolajczak, R., Collins, S., Geistlich, S., Meulen, N., Ponsard,...

    2022

  15. [23]

    EJNMMI Physics11(1), 69 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40658-024-00671-x

    Zorz, A., Rossato, M.A., Turco, P., Colombo Gomez, L.M., Bettinelli, A., 34 De Monte, F., Paiusco, M., Zucchetta, P., Cecchin, D.: Performance evaluation of the 3d-ring cadmium–zinc–telluride (czt) starguide system according to the nema nu 1-2018 standard. EJNMMI Physics11(1),...

    2018

  16. [24]

    EJNMMI Phys.11(1), 29 (2024)

    Nuttens, V., Schramm, G., D’Asseler, Y., Koole, M.: Comparison of a 3D CZT and conventional SPECT/CT system for quantitative lu-177 SPECT imaging. EJNMMI Phys.11(1), 29 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Song, H., Ferri, V., Duan, H., Aparici, C.M., Davidzon, G., Franc, B.L., Moradi, F., Nguyen, J., Shah, J., Iagaru, A.: SPECT at the speed of PET: a feasibil- ity study of CZT-based whole-body SPECT/CT in the post 177Lu-DOTATATE and 177Lu-PSMA617 setting. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol...

    2023

  18. [26]

    EJNMMI Phys.10(1), 64 (2023)

    Danieli, R., Stella, M., Leube, J., Tran-Gia, J., Marin, C., Uribe, C.F., Vanderlin- den, B., Reynaert, N., Flamen, P., Levillain, H.: Quantitative 177lu SPECT/CT imaging for personalized dosimetry using a ring-shaped CZT-based camera. EJNMMI Phys.10(1), 64 (2023)

    2023

  19. [27]

    Decristoforo, C., Roustaei Firouzabad, H., Baete, K., D’Alessandria, C., Mikola- jczak, R., Zoltowska, M., Talip, Z., Meulen, N., Stora, T., Deville, C., Jensen, M., K¨ oster, U., Gano, L., Bruchertseifer, F., Ooms, M., Voorde, M.: The Terbium- 161 Nuclear Medicine Equipment S...

    2025

  20. [28]

    93 (2006)

    Gadd, R., Baker, M., Nijran, K.S., Owens, S., Thomson, W., Woods, M.J., Zananiri, F.: Protocol for Establishing and Maintaining the Calibration of Medi- cal Radionuclide Calibrators and Their Quality Control, NPL Measurement Good Practice Guide No. 93 (2006)

    2006

  21. [29]

    https://earl.eanm.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/EARL QSPECT 15Mar22 Feb2025.pdf (2022)

    GmbH, E.F.: 177Lu EARL Quantitative SPECT - prototype protocol. https://earl.eanm.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/EARL QSPECT 15Mar22 Feb2025.pdf (2022)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Beekman, F.J., Kamphuis, C., Frey, E.C.: Scatter compensation methods in 3D iterative SPECT reconstruction: a simulation study. Phys. Med. Biol.42(8), 1619–1632 (1997)

    1997

  23. [31]

    In: 1996 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium

    King, M.A., deVries, D.J., Pan, T.-S., Pretorious, P.H., Case, J.A.: An investiga- tion of the filtering of tew scatter estimates used to compensate for scatter with ordered subset reconstructions. In: 1996 IEEE Nuclear Science Symposium. Con- ference Record, vol. 2, pp. 1077–...

    1996 doi

  24. [32]

    EJNMMI Phys.1(1), 12 (2014)

    Rogasch, J.M., Hofheinz, F., Lougovski, A., Furth, C., Ruf, J., Großer, O.S., Mohnike, K., Hass, P., Walke, M., Amthauer, H., Steffen, I.G.: The influence 35 of different signal-to-background ratios on spatial resolution and F18-FDG- PET quantification using point spread funct...

    2014

  25. [33]

    Lougovski, A., Hofheinz, F., Maus, J., Schramm, G., Will, E., Hoff, J.: A volume of intersection approach for on-the-fly system matrix calculation in 3D PET image reconstruction. Phys. Med. Biol.59(3), 561–577 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    EJNMMI Phys.9(1), 19 (2022)

    Juget, F., Talip, Z., Nedjadi, Y., Dur´ an, M.T., Grundler, P.V., Zeevaart, J.R., Meulen, N.P., Bailat, C.: Precise activity measurements of medical radionuclides using an ionization chamber: a case study with terbium-161. EJNMMI Phys.9(1), 19 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    Mora-Ramirez, E., Santoro, L., Cassol, E., Ocampo-Ramos, J.C., Clayton, N., Kayal, G., Chouaf, S., Trauchessec, D., Pouget, J.-P., Kotzki, P.-O., Deshayes, E., Bardi` es, M.: Comparison of commercial dosimetric software platforms in patients treated with 177 Lu-DOTATATE for pe...

    2020

  28. [36]

    Van Audenhaege, K., Van Holen, R., Vandenberghe, S., Vanhove, C., Metzler, S.D., Moore, S.C.: Review of SPECT collimator selection, optimization, and fabrication for clinical and preclinical imaging. Med. Phys.42(8), 4796–4813 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    EJNMMI Physics 12(1), 24 (2025)

    Westlund Gotby, L.E.L., Stella, M., Van Speybroeck, C.D.E., Lobeek, D., Velden, F.H.P., Stam, M.K., Dibbets-Schneider, P., Vries-Huizing, D.M.V., Rijkhorst, E.- J., Veen, B.J., Wierts, R., Rooij, R.: Towards harmonized holmium-166 SPECT image quality for dosimetry: a multi-cen...

    2025

  30. [38]

    Leube, J., Gustafsson, J., Lassmann, M., Salas-Ramirez, M., Tran-Gia, J.: A deep-learning-based partial-volume correction method for quantitative 177lu SPECT/CT imaging. J. Nucl. Med.65(6), 980–987 (2024) 36

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed May 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.