Correction to: EJNMMI Phys 7, 9 (2020)
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-020-0278-3
Following publication of the original article [1], it was reported that the sphere volumes defined in the original article should be adjusted. The correct inner diameters (and volumes) of the spherical inserts were: 9.9 mm (0.5 ml), 15.4 mm (2.0 ml), 19.8 mm (4.0 ml), 24.8 mm (8.0 ml), 31.3 mm (16.0 ml) and 60 mm (113 ml). Figures 3, 5 and 6 have been adjusted accordingly.
Recovery coefficient as a function of sphere diameter for all systems separately (A-E) and for all systems combined (F), for data reconstructed with a vendor specific algorithm. Median and range of three repetitive measurements per system. A) Discovery NM/CT 670 Pro; B) Symbia Intevo Bold with xSPECT Quant; C) Symbia Intevo Bold with Broad Quantification; D) Symbia T16 system 1; E) Symbia T16 system 2; F) Mean and standard deviation. All data were fitted with a 3-parameter logistic function (dashed line: 95% CI), for the combined data (F) also the 95% prediction interval is indicated (dashed area)
Recovery coefficient as a function of sphere diameter for all systems separately (A-E) and for all systems combined (F), for data reconstructed with a vendor neutral algorithm. Median and range of three repetitive measurements per system. A) Discovery NM/CT 670 Pro; B) Symbia Intevo Bold with xSPECT Quant; C) Symbia Intevo Bold with Broad Quantification; D) Symbia T16 system 1; E) Symbia T16 system 2; F) Mean and standard deviation for all systems combined. All data were fitted with a 3-parameter logistic function (dashed line: 95% CI), for the combined data (F) also the 95% prediction interval is indicated (dashed area
Comparison in range over all systems in RCmean (A) and RCmax(B) per sphere diameter for data reconstructed with a vendor specific algorithm versus a vendor neutral algorithm. Third and fourth columns give the same information but for systems of only one vendor, thus consisting of equal system hardware
The original article has been updated.
Reference
Peters SMB, Meyer Viol SL, van der Werf NR, de Jong N, van Velden FHP, Meeuwis A, et al. Variability in lutetium-177 SPECT quantification between different state-of-the-art SPECT/CT systems. EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7:9 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-020-0278-3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Peters, S.M.B., Meyer Viol, S.L., van der Werf, N.R. et al. Correction to: Variability in lutetium-177 SPECT quantification between different state-of-the-art SPECT/CT systems. EJNMMI Phys 8, 59 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-021-00399-y
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-021-00399-y