Vol 24, No 2 (2021)
Review paper
Published online: 2021-07-30

open access

Page views 7039
Article views/downloads 1600
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Physical quantities useful for quality control of quantitative SPECT/CT imaging

Sara Kurkowska1, Bożena Birkenfeld1, Hanna Piwowarska-Bilska1
Pubmed: 34382673
Nucl. Med. Rev 2021;24(2):93-98.


SPECT/CT imaging is transitioning from solely qualitative applications to quantitative analysis. Quantitative SPECT/CT systems require proper calibration, optimization and quality control. Various types of modern SPECT/CT scanners have different software for calibration and quality control (QC). There is still no standardization in this regard for quantitative SPECT/CT. This issue hinders the exchange of obtained results across centers and stunts the development of repeatable and reproducible measurements. The unification and standardization of calibration and quality control techniques for quantitative SPECT/CT systems is currently a pressing need for nuclear medicine departments.

The present study presents three selected physical quantities characterizing the quality of quantitative SPECT/CT system and seven quantities, currently used in the literature, to assess the quality of quantitative SPECT/CT images. The measurement of these parameters requires the use of standard gamma camera software for QC, external programs for quantitative analysis of recorded data and clinical software. The authors hope this will help physicists who are willing to perform quantitative SPECT/CT in their departments.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. NEMA Standards Publication NU 2-2018. Performance measurements of positron emission tomographs (PETS) Rosslyn, 2018.
  2. Gnesin S, Leite Ferreira P, Malterre J, et al. Phantom validation of Tc-99m absolute quantification in a SPECT/CT commercial device. Comput Math Methods Med. 2016; 2016: 4360371.
  3. Ferrando O, Chimenz A, Foppiano F, et al. SPECT/CT activity quantification in 99mTc-MAA acquisitions. J Diag Imaging Ther. 2018; 5(1): 32–36.
  4. Ryu H, Meikle SR, Willowson KP, et al. Performance evaluation of quantitative SPECT/CT using NEMA NU 2 PET methodology. Phys Med Biol. 2019; 64(14): 145017.
  5. Dickson J, Ross J, Vöö S. Quantitative SPECT: the time is now. EJNMMI Phys. 2019; 6(1): 4.
  6. Ogawa K, Harata Y, Ichihara T, et al. A practical method for position-dependent Compton-scatter correction in single photon emission CT. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 1991; 10(3): 408–412.
  7. NEMA Standards Publication NU 1-2018. Performance measurements of gamma cameras Rosslyn, 2018.
  8. QDOSE Dosimetry Software. User Manual. Version 1.1.14. 2020.
  9. Cranley K, Millar R, Bell TK. Correction for deadtime losses in a gamma camera/data analysis system. Eur J Nucl Med. 1980; 5(4): 377–382.
  10. Boellaard R, O'Doherty MJ, Weber WA, et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM procedure guidelines for tumour PET imaging: version 1.0. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010; 37(1): 181–200.
  11. Peters SMB, van der Werf NR, Segbers M, et al. Towards standardization of absolute SPECT/CT quantification: a multi-center and multi-vendor phantom study. EJNMMI Phys. 2019; 6(1): 29.
  12. NM Quantification Q.Metrix for SPECT/CT Package. White Paper DOC1951185: GE Healthcare.
  13. Koopman D, van Osch JAC, Jager PL, et al. Technical note: how to determine the FDG activity for tumour PET imaging that satisfies European guidelines. EJNMMI Phys. 2016; 3(1): 22.
  14. Seret A, Nguyen D, Bernard C. Quantitative capabilities of four state-of-the-art SPECT-CT cameras. EJNMMI Res. 2012; 2(1): 45.
  15. Zeintl J, Vija AH, Yahil A, et al. Quantitative accuracy of clinical 99mTc SPECT/CT using ordered-subset expectation maximization with 3-dimensional resolution recovery, attenuation, and scatter correction. J Nucl Med. 2010; 51(6): 921–928.
  16. Ferrer L, Delpon G, Lisbona A, et al. Dosimetric impact of correcting count losses due to deadtime in clinical radioimmunotherapy trials involving iodine-131 scintigraphy. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2003; 18(1): 117–124.
  17. Beauregard JM, Hofman MS, Pereira JM, et al. Quantitative (177)Lu SPECT (QSPECT) imaging using a commercially available SPECT/CT system. Cancer Imaging. 2011; 11(1): 56–66.
  18. Celler A, Piwowarska-Bilska H, Shcherbinin S, et al. Evaluation of dead-time corrections for post-radionuclide-therapy (177)Lu quantitative imaging with low-energy high-resolution collimators. Nucl Med Commun. 2014; 35(1): 73–87.
  19. Dewaraja YK, Frey EC, Sgouros G, et al. MIRD pamphlet No. 23: quantitative SPECT for patient-specific 3-dimensional dosimetry in internal radionuclide therapy. J Nucl Med. 2012; 53(8): 1310–1325.
  20. Matsutomo N, Matsumoto S, Yamamoto T, et al. Validation of a calibration method using the cross-calibration factor and system planar sensitivity in quantitative single-photon emission computed tomography imaging. Radiol Phys Technol. 2017; 10(4): 439–445.
  21. Piwowarska-Bilska H, Supińska A, Birkenfeld B. What validation tests can be done by the clinical medical physicist while waiting for the standardization of quantitative SPECT/CT imaging? .