Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Corporate & Special Sales
    • Journal Claims
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
    • Continuing Education
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
CorrectionErratum

Erratum

Journal of Nuclear Medicine July 2019, 60 (7) 1030;
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

In the article “Three-Dimensional Dosimetry for Radiation Safety Estimates from Intrathecal Administration,” by Hesterman et al. (J Nucl Med. 2017;58:1672–1678), the absorbed doses given in Table 3 and the in-text references to these values from Table 3 are incorrect. The correct values appear in italics in the paragraphs as well as the table below. Despite these errors, there is no impact to the methods, statistical analysis, or conclusions. The authors regret the error.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 3

Absorbed Dose Per Unit Injected Activity for Regions of Interest (μGy/MBq)

In the abstract:

Simulation results were within 6% of OLINDA estimates for common organs. Absorbed dose estimates were highest (0.5–1.2 mGy/MBq) in the lumbar CSF space.

In the “Discussion: Clinical Data” section:

The lumbar CSF region experiences the highest exposure, with an absorbed dose per unit injected activity of approximately 1.2 ± 0.3 mGy/MBq for a 5-mL administered volume, with radiation dose decreasing along the spinal cord up to the brain. In the case of the 5-mL administration, the ratio of absorbed dose between lumbar and cervical CSF is approximately 6.0 and lumbar to brain tissue is about 32. A more uniform distribution of absorbed dose is observed with the 15-mL dose volume with lumbar–to–cervical and lumbar–to–brain tissue ratios of about 2.3 and 10.3, respectively. Additionally, the brain CSF, comprising largely the cisterns, and brain parenchyma doses are approximately 1.4 times higher in the 15-mL administered volume group than in the 5-mL group.

In the “Discussion: Biological Implications” section:

The current experimentally derived dosimetry after intrathecal administration indicates an absorbed dose per unit injected activity of up to 1.2 mGy/MBq in the lumbar spine (5-mL injection, n = 3 subjects). In this study, the administered activity of 99mTc was about 185 MBq, resulting in a total radiation dose of about 220 mGy (0.22 Gy).

In Table 3:

  • © 2019 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 60 (7)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 60, Issue 7
July 1, 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Erratum
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Erratum
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jul 2019, 60 (7) 1030;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Erratum
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jul 2019, 60 (7) 1030;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Three-Dimensional Dosimetry for Radiation Safety Estimates from Intrathecal Administration
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Erratum
  • Erratum
  • Erratum
Show more Erratum

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2023 Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Powered by HighWire