In the article “Choice Is Good at Times: The Emergence of [64Cu]Cu-DOTATATE–Based Somatostatin Receptor Imaging in the Era of [68Ga]Ga-DOTATATE,” by Jha et al. (J Nucl Med. 2022;63:1300–1301), gallium-68 was incorrectly cited at editing as having a lower positron energy and lower positron range than copper-64. The corrected sentence should read: “Copper-64 has a lower positron energy than Gallium-68 (0.65 vs. 1.90 MeV), resulting in a lower positron range (0.56 vs. 3.5 mm) that provides superior spatial resolution, improved imaging quality, and enhanced detection of small lesions (7).” We regret the error.
- © 2022 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.