Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • 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
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

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

Advanced Search

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

Erratum

Journal of Nuclear Medicine July 2019, 60 (7) 1030;

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.
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire