Correction to: Influence of dosimetry method on bone lesion absorbed dose estimates in PSMA therapy: application to mCRPC patients receiving Lu-177-PSMA-I&T

Correction to: EJNMMI Phys 8, 26 (2021)

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-021-00369-4

Following publication of the original article [1], it was reported that due to a typesetting error some text was mistakenly introduced in the “MC method: Patient-specific Monte Carlo (MC) absorbed dose simulation” and “Comparison of dosimetry methods” sub-sections.

The erroneous text is highlighted in bold in the below passages and has been removed in the original article.

In the “MC method: Patient-specific Monte Carlo (MC) absorbed dose simulation” the affected sentence was:

A CT scan of a Gammex tissue characterization phantom (Gammex 467; Gammex Inc., Middleton, WI) using the same imaging parameters from the patient scans was perfMC method: Patient-specificormed, which confirmed the HU-to-density relationship of our CT device with that implemented in GATE. GATE converts HU-to-density values with internal tables based on Schneider et al. [22].

The corrected sentence reads:

A CT scan of a Gammex tissue characterization phantom (Gammex 467; Gammex Inc., Middleton, WI) using the same imaging parameters from the patient scans was performed, which confirmed the HU-to-density relationship of our CT device with that implemented in GATE. GATE converts HU-to-density values with internal tables based on Schneider et al. [22].

In the “Comparison of dosimetry methods” sub-section the affected sentence was:

The additional density wePatient example showing the transversal slice ofighting of ${\mathit{VSV}}_{\mathit{\text{weighted}}}^{\mathit{\text{soft}}}$ and ${\mathit{VSV}}_{\mathit{\text{weighted}}}^{\mathit{\text{soft}}+\mathit{\text{bone}}}$, led to an overall smaller range of percentage differences than the associated method without weighting.

The corrected sentence reads:

The additional density weighting of ${\mathit{VSV}}_{\mathit{\text{weighted}}}^{\mathit{\text{soft}}}$ and ${\mathit{VSV}}_{\mathit{\text{weighted}}}^{\mathit{\text{soft}}+\mathit{\text{bone}}}$, led to an overall smaller range of percentage differences than the associated method without weighting.

The original article has been updated.