Table 1 Information about the reconstruction parameters and main findings reported in references (ref.)

[11]

Lee I et al. (2015)

Iterative algorithm (8 iterations, 8 subsets)

13 patients, 35 lesions. Diagnostic sensitivity for SPECT and PET; 54% and 100%, respectively

[12]

Buchmann I et al. (2007)

Iterative algorithm, OSEM

27 patients. Visual evaluation, standard uptake values (PET), and tumor/non-tumor ratios (SPECT) were used. PET superior in lung and skeleton and similar to SPECT for liver and brain

[13]

Van Binnebeek S et al. (2016)

No information given. The SPECT did not include CT (indicating no corrections were used)

53 patients, > 1000 lesions. Sensitivity for SPECT and PET; 99.9% and 60.0%, respectively

[14]

Kowalski J et al. (2003)

Filtered back projection (FBP) with Butterworth filter, cut-off frequency = 0.6 Nyquist

4 patients. In 2 patients more findings were revealed with PET compared to SPECT

[15]

Deppen SA et al. (2016)

No information given. Only states ¹¹¹In “imaging” (indicating that SPECT/CT was not performed but only scintigraphy)

78 scans compared. PET changed treatment in 36% of participants

[16]

Hofmann M et al. (2001)

FBP with Hanning filter, cut-off frequency = 0.5 Nyquist

8 patients, 40 lesion. PET and SPECT identified 100% and 85%, respectively

[17]

Hope T.A et al. (2019)

No information given (they refer to another study but not given there either)

150 patients. The detection rate of somatostatin receptor expressing disease was 38% and 72% for SPECT and PET, respectively