Comparison of Standard SPECT vs xSPECT Reconstruction in the Clinical Management of Patients With Spinal Pain
NCT ID: NCT03702790
Last Updated: 2020-01-22
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
UNKNOWN
30 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2018-10-10
2020-12-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
PET/MRI Imaging of Neuraxial Inflammation in Sciatica Patients
NCT02130271
Use of PET/MR Imaging in Chronic Pain
NCT03195270
PET/MRI in the Diagnosis of Chronic Pain
NCT03556137
A Prospective Cohort Study of MR Abnormalities and Back Pain Risk
NCT00011739
(1)H-Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopic Imaging of the Brain in Patients Who Receive Neurotoxic Therapy
NCT00001807
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
The investigators have used both the Optima and Bold in their clinical practice for the evaluation of back pain in patients referred from sports medicine physicians and orthopedic spine surgeons. The two scanners and respective reconstruction algorithm software create distinctly different image sets. The investigators would like to do side by side comparison to determine if one device produces images of greater clinical value than the other.When patient is referred for a SPECT-CT scan for back pain, a standard injection of approximately 25mCi of MDP will be given. The patient will be then be randomly assigned to be scanned to either the Optima or the Intevo to be followed by scan on the other of the 2 scanners. Patients will be randomized as to the sequence of which scanner is used first or second so as to eliminate any potential bias that might occur due to variable uptake time of the radioisotope.
When scans are completed, images will be reviewed on PACS display and comparison will be made. Input as to the clinical impact of the images will also be assessed by the referring physicians to determine if one of the two scanners has superiority.
From the time of injection to the completion of both scans will be approximately 5 hours including a standard 3 hour uptake time after injection of the radioisotope. The scans will all be done on the same day with no return visits necessary. The interpreting radiologist will be blinded as to which scanner produced the images. Similarly, the referring physician will also be blinded when reviewing the images and determining patient management.The ordered exam is the standard of care and no ongoing treatments/therapies will be interrupted.
Study does not involve administering a therapy that would or would not be ultimately prescribed by the referring physician. Only exclusion criteria would be a known allergy to MDP used as the injected isotope. Pregnancy and claustrophobia that would prevent the patient from tolerating the SPECT-CT device would also be contraindications. The device is not experimental; it is an ongoing part of patient evaluation for back pain. The study wants to compare the impact of images using two separate reconstruction algorithms to determine superiority if present in the setting of clinical practice.
There is a very low risk of additional radiation exposure from the second low dose CT as part of the second SPECT-CT scan. Estimated additional exposure beyond dose administered for standard prescribed imaging protocol is approximately 1mSv or less. ALARA principles will be used as with all patients to use only as much dose as necessary to generate images.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
COHORT
PROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Back pain SPECT evaluation
Patients with poorly localized back pain being imaged for clinical decision making
No interventions assigned to this group
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
18 Years
80 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Carilion Clinic
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Jackson W Kiser
Medical Director Molecular Imaging
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Jackson W Kiser, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Carilion Clinic
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital
Roanoke, Virginia, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
2585
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.