ClinicalTrials.gg
Status unknownNCT03702790Updated Jan 22, 2020

Comparison of Standard SPECT vs xSPECT Reconstruction in the Clinical Management of Patients With Spinal Pain

An observational study in Back Pain, sponsored by Carilion Clinic. Status unknown at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-01-22.

Sponsored by Carilion Clinic · Observational

The sponsor has not verified this record recently (last verified Jan 2020), so the status shown — last known as Recruiting — may be out of date.
Study type
Observational
Model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
30
Ages
18 Years to 80 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

SPECT-CT is evolving into an integral part of patient management in those having back pain. It can supplement other types of imaging like MRI by providing physiologic information about the type and location of various disease processes. This information can help guide therapy to the most active sites of disease which MRI and CT cannot do as anatomic imaging modalities. The nuclear department has two cameras that are capable of performing SPECT-CT, an Optima manufactured by GE and a Symbia Intevo Bold manufactured by Siemens. The Optima uses the Volumetrix Evolution algorithm to reconstruct SPECT data that does not incorporate the CT data into these reconstructions. The Bold, on the other hand, has a proprietary reconstruction algorithm called xSPECT which does use the CT data to extract a zone map to better delineate tissue boundaries. In this study, the investigators hope to compare images using the standard and proprietary algorithms to determine if these provide equal or different levels of image interpretation confidence by the reader as well as changes in clinical management.

Read the detailed description

Study objectives are: 1. Compare image quality between the Optima and Intevo as primary objective and 2.Does one device produce images that are more impactful on clinical management as a secondary objective.

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.

02

Conditions studied

  • Back Pain

Browse trials for

03

In context

Back Pain

2,388 studies on the registry are indexed under Back Pain; 282 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 30 is below the median of 101 across 362 observational studies indexed under Back Pain.

Browse Back Pain studies →

Lead sponsor

Carilion Clinic is the lead sponsor of 75 studies on the registry; 14 are open to participants now.

Of its 9 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 2 (22%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 80 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No
Sampling method
Probability sample

Study population

Study population are patients with back pain which cannot be definitively localized with other imaging procedures such as x-ray, CT or MRI

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Poorly localized back pain in search for guided therapy

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Allergy to MDP, radioisotope used for the examination. Patient limitations may include claustrophobia or inability to complete scan due to pain
05

Study design

Observational model
Cohort
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
30 participants (estimated)
Patient registry
No

Groups and cohorts

  • Back pain SPECT evaluation

    Patients with poorly localized back pain being imaged for clinical decision making

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Measure any change in management in patients with back pain based on results of two different SPECT reconstruction algorithms using a qualitative visual measure.

    GE Optima vs Siemens Intevo

    Time frame: 1 year

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No — Will discuss the results and outcomes of the study and present the data in the medical literature

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Started Oct 2018 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Dec 2020, 26 months after the start.

Of 108 non-industry observational studies under Back Pain, half reached primary completion within 21 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 8 and three quarters within 34. This study's planned 26 months is above that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 120 studies reached it within 21 months; a quarter within 8 and three quarters within 38.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Oct 4, 2018
First posted
Oct 11, 2018
StartActual
Oct 10, 2018
Primary completionEst.
Dec 2020
CompletionEst.
Dec 2020
Last update
Jan 22, 2020
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jan 22, 2020, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03702790
Lead sponsor
Carilion Clinic
Responsible party
Jackson W Kiser (Medical Director Molecular Imaging, Carilion Clinic) — Principal investigator
First posted
Oct 11, 2018
Start date
Oct 10, 2018
Primary completion
Dec 2020 (estimated)
Completion
Dec 2020 (estimated)
Last update
Jan 22, 2020

Study contacts

Jackson W Kiser, MD
Contact
jwkiser@carilionclinic.org
5409817274
Jackson W Kiser, MD
principal investigator · Carilion Clinic

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is status unknown, as verified in Jan 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion