ArticleEJNMMI research2015
Statistical and radiobiological analysis of the so-called thyroid stunning.
Article in EJNMMI research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Personalized Dosimetry in Targeted Radiation Therapy: A Look to Methods, Tools and Critical Aspects.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- EANM position paper on the role of radiobiology in nuclear medicine.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Silicon-photomultiplier-based PET/CT reduces the minimum detectable activity of iodine-124.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Radioiodine in Differentiated Thyroid Carcinoma: Do We Need Diagnostic Pre-Ablation Iodine-123 Scintigraphy to Optimize Treatment?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Comparing lesion detection efficacy and image quality across different PET system generations to optimize the iodine-124 PET protocol for recurrent thyroid cancer.EJNMMI physics · 2021Article
- Article
- Comparing pre-therapeuticEndocrine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe origin of the reduction in thyroid uptake after a low activity iodine scan, so-called stunning effect, is still controversial. Two explanations prevail: an individual cell stunning that reduces its capability to store iodine without altering its viability, and/or a significant cell-killing fraction that reduces the number of cells in the tissue still taking up iodine. Our aim is to analyze whether this last assumption could explain the observed reduction.
methodsThe survival fraction after administration of a small radioiodine activity was computed by two independent methods: the application of the statistical theory underlying tissue control probability on recent clinical studies of thyroid remnant (131)I ablation and the use of the radiosensitivities reported in human thyroid cell assays for different radioiodine isotopes.
resultsBoth methods provided survival fractions in line with the uptake reduction observed after a low (131)I activity scan. The second method also predicts a similar behavior after a low (123)I or (124)I activity scan.
conclusionsThis study shows that the cell-killing fraction is sufficient to explain the uptake reduction effect for (131)I and (123)I after a low activity scan and that even if some still living cells express a stunning effect just after irradiation (as shown in vitro), they will mostly die with time. As the β/α value is very low, this therapy fractionation should not impact the patient outcome in agreement with recent studies. However, in case of huge uptake heterogeneity, pre-therapy scan could specifically kills high-uptake cells and by the way could reduce the cross irradiation to the low-uptake cells during the therapy, resulting in a reduction of the ablation success rate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.