Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32189087›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI research2020

Accuracy in dosimetry of diagnostic agents: impact of the number of source tissues used in whole organ S value-based calculations.

Anders Josefsson, Klaikangwol Siritantikorn, Sagar Ranka, Jose Willegaignon de Amorim de Carvalho, Carlos Alberto Buchpiguel, Marcelo Tatit Sapienza, Wesley E Bolch, George Sgouros

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Anders JosefssonRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. ajosefs1@jhmi.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0800-2305
Klaikangwol SiritantikornRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Sagar RankaRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Jose Willegaignon de Amorim de CarvalhoInstituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo University, School of Medicine, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Carlos Alberto BuchpiguelInstituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo University, School of Medicine, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Marcelo Tatit SapienzaInstituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo University, School of Medicine, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Wesley E BolchDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
George SgourosRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

Dose-Response in Radionuclide TherapyR01CA116477 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI HOBBS, ROBERT FRANCOIS, SGOUROS, GEORGE · 2006 to 2022
$7.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA116477NIH HHS R01 CA116477
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDosimetry for diagnostic agents is performed to assess the risk of radiation detriment (e.g., cancer) associated with the imaging agent and the risk is assessed by computing the effective dose coefficient, e. Stylized phantoms created by the MIRD Committee and updated by work performed by Cristy-Eckerman (CE) have been the standard in diagnostic dosimetry. Recently, the ICRP developed voxelized phantoms, which are described in ICRP Publication 110. These voxelized phantoms are more realistic and detailed in describing human anatomy compared with the CE stylized phantoms. Ideally, all tissues should be represented and their pharmacokinetics collected for an as accurate a dosimetric calculation as possible. As the number of source tissues included increases, the calculated e becomes more accurate. There is, however, a trade-off between the number of source tissues considered, and the time and effort required to measure the time-activity curve for each tissue needed for the calculations. In this study, we used a previously published

resultsDepending upon the number of source tissues included e varied between 14.0-23.5 μSv/MBq for the ICRP voxelized and 12.4-27.7 μSv/MBq for the CE stylized phantoms. Furthermore, stability in e, defined as a < 10% difference between e obtained using all source tissues compared to one using fewer source tissues, was obtained after including 5 (36%) of the 14 source tissues for the ICRP voxelized, and after including 3 (25%) of the 12 source tissues for the CE stylized phantoms. In addition, a 2-fold increase in e was obtained when all source tissues where included in the calculation compared to when the TIAC distribution was lumped into a single reminder-of-body source term.

conclusionsThis study shows the importance of including the larger tissues like the muscles and remainder-of-body in the dosimetric calculations. The range of e based on the included tissues were less for the ICRP voxelized phantoms using tissue weighting factors from ICRP Publication 103 compared to CE stylized phantoms using tissue weighting factors from ICRP Publication 60.

Indexed as

68GaDiagnostic dosimetryDOTA-TATEEffective doseICRPPET/CTStylized phantomsVoxelized phantoms

Identifiers

PMID32189087
PMCPMC7080914

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.