ArticlePloS one2020
Comparison of different calculation techniques for absorbed dose assessment in patient specific peptide receptor radionuclide therapy.
Article in PloS one, 2020. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Design and validation of a deep learning GAN for predictingJournal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Clinical implementation of voxel-based dosimetry using image-based RT-PHITS Monte Carlo simulations forAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- Validation of dosimetry programs (Olinda & IDAC) for evaluation of absorbed dose inEJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- The application of radionuclide therapy for breast cancer.Frontiers in nuclear medicine · 2023Review
- The OpenGATE ecosystem for Monte Carlo simulation in medical physics.Physics in medicine and biology · 2022Review
- Patient-specific dosimetry adapted to variable number of SPECT/CT time-points per cycle forEJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Personalized Dosimetry in Targeted Radiation Therapy: A Look to Methods, Tools and Critical Aspects.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe present work concerns the comparison of the performances of three systems for dosimetry in RPT that use different techniques for absorbed dose calculation (organ-level dosimetry, voxel-level dose kernel convolution and Monte Carlo simulations). The aim was to assess the importance of the choice of the most adequate calculation modality, providing recommendations about the choice of the computation tool.
methodsThe performances were evaluated both on phantoms and patients in a multi-level approach. Different phantoms filled with a 177Lu-radioactive solution were used: a homogeneous cylindrical phantom, a phantom with organ-shaped inserts and two cylindrical phantoms with inserts different for shape and volume. A total of 70 patients with NETs treated by PRRT with 177Lu-DOTATOC were retrospectively analysed.
resultsThe comparisons were performed mainly between the mean values of the absorbed dose in the regions of interest. A general better agreement was obtained between Dose kernel convolution and Monte Carlo simulations results rather than between either of these two and organ-level dosimetry, both for phantoms and patients. Phantoms measurements also showed the discrepancies mainly depend on the geometry of the inserts (e.g. shape and volume). For patients, differences were more pronounced than phantoms and higher inter/intra patient variability was observed.
conclusionThis study suggests that voxel-level techniques for dosimetry calculation are potentially more accurate and personalized than organ-level methods. In particular, a voxel-convolution method provides good results in a short time of calculation, while Monte Carlo based computation should be conducted with very fast calculation systems for a possible use in clinics, despite its intrinsic higher accuracy. Attention to the calculation modality is recommended in case of clinical regions of interest with irregular shape and far from spherical geometry, in which Monte Carlo seems to be more accurate than voxel-convolution methods.
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.