ArticleEJNMMI physics2020
Uncertainty analysis of tumour absorbed dose calculations in molecular radiotherapy.
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed.
- Inter-center variability of dosimetry methodology and the impact on reported absorbed dose for [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Uncertainty analysis of single-time-point organ dosimetry compared with the multi-time-point method in radioimmunotherapy.EJNMMI physics · 2026Article
- Modelling the relative precision of whole-kidney dosimetry in molecular radiotherapy using a power law approach.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2026Article
- Comparison of tumour segmentation methods for dosimetry in [EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- 3D-Printed Organ-Realistic Phantoms to Verify Quantitative SPECT/CT Accuracy for 177Lu-PSMA-617 Treatment Planning.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- On the reduction of imaging time-points for dosimetry in radionuclide therapy.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- A Critical Appraisal of System-Reported Organ Dose (OD) Versus Manually Calculated Mean Glandular Dose (MGD) in Dubai's Mammography Services.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Pareto optimization of SPECT acquisition and reconstruction settings forEJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Comparison of the dosimetry of scandium-43 and scandium-44 patient organ doses in relation to commonly used gallium-68 for imaging neuroendocrine tumours.EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Uncertainty Analysis of Time-Integrated Activity Coefficient in Single-Time-Point Dosimetry Using Bayesian Fitting Method.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024Article
- Comparison of a 3D CZT and conventional SPECT/CT system for quantitative Lu-177 SPECT imaging.EJNMMI physics · 2024Article
- Predicting [EJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- Tumor dosimetry usingEJNMMI physics · 2023Article
- Intra- and inter-operator variability in MRI-based manual segmentation of HCC lesions and its impact on dosimetry.EJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Quantification and dosimetry of small volumes including associated uncertainty estimation.EJNMMI physics · 2022Article
- Validation of Monte CarloMedical physics · 2022Article
- Review
- Milestones in dosimetry for nuclear medicine therapy.The British journal of radiology · 2022Review
- Cherenkov light emission in molecular radiation therapy of the thyroid and its application to dosimetry.Biomedical optics express · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInternal dosimetry evaluation consists of a multi-step process ranging from imaging acquisition to absorbed dose calculations. Assessment of uncertainty is complicated and, for that reason, it is commonly ignored in clinical routine. However, it is essential for adequate interpretation of the results. Recently, the EANM published a practical guidance on uncertainty analysis for molecular radiotherapy based on the application of the law of propagation of uncertainty. In this study, we investigated the overall uncertainty on a sample of a patient following the EANM guidelines. The aim of this study was to provide an indication of the typical uncertainties that may be expected from performing dosimetry, to determine parameters that have the greatest effect on the accuracy of calculations and to consider the potential improvements that could be made if these effects were reduced.
resultsAbsorbed doses and the relative uncertainties were calculated for a sample of 49 patients and a total of 154 tumours. A wide range of relative absorbed dose uncertainty values was observed (14-102%). Uncertainties associated with each quantity along the absorbed dose calculation chain (i.e. volume, recovery coefficient, calibration factor, activity, time-activity curve fitting, time-integrated activity and absorbed dose) were estimated. An equation was derived to describe the relationship between the uncertainty in the absorbed dose and the volume. The largest source of error was the VOI delineation. By postulating different values of FWHM, the impact of the imaging system spatial resolution on the uncertainties was investigated. DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first analysis of uncertainty in molecular radiotherapy based on a cohort of clinical cases. Wide inter-lesion variability of absorbed dose uncertainty was observed. Hence, a proper assessment of the uncertainties associated with the calculations should be considered as a basic scientific standard. A model for a quick estimate of uncertainty without implementing the entire error propagation schema, which may be useful in clinical practice, was presented. Ameliorating spatial resolution may be in future the key factor for accurate absorbed dose assessment.
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.