Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33044651›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2020

Uncertainty analysis of tumour absorbed dose calculations in molecular radiotherapy.

Domenico Finocchiaro, Jonathan I Gear, Federica Fioroni, Glenn D Flux, Iain Murray, Gastone Castellani, Annibale Versari, Mauro Iori, Elisa Grassi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Inter-center variability of dosimetry methodology and the impact on reported absorbed dose for [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Predicting [EJNMMI physics · 2023
    Article
  13. Tumor dosimetry usingEJNMMI physics · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Validation of Monte CarloMedical physics · 2022
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Milestones in dosimetry for nuclear medicine therapy.The British journal of radiology · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Domenico FinocchiaroMedical Physics Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale di Reggio Emilia - IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Jonathan I GearThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust & Institute of Cancer Research, Downs Road, Sutton, SM2 5PT, UK.
Federica FioroniMedical Physics Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale di Reggio Emilia - IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy. Federica.Fioroni@ausl.re.it.
Glenn D FluxThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust & Institute of Cancer Research, Downs Road, Sutton, SM2 5PT, UK.
Iain MurrayThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust & Institute of Cancer Research, Downs Road, Sutton, SM2 5PT, UK.
Gastone CastellaniDepartment of Physics and Astronomy, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Annibale VersariNuclear Medicine Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale di Reggio Emilia - IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Mauro IoriMedical Physics Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale di Reggio Emilia - IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Elisa GrassiMedical Physics Unit, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale di Reggio Emilia - IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy.

Funding

European Metrology Programme for Innovation and Research (EMPIR) 15HLT06 MRTDosimetry
6 · The paper itself

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

AccuracyDosimetryMRTPRRTRadionuclide therapyRPTUncertainty analysis

Identifiers

PMID33044651
PMCPMC7550507

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.