Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33057773›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2021

EANM position paper on article 56 of the Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom (basic safety standards) for nuclear medicine therapy.

Mark Konijnenberg, Ken Herrmann, Carsten Kobe, Frederik Verburg, Cecilia Hindorf, Roland Hustinx, Michael Lassmann

Open access · hybridAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Joint EANM/SNMMI procedure guideline for the use ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023
    Guideline
  2. Dosimetry-Driven Personalization of Radiopharmaceutical Therapies: Evidence and Opportunities.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026
    Review
  3. Outcome-driven dosimetry optimization for [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Dosimetry inJournal of clinical medicine · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Discordance betweenEJNMMI physics · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Impact of the Reference Multiple-Time-Point Dosimetry Protocol on the Validity of Single-Time-Point Dosimetry for [Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. The revision of the pharmaceutical legislation - it is time to act for nuclear medicine in Europe.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Mark KonijnenbergDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Ken HerrmannDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen and German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany.
Carsten KobeDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Frederik VerburgDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Cecilia HindorfDepartment of Nuclear Medicine Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Roland HustinxService de Médecine Nucléaire et d'Imagerie Oncologique, Département de Physique médicale, Université de Liège - GIGA-CRC in vivo imaging, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Michael LassmannDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, Klinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin, Oberdürrbacher Str. 6, 97080, Würzburg, Germany. lassmann_m@ukw.de.ORCID 0000-0002-2556-1977
Erasmus MC · NLDeutschen Konsortium für Translationale Krebsforschung · DEKlinik und Poliklinik für Nuklearmedizin · DESkåne University Hospital · SEUniversity of Cologne · DEUniversity of Liège · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The EC Directive 2013/59/Euratom states in article 56 that exposures of target volumes in nuclear medicine treatments shall be individually planned and their delivery appropriately verified. The Directive also mentions that medical physics experts should always be appropriately involved in those treatments. Although it is obvious that, in nuclear medicine practice, every nuclear medicine physician and physicist should follow national rules and legislation, the EANM considered it necessary to provide guidance on how to interpret the Directive statements for nuclear medicine treatments.For this purpose, the EANM proposes to distinguish three levels in compliance to the optimization principle in the directive, inspired by the indication of levels in prescribing, recording and reporting of absorbed doses after radiotherapy defined by the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU): Most nuclear medicine treatments currently applied in Europe are standardized. The minimum requirement for those treatments is ICRU level 1 ("activity-based prescription and patient-averaged dosimetry"), which is defined by administering the activity within 10% of the intended activity, typically according to the package insert or to the respective EANM guidelines, followed by verification of the therapy delivery, if applicable. Non-standardized treatments are essentially those in developmental phase or approved radiopharmaceuticals being used off-label with significantly (> 25% more than in the label) higher activities. These treatments should comply with ICRU level 2 ("activity-based prescription and patient-specific dosimetry"), which implies recording and reporting of the absorbed dose to organs at risk and optionally the absorbed dose to treatment regions. The EANM strongly encourages to foster research that eventually leads to treatment planning according to ICRU level 3 ("dosimetry-guided patient-specific prescription and verification"), whenever possible and relevant. Evidence for superiority of therapy prescription on basis of patient-specific dosimetry has not been obtained. However, the authors believe that a better understanding of therapy dosimetry, i.e. how much and where the energy is delivered, and radiobiology, i.e. radiation-related processes in tissues, are keys to the long-term improvement of our treatments.

Indexed as

Nuclear MedicineEuropeEuropean UnionHumansRadiometryRadionuclide ImagingBSS directiveDosimetryNuclear medicine therapyOptimization

Identifiers

PMID33057773
PMCPMC7835146
OpenAlexW3093368120

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.