Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33277396›Full record

ReviewJournal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine2021

Overview of the First NRG Oncology-National Cancer Institute Workshop on Dosimetry of Systemic Radiopharmaceutical Therapy.

Emilie Roncali, Jacek Capala, Stanley H Benedict, Gamal Akabani, Bryan Bednarz, Vikram Bhadrasain, Wesley E Bolch, Jeffrey C Buchsbaum, Norman C Coleman, Yuni K Dewaraja and 19 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Yes, the Holy Gray exists. Learn from modern radioembolisation.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021
    Article
  3. National Cancer Institute support for targeted alpha-emitter therapy.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021
    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

29 authors at 16 institutions in 2 countries.

Emilie RoncaliUniversity of California at Davis, Davis, California.
Jacek CapalaNIH/NCI, Bethesda, Maryland.
Stanley H BenedictUniversity of California at Davis, Davis, California; shbenedict@ucdavis.edu.
Gamal AkabaniTexas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
Bryan BednarzUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
Vikram BhadrasainNIH/NCI, Bethesda, Maryland.
Wesley E BolchDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
Jeffrey C BuchsbaumNIH/NCI, Bethesda, Maryland.
Norman C ColemanNIH/NCI, Bethesda, Maryland.
Yuni K DewarajaUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Eric FreyDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Michael GhalyRadiopharmaceutical Imaging and Dosimetry LLC (Rapid), Baltimore, Maryland.
Joseph GrudzinskiUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Robert F HobbsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Roger W HowellDepartment of Radiology, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey.
John L HummMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Charles A KunosNIH/NCI, Bethesda, Maryland.
Steve LarsonMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Frank I LinNIH/NCI, Bethesda, Maryland.
Mark MadsenUniversity of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Saed MirzadehOak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
David MorseMoffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida.
Daniel PrymaUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
George SgourosDepartment of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Sara St JamesUniversity of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California.
Richard L WahlMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri.
Ying XiaoUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Pat ZanzonicoMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Katherine Zukotynski
National Institutes of Health · USJohns Hopkins University · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · USMoffitt Cancer Center · USOak Ridge National Laboratory · USRutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USTexas A&M University · USUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Florida · USUniversity of Iowa · USUniversity of Michigan · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

NRG Oncology Network Group Operations Center - GY9 BIQSFP Reports/BudgetsU10CA180868 · NCI · NRG ONCOLOGY FOUNDATION, INC. · PI NORMAN WOLMARK · 2014 to 2026
$206.8M
IROC: Enhancing local enrolling site radiological data capture capabilities for NCTN trialsU24CA180803 · NCI · AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY · PI Thomas J. FitzGerald, MICHAEL V KNOPP · 2014 to 2026
$116.2M
MIRDcell Version 3R01CA245139 · NCI · RUTGERS BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES · PI Roger W. Howell · 2020 to 2026
$1.8M
Radiation induced bystander effects in radium-223 therapyR01CA198073 · NCI · RBHS-NEW JERSEY MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI AZZAM, EDOUARD I, HOWELL, ROGER W. · 2015 to 2018
$1.3M
Improving PSMA-based radioligand therapy via combination radioligand therapyZIABC011895 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI LIN, FRANK · 2019 to 2025
$1.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA198073NCI NIH HHS R01 CA245139NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180868NCI NIH HHS U24 CA180803
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2018, the National Cancer Institute and NRG Oncology partnered for the first time to host a joint workshop on systemic radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) to specifically address dosimetry issues and strategies for future clinical trials. The workshop focused on current dosimetric approaches for clinical trials, strategies under development that would optimize dose reporting, and future desired or optimized approaches for novel emerging radionuclides and carriers in development. In this article, we review the main approaches that are applied clinically to calculate the absorbed dose. These include absorbed doses calculated over a variety of spatial scales, including whole body, organ, suborgan, and voxel, the last 3 of which are achievable within the MIRD schema (S value) and can be calculated with analytic methods or Monte Carlo methods, the latter in most circumstances. This article will also contrast currently available methods and tools with those used in the past, to propose a pathway whereby dosimetry helps the field by optimizing the biologic effect of the treatment and trial design in the drug approval process to reduce financial and logistical costs. We also briefly discuss the dosimetric equivalent of biomarkers to help bring a precision medicine approach to RPT implementation when merited by evidence collected during early-phase trial investigations. Advances in the methodology and related tools have made dosimetry the optimum biomarker for RPT.

Indexed as

National Cancer Institute (U.S.)RadiometryRadiopharmaceuticalsHumansMedical OncologyNeoplasmsUnited StatesRadiopharmaceuticalscellular dosimetrydosimetrymicrodosimetryMIRDradiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT)targeted radionuclide therapy (TRT)

Identifiers

PMID33277396
PMCPMC8833877
OpenAlexW3109690358

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.