ArticleMedical physics2021
Quantification of internal dosimetry in PET patients II: Individualized Monte Carlo-based dosimetry for [18F]fluorocholine PET.
Article in Medical physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative dosimetry study of PARaDIM and RT-PHITS with ICRP publication 128: calculation of organ doses fromRadiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- Monte Carlo methods for medical imaging research.Biomedical engineering letters · 2024Review
- Combined Targeted Radiopharmaceutical Therapy and Immune Checkpoint Blockade: From Preclinical Advances to the Clinic.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2022Article
- Quantification of internal dosimetry in PET patients II: Individualized Monte Carlo-based dosimetry for [18F]fluorocholine PET.Medical physics · 2021Article
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 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo obtain individualized internal doses with a Monte Carlo (MC) method in patients undergoing diagnostic [18F]FCH-PET studies and to compare such doses with the MIRD method calculations.
methodsA patient cohort of 17 males were imaged after intravenous administration of a mean [18F]FCH activity of 244.3 MBq. The resulting PET/CT images were processed in order to generate individualized input source and geometry files for dose computation with the MC tool GATE. The resulting dose estimates were studied and compared to the MIRD method with two different computational phantoms. Mass correction of the S-factors was applied when possible. Potential sources of uncertainty were closely examined: the effect of partial body images, urinary bladder emptying, and biokinetic modeling.
resultsLarge differences in doses between our methodology and the MIRD method were found, generally in the range ±25%, and up to ±120% for some cases. The mass scaling showed improvements, especially for non-walled and high-uptake tissues. Simulations of the urinary bladder emptying showed negligible effects on doses to other organs, with the exception of the prostate. Dosimetry based on partial PET/CT images (excluding the legs) resulted in an overestimation of mean doses to bone, skin, and remaining tissues, and minor differences in other organs/tissues. Estimated uncertainties associated with the biokinetics of FCH introduce variations of cumulated activities in the range of ±10% in the high-uptake organs.
conclusionsThe MC methodology allows for a higher degree of dosimetry individualization than the MIRD methodology, which in some cases leads to important differences in dose values. Dosimetry of FCH-PET based on a single partial PET study seems viable due to the particular biokinetics of FCH, even though some correction factors may need to be applied to estimate mean skin/bone doses.
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.