Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34716850›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2021

Standardizing SPECT/CT dosimetry following radioembolization with yttrium-90 microspheres.

S Peter Kim, Daniel Juneau, Claire Cohalan, Shirin A Enger

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI physics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. MRI radiomics andBMC cancer · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Quantitative evaluation ofMedical physics · 2024
    Article
  6. Measure ofEJNMMI reports · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Pre- and post-treatment image-based dosimetry inPhysics in medicine and biology · 2021
    Article
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

S Peter KimMedical Physics Unit, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. shingyu.kim@mail.mcgill.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1953-8121
Daniel JuneauDepartment of Medical Imaging, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.
Claire CohalanDepartment of Physics and Biomedical Engineering, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.
Shirin A EngerMedical Physics Unit, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal · CAJewish General Hospital · CAMcGill University · CA

Funding

Canada Research Chairs 950-232684
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiple post-treatment dosimetry methods are currently under investigation for Yttrium-90 ([Formula: see text]) radioembolization. Within each methodology, a variety of dosimetric inputs exists that affect the final dose estimates. Understanding their effects is essential to facilitating proper dose analysis and crucial in the eventual standardization of radioembolization dosimetry. The purpose of this study is to investigate the dose differences due to different self-calibrations and mass density assignments in the non-compartmental and local deposition methods. A practical mean correction method was introduced that permits dosimetry in images where the quality is compromised by patient motion and partial volume effects.

methodsTwenty-one patients underwent [Formula: see text] radioembolization and were imaged with SPECT/CT. Five different self-calibrations (FOV, Body, OAR, Liverlung, and Liver) were implemented and dosimetrically compared. The non-compartmental and local deposition method were used to perform dosimetry based on either nominal- or CT calibration-based mass densities. A mean correction method was derived assuming homogeneous densities. Cumulative dose volume histograms, linear regressions, boxplots, and Bland Altman plots were utilized for analysis.

resultsUp to 270% weighted dose difference was found between self-calibrations with mean dose differences up to 50 Gy in the liver and 23 Gy in the lungs. Between the local deposition and non-compartmental methods, the liver and lung had dose differences within 0.71 Gy and 20 Gy, respectively. The local deposition method's nominal and CT calibration-based mass density implementations dosimetric metrics were within 1.4% in the liver and 24% in the lungs. The mean lung doses calculated with the CT method were shown to be inflated. The mean correction method demonstrated that the corrected mean doses were greater by up to [Formula: see text] Gy in the liver and lower by up to [Formula: see text] Gy in the lungs.

conclusionsThe OAR calibration may be utilized as a potentially more accurate and precise self-calibration. The non-compartmental method was found more comparable to the local deposition method in organs that were more homogeneous in mass densities. Due to the potential for inflated lung mean doses, the non-compartmental and local deposition method implemented with nominal mass densities is recommended for more consistent dosimetric results. If patient motion and partial volume effects are present in the liver, our practical correction method will calculate more representative doses in images suboptimal for dosimetry.

Indexed as

DosimetryLocal deposition methodRadioembolizationSelf-calibrationsSIRTSPECT/CTTissue mass densities

Identifiers

PMID34716850
PMCPMC8557238
OpenAlexW3211158360

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.