ArticleEJNMMI physics2024
Impact of different models based on blood samples and images for bone marrow dosimetry after
Article in EJNMMI physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Organ and tumour dosimetry ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeptide receptor radionuclide therapy with
resultsThe bone marrow dose was calculated for 131 treatments with the blood-based method and for 17 with the image-based method. In the former, the median absorbed dose was 15.3, 20.5 and 28.3 mGy/GBq with the mono-, bi- and tri-exponential model, respectively. With the image-based method, the median absorbed dose was 63.9, 41.9 and 60.8 with the mono-, bi- and tri-exponential model, respectively. Blood samples after 24h post-injection did not evidence any change in the absorbed bone marrow dose with the bi-exponential model. On the contrary, the 6-day post-injection timepoint was more informative with the image-based model.
conclusionThis study confirms that the estimated bone marrow dose is significantly lower with the blood-based method than with the image-based method. The blood-based method with a bi-exponential model proved particularly useful, without the need for blood samples after 24h post-injection. Nevertheless, this blood-based method is based on an assumption that needs to be more validated. The important difference between the two methods does not allow to determine the optimal one to estimate the true absorbed dose and further studies are necessary to compare with biological effects.
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.