Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39017988›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2024

Organ and tumor dosimetry including method simplification for [

Amir Karimzadeh, Linus Schatz, Markus Sauer, Ivayla Apostolova, Ralph Buchert, Susanne Klutmann, Wencke Lehnert

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Substantial decrease in tumor dose over subsequent cyles of [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  5. Differential Clearance of [medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  6. Impact of baselineEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Amir KarimzadehDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Linus SchatzDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Markus SauerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Ivayla ApostolovaDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Ralph BuchertDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Susanne KlutmannDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Wencke LehnertDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. w.lehnert@uke.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5763-7366

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInternal dosimetry in individual patients is essential for safe and effective radioligand therapy. Multiple time point imaging for accurate dosimetry is time consuming and hence can be demanding for nuclear medicine departments as well as patients. The objectives of this study were (1) to assess absorbed doses to organs at risk and tumor lesions for [

methodsThis study included 16 patients each treated with 4 cycles of [

resultsNormalized absorbed doses were 0.71 ± 0.32 mGy/MBq, 0.28 ± 0.12 mGy/MBq and 0.22 ± 0.08 mGy/MBq for kidneys, parotid glands and submandibular glands, respectively. Tumor doses decreased from 3.86 ± 3.38 mGy/MBq in dose cycle 1 to 2.01 ± 2.65 mGy/MBq in dose cycle 4. Compared to the full dosimetry approach the SM 1 using single TP imaging at 48 h p.i. resulted in the most accurate and precise results for the organs at risk in terms of absorbed doses per cycle and total cumulated dose. For tumor lesions better results were achieved using the fourth TP (≥ 72 h p.i.).

conclusionSimplification of safety dosimetry protocols is possible for [

Indexed as

[177Lu]Lu-PSMA-I&T177Lu-PSMADosimetryProstate cancerRadioligand therapySingle time pointTumor dosimetry

Identifiers

PMID39017988
PMCPMC11255161

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.