ArticleEJNMMI physics2024
Estimation of kidney doses from [
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy and precision analyses of single-time-point dosimetry utilising physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modelling and non-linear mixed-effects modelling.EJNMMI physics · 2025Article
- Targeted radionuclide therapy and diagnostic imaging of SSTR positive neuroendocrine tumors: a clinical update in the new decade.Frontiers in nuclear medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDosimetry after [
methodMethod 1 (MTP): Kidney doses were calculated from 31 patients including 107 therapy cycles. Post-therapy SPECT images were acquired on day 0, 4 and 7 along with a CT scan on day 4. A mono-exponential fit was used to calculate kidney doses using cycle specific data. Method 2 (Consistent effective half-life): The effective half-life [Formula: see text] calculated in cycle 1 was assumed consistent for subsequent cycles of therapy and the activity scaled using a single day 3-5 SPECT/CT. Methods 3 and 4 (Hänscheid and Madsen approximations): The Hänscheid approximation and Madsen approximation were both evaluated using a single SPECT/CT acquired on day 0, 4 and 7. All STP methods were compared to the MTP method for accuracy.
resultsUsing the MTP method, mean right and left kidney doses were calculated to be 2.9 ± 1.1 Gy and 2.8 ± 0.9 Gy respectively and the population [Formula: see text] was 56 ± 13 h. For the consistent [Formula: see text], Hänscheid and Madsen methods, the percentage of results within ± 20% of MTP method were 96% (n = 70), 95% (n = 80) and 94% (n = 80) respectively.
conclusionAll three single time point methods had > 94% of results within ± 20% of the MTP method, however the consistent [Formula: see text] method resulted in the highest alignment with the MTP method and is the only method which allows for calculation of the patient-specific [Formula: see text]. If only a single scan can be performed, day 4 is optimal for kidney dosimetry where the Hänscheid or Madsen approximation can be implemented with good accuracy.
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.