ArticleEJNMMI physics2024
Validation of dosimetry programs (Olinda & IDAC) for evaluation of absorbed dose in
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of Simplified Renal Dosimetry Protocols forMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis ofAdvances in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Targeted radioligand therapy: physics and biology, internal dosimetry and other practical aspects duringTheranostics · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeClinical trials have yielded promising results for MATERIAL AND
methodsThis study investigated absorbed doses to different organs in 9 mCRPC patients during their first treatment cycle. Whole-body planar images were acquired at 1 ± 0.5, 4 ± 0.5, 24 ± 2, 48 ± 2, 72 ± 2, and 144 ± 2 h post-injection, with SPECT/CT images obtained at 24 ± 2 h. Absorbed doses were calculated for five organs and the entire metastasis regions using GATE, OLINDA, and IDAC platforms. The spherical method was used to determine and compare the absorbed doses in metastatic regions and undefined organs in OLINDA and IDAC Phantom.
resultsThe organ-absorbed dose calculations produced by GATE were consistent with those obtained from OLINDA and IDAC. The average percentage differences in absorbed dose for all organs between Monte Carlo calculations and the estimated from IDAC and OLINDA were -0.24 ± 2.14% and 5.16 ± 5.66%, respectively. There was a significant difference between GATE and both IDAC (17.55 ± 29.1%) and OLINDA (25.86 ± 18.04%) in determining absorbed doses to metastatic areas using the spherical model.
conclusionThe absorbed dose of organs in the first treatment cycle remained below tolerable limits. However, cumulative absorbed doses should be considered for the administered activities in the next cycles of treatment. While Monte Carlo, IDAC, and OLINDA results were aligned for organ dose calculations, patient-specific dosimetry may be necessary due to anatomical and functional changes. Accurate dose estimation for undefined organs and metastatic regions using the spherical model is significantly influenced by tissue density, highlighting the value of CT imaging.
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.