ArticleRadiological physics and technology2025
A study of differences in absorbed dose estimates by images used in dosimetry of Lu-177-DOTATATE therapy.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Lu-177-labeled peptide receptor radionuclide therapy, dosimetry has recently gained importance for assessing side effects and treatment responses. However, no standard method has been established yet. In this retrospective study, we compared the kidney-absorbed doses of 24 treatments with Lu-177-DOTATATE using three methods: a planar method using only planar images, a hybrid method using planar and SPECT/CT images, and a SPECT/CT method using only SPECT/CT images. In the Planar method, the ROI was defined from 2D whole-body planar images and calculated using the MIRD method. In the Hybrid method, the VOI was defined from CT images and the VOIs were placed in the 2D planar image as ROIs, which were calculated using the MIRD method. For the SPECT/CT method, the VOI was defined from CT images and the mean absorbed dose was estimated on a voxel basis. The absorbed dose estimated with the Planar method (15.2 ± 5.81 Gy) was significantly higher than the estimates with the other two methods (Hybrid: 2.93 ± 1.33 Gy, SPECT/CT: 3.81 ± 0.93 Gy) (p < 0.05). The Hybrid and SPECT/CT methods exhibited the strongest correlation. The Planar method demonstrated the highest variability in estimated values. The use of 2D planar images alone tended to overestimate the absorbed dose compared to the other methods, depending on the definition of the ROIs and the characteristics of the analysis software. This suggests that a combined approach using SPECT/CT and planar images is preferable for dosimetry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40111727What 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.