Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42726377›Full record

ArticleEJNMMI physics2026

Influence of increased injected activities up 9.0 GBq [

Zachary Ells, Linus Hempel, Julia Ells, Muyu Wu, Maximilian Scheifele, Magdalena Schoell, Sophie C Siegmund, Mathias Zacherl, Rudolf A Werner, Jeremie Calais and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJNMMI physics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

15 authors.

Zachary EllsDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. Zells@mednet.ucla.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5985-6052
Linus HempelDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Julia EllsDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Muyu WuDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Maximilian ScheifeleDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Magdalena SchoellDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Sophie C SiegmundDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Mathias ZacherlDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Rudolf A WernerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Jeremie CalaisDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Theranostics, Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California Los Angeles UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Magnus DahlbomDepartment of Nuclear Medicine and Theranostics, Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, University of California Los Angeles UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Guido BöningDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Adrien HolzgreveDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Astrid DelkerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Lena M UnterrainerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAdministration activities of

methodsIn this single center, retrospective analysis, patients with PSMA-avid metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treated with [

results76 patients treated were included: 22 and 54 were injected with 9.1 ± 0.3 and 7.4 ± 0.3 GBq respectively. The AD/GBq to the kidney was comparable, 0.29 ± 0.08 vs. 0.33 ± 0.13 Gy/GBq [p=0.193] (9.1 vs. 7.4 GBq). The tumor AD/GBq was comparable between 9.1 and 7.4 GBq cohorts: total tumor burden (0.95 ± 0.42 vs. 0.92 ± 0.52 Gy/GBq) [p=0.302]; bone lesions 0.78 ± 0.42 vs. 0.74 ± 0.46 Gy/GBq [p=<0.001]; hottest lesion in each patient 1.37 ± 0.61 vs. 1.30 ± 0.74 [p=0.421]; coldest lesion in each patient 0.40 ± 0.16 vs. 0.50 ± 0.32 Gy/GBq [p=0.930].

conclusionThe AD/GBq across the disease burden, individual lesions, and kidney remained comparable even with increased injected activity. No evidence of the tumor sink effect was found. No evidence of a clinically relevant tumor sink effect in patients with <2000 mL tumor volume was found but patients with substantially high TTV (> 2 L) lacks.

Indexed as

LutetiumMetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)Prostate-specific membrane antigenRadiopharmaceutical therapyTumor sink effect

Identifiers

PMID42726377
PMCPMC13569807

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.