CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry and ApplicationsMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Strengths and Weaknesses of a Planar Whole-Body Method of 153 Sm Dosimetry for Patients with Metastatic Osteosarcoma and Comparison with Three-Dimensional Dosimetry

Open access
Plyku, Donika, Loeb, David M., Prideaux, Andrew R., Baechler, Sébastien, Wahl, Richard L., Sgouros, George, Hobbs, Robert F.·2015·Cancer Biotherapy and Radiopharmaceuticals
DOI 10.1089/cbr.2014.1803PMC PMC4652159
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: Dosimetric accuracy depends directly upon the accuracy of the activity measurements in tumors and organs. The authors present the methods and results of a retrospective tumor dosimetry analysis in 14 patients with a total of 28 tumors treated with high activities of (153)Sm-ethylenediaminetetramethylenephosphonate ((153)Sm-EDTMP) for therapy of metastatic osteosarcoma using planar images and compare the results with three-dimensional dosimetry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Analysis of phantom data provided a complete set of parameters for dosimetric calculations, including buildup factor, attenuation coefficient, and camera dead-time compensation. The latter was obtained using a previously developed methodology that accounts for the relative motion of the camera and patient during whole-body (WB) imaging. Tumor activity values calculated from the anterior and posterior views of WB planar images of patients treated with (153)Sm-EDTMP for pediatric osteosarcoma were compared with the geometric mean value. The mean activities were integrated over time and tumor-absorbed doses were calculated using the software package OLINDA/EXM. RESULTS: The authors found that it was necessary to employ the dead-time correction algorithm to prevent measured tumor activity half-lives from often exceeding the physical decay half-life of (153)Sm. Measured half-lives so long are unquestionably in error. Tumor-absorbed doses varied between 0.0022 and 0.27 cGy/MBq with an average of 0.065 cGy/MBq; however, a comparison with absorbed dose values derived from a three-dimensional analysis for the same tumors showed no correlation; moreover, the ratio of three-dimensional absorbed dose value to planar absorbed dose value was 2.19. From the anterior and posterior activity comparisons, the order of clinical uncertainty for activity and dose calculations from WB planar images, with the present methodology, is hypothesized to be about 70%. CONCLUSION: The dosimetric results from clinical patient data indicate that absolute planar dosimetry is unreliable and dosimetry using three-dimensional imaging is preferable, particularly for tumors, except perhaps for the most sophisticated planar methods. The relative activity and patient kinetics derived from planar imaging show a greater level of reliability than the dosimetry.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/cbr.2014.1803

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Jaszczak RJ, 1984, J Nucl Med, 25, 893
  2. Siegel JA, 1985, J Nucl Med, 26, 390
  3. Buvat I, 1995, J Nucl Med, 36, 1476
  4. Bardies M, 1996, J Nucl Med, 37, 1853
  5. Essman SC, 2005, J Nucl Med, 46, 2076
  6. Brenner W, 2001, J Nucl Med, 42, 230
  7. Eary JF, 1993, J Nucl Med, 34, 1031
  8. Bayouth JE, 1994, J Nucl Med, 35, 63
  9. Hobbs RF, European Association of Nuclear Medicine Annual Meeting Abstracts
  10. Siegel JA, 1999, J Nucl Med, 40, 37S
  11. Stabin MG, 2005, J Nucl Med, 46, 1023
  12. Williams LE, 1988, J Nucl Med, 29, 103
  13. Sgouros G, 2004, J Nucl Med, 45, 1366
  14. Welsh JS, 2003, Clin Adv Hematol Oncol, 1, 181

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Plyku, D., Loeb, D. M., Prideaux, A. R., Baechler, S., Wahl, R. L., Sgouros, G., & Hobbs, R. F.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Institute of Radiation Physics (CH)
Corresponding author
Hobbs, Robert F.
ORCID
Venue
Cancer Biotherapy and Radiopharmaceuticals
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2015-11
Volume
30
Issue
9
Pages
369-379
ISSN
  • 1084-9785 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-8852
DOI
10.1089/cbr.2014.1803
PMC
PMC4652159
OpenAlex
W2227230075
Cited by
10
References
54
Citations by year
2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
1.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.liebertpub.com/nv/resources-tools/text-and-data-mining-policy/121/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Cancer Biotherapy and Radiopharmaceuticals (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA116477, R01CA163870)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Keywords
samarium-153, 153Sm-EDTMP, metastatic osteosarcoma, tumor dosimetry, 3D dosimetry, dead time correction, absorbed dose, OLINDA/EXM, pediatric osteosarcoma
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Algorithms, Bone Neoplasms, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Organometallic Compounds, Organophosphorus Compounds, Radiometry, Radionuclide Imaging, Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted, Retrospective Studies, Osteosarcoma, Reproducibility of Results, Phantoms, Imaging, Radiopharmaceuticals, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Whole Body Imaging, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review