Cited by 23Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry and ApplicationsAdvanced Radiotherapy TechniquesMedical Imaging Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of Organ Dosimetry for Planning Repeat Treatments of High-Dose 131I-MIBG Therapy: 123I-MIBG Versus Posttherapy 131I-MIBG Imaging

Open access

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate detailed organ-based radiation-absorbed dose for planning double high-dose treatment with I-MIBG. METHODS: In a prospective study, 33 patients with high-risk refractory or recurrent neuroblastoma were treated with high-dose I-MIBG. Organ dosimetry was estimated from the first I-MIBG posttherapy imaging and from subsequent I-MIBG imaging prior to the planned second administration. Three serial whole-body scans were performed per patient 2 to 6 days after I-MIBG therapy (666 MBq/kg or 18 mCi/kg) and approximately 0.5, 24, and 48 hours after the diagnostic I-MIBG dose (370 MBq/kg or 10 mCi/1.73 m). Organ radiation doses were calculated using OLINDA. I-MIBG scan dosimetry estimations were used to predict doses for the second I-MIBG therapy and compared with I-MIBG posttherapy estimates. RESULTS: Mean ± SD whole-body doses from I-MIBG and I-MIBG scans were 0.162 ± 112 and 0.141 ± 0.068 mGy/MBq, respectively. I-MIBG and I-MIBG organ doses were variable-generally higher for I-MIBG-projected doses than those projected using posttherapy I-MIBG scans. Mean ± SD doses to liver, heart wall, and lungs were 0.487 ± 0.28, 0.225 ± 0.20, and 0.40 ± 0.26, respectively, for I-MIBG and 0.885 ± 0.56, 0.618 ± 0.37, and 0.458 ± 0.56, respectively, for I-MIBG. Mean ratio of I-MIBG to I-MIBG estimated radiation dose was 1.81 ± 1.95 for the liver, 2.75 ± 1.84 for the heart, and 1.13 ± 0.93 for the lungs. No unexpected toxicities were noted based on I-MIBG-projected doses and cumulative dose limits of 30, 20, and 15 Gy to liver, kidneys, and lungs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For repeat I-MIBG treatment planning, both I-MIBG and I-MIBG imaging yielded variable organ doses. However, I-MIBG-based dosimetry yielded a more conservative estimate of maximum allowable activity and would be suitable for planning and limiting organ toxicity with repeat high-dose therapies.

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 · 10.1097/rlu.0000000000001752

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • Whole-body absorbed dose has been used effectively as a surrogate for marrow dosimetry in pediatric patients receiving 131I-MIBG, often 3-4 Gy over 2 treatments.

    “whole-body absorbed dose has been used effectively as a surrogate for marrow dosimetry in pediatric patients receiving 131 I-MIBG (often 3 -4 Gy over 2 treatments) ( 91 )”

    From Normal-Tissue Tolerance to Radiopharmaceutical Therapies, the Knowns and the Unknowns (2021) · cites this paper as [91]

    The Background and Discussion describe whole-body dosimetry in planning ¹³¹I-MIBG therapy for pediatric neuroblastoma and report a maximum whole-body absorbed dose of 4 Gy across two administrations. They do not establish that whole-body dose is an effective surrogate for marrow dosimetry; the Discussion instead says earlier studies used whole-body and red-marrow estimates and notes large variation in whole-body methods. The copy also does not give a 3–4 Gy range. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Pandit-Taskar, N., Zanzonico, P., Hilden, P., Ostrovnaya, I., Carrasquillo, J. A., & Modak, S.
Affiliations
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
  • Pandit-Taskar, Neeta
  • Carrasquillo, Jorge A.
Venue
Clinical Nuclear Medicine
Published
2017-10
Volume
42
Issue
10
Pages
741-748
ISSN
0363-9762 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2740168840
Cited by
22
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Nuclear Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P30CA008748)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Radiation › Advanced Radiotherapy Techniques
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Medical Imaging Techniques and Applications
Keywords
organ dosimetry, neuroblastoma, Olinda, radiation dose assessment, liver dose, heart dose, lung dose, radiation toxicity, whole-body scan, refractory neuroblastoma, relapsed neuroblastoma
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Neuroblastoma, Prospective Studies, Radiation Dosage, Radiometry, Radionuclide Imaging, Radiotherapy Dosage, Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted, 3-Iodobenzylguanidine

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