CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 53Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry and ApplicationsMedical Imaging Techniques and ApplicationsAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Residence Time Estimation Methods for Radioimmunotherapy Dosimetry and Treatment Planning—Monte Carlo Simulation Studies

Open access
He, Bin, Wahl, Richard L., Du, Yong, Sgouros, George, Jacene, Heather, Flinn, Ian, Frey, Eric C.·2008·IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
DOI 10.1109/tmi.2007.908131PMC PMC2588667
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Estimating the residence times in tumor and normal organs is an essential part of treatment planning for radioimmunotherapy (RIT). This estimation is usually done using a conjugate view whole body scan time series and planar processing. This method has logistical and cost advantages compared to 3-D imaging methods such as Single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), but, because it does not provide information about the 3-D distribution of activity, it is difficult to fully compensate for effects such as attenuation and background and overlapping activity. Incomplete compensation for these effects reduces the accuracy of the residence time estimates. In this work we compare residence times estimates obtained using planar methods to those from methods based on quantitative SPECT (QSPECT) reconstructions. We have previously developed QSPECT methods that provide compensation for attenuation, scatter, collimator-detector response, and partial volume effects. In this study we compared the use of residence time estimation methods using QSPECT to planar methods. The evaluation was done using the realistic NCAT phantom with organ time activities that model (111)In ibritumomab tiuxetan. Projection data were obtained using Monte Carlo simulations (MCS) that realistically model the image formation process including penetration and scatter in the collimator-detector system. These projection data were used to evaluate the accuracy of residence time estimation using a time series of QSPECT studies, a single QSPECT study combined with planar scans and the planar scans alone. The errors in the residence time estimates were 3.8%, 15%, and 2%-107% for the QSPECT, hybrid planar/QSPECT, and planar methods, respectively. The quantitative accuracy was worst for pure planar processing and best for pure QSPECT processing. Hybrid planar/QSPECT methods, where a single QSPECT study was combined with a series of planar scans, provided a large and statistically significant improvement in quantitative accuracy for most organs compared to the planar scans alone, even without sophisticated attention to background subtraction or thickness corrections in planar processing. These results indicate that hybrid planar/QSPECT methods are generally superior to pure planar methods and may be an acceptable alternative to performing a time series of QSPECT studies.

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 · 10.1109/tmi.2007.908131

Cites

37 of 37 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?

  • Variability in dose estimates appears to be less in larger organs, while these effects are more impactful on smaller and deeper-situated structures such as tumors.

    “In general, these effects are more impactful on smaller and deeper-situated structures such as tumors, as the variability in dose estimates appears to be less in larger organs ( 14 ).”

    From Normal-Tissue Tolerance to Radiopharmaceutical Therapies, the Knowns and the Unknowns (2021) · cites this paper as [14]

    In III. Results (page unavailable), the paper says a planar method worked relatively well for the large liver, while overlap and background activity remained important for smaller organs. This supports a size-related difference in organ activity-estimation accuracy, but the paper does not establish greater variability in dose estimates for deeper-situated tumors; its evaluation focuses on normal-organ estimates. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. he, 2006, Development and validation of in vivo quantitative imaging methods for targeted radiotherapy treatment planning
  2. tsui, 2002, quantitative in-111 prostascint spect imaging and fusion with anatomical ct images, J Nucl Med, 43, 54
  3. frey, 2006, estimation of post-therapy marrow dose rate in myeloablative y-90 ibritumomab tiuxetan therapy, J Nucl Med, 47, 156
  4. segars, 2001, Development of a new dynamic nurbs-based cardiactorso (NCAT) phantom

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
He, B., Wahl, R. L., Du, Y., Sgouros, G., Jacene, H., Flinn, I., & Frey, E. C.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
ORCID
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging
Publisher
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Published
2008-04
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
521-530
ISSN
  • 0278-0062 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-254X
DOI
10.1109/tmi.2007.908131
PMC
PMC2588667
OpenAlex
W2106865147
Cited by
53
References
37
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01CA109234)
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
radioimmunotherapy, quantitative SPECT, planar scintigraphy, treatment planning, dosimetry, attenuation correction, scatter correction, partial volume effect, NCAT phantom
MeSH terms
Computer Simulation, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Models, Biological, Monte Carlo Method, Radiometry, Radiotherapy Dosage, Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon, Radioimmunotherapy

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