Dosimetry Study of [I-131] and [I-125]-Meta-Iodobenzyl Guanidine in a Simulating Model for Neuroblastoma Metastasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The physical properties of I-131 may be suboptimal for the delivery of therapeutic radiation to bone marrow metastases, which are common in the natural history of neuroblastoma. In vitro and preliminary clinical studies have implied improved efficacy of I-125 relative to I-131 in certain clinical situations, although areas of uncertainty remain regarding intratumoral dosimetry. This prompted our study using human neuroblastoma multicellular spheroids as a model of metastasis. 3D dose calculations were made using voxel-based Medical Internal Radiation Dosimetry (MIRD) and dose-point-kernel (DPK) techniques. Dose distributions for I-131 and I-125 labeled mIBG were calculated for spheroids (metastases) of various sizes from 0.01 cm to 3 cm diameter, and the relative dose delivered to the tumors was compared for the same limiting dose to the bone marrow. Based on the same data, arguments were advanced based upon the principles of tumor control probability (TCP) to emphasize the potential theoretical utility of I-125 over I-131 in specific clinical situations. I-125-mIBG can deliver a higher and more uniform dose to tumors compared to I-131 mIBG without increasing the dose to the bone marrow. Depending on the tumor size and biological half-life, the relative dose to tumors of less than 1 mm diameter can increase several-fold. TCP calculations indicate that tumor control increases with increasing administered activity, and that I-125 is more effective than I-131 for tumor diameters of 0.01 cm or less. This study suggests that I-125-mIBG is dosimetrically superior to I-131-mIBG therapy for small bone marrow metastases from neuroblastoma. It is logical to consider adding I-125-mIBG to I-131-mIBG in multi-modality therapy as these two isotopes could be complementary in terms of their cumulative dosimetry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".