MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250448185 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-50788/v1

Influence of dosimetry method on bone lesion absorbed dose estimates in PSMA therapy: application to mCRPC patients receiving Lu-177-PSMA-I&T

2020· preprint· en· W4250448185 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Brosch-Lenz, Carlos Uribe, Astrid Gosewisch, Lena Kaiser, Andrei Todica, Harun Ilhan, Franz Josef Gildehaus, Peter Bartenstein, Arman Rahmim, A. Ćeller, Sibylle Ziegler, Guido Böning

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square (Research Square) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDosimetryAbsorbed doseNuclear medicineMedicineRadionuclide therapyMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) present with an increased tumor burden in the skeleton. For these patients, Lutetium-177 (Lu-177) radioligand therapy targeting the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) has gained increasing interest with promising outcome data. Patient-individualized dosimetry enables quantification of therapy success with the aim of minimizing absorbed dose to organs at risk while maximizing absorbed dose to tumors. Different dosimetric approaches with varying complexity and accuracy exist for this purpose. The relatively simple OLINDA method applied to tumors assumes a homogeneous activity distribution in a sphere with unit density. Voxel S value (VSV) approaches can account for heterogeneous activities but are simulated for a specific tissue. Full patient-individual Monte Carlo (MC) dose simulation addresses both, heterogeneous activity and density distributions. Subsequent CT-based density correction has the potential to overcome the assumption of homogeneous density in OLINDA and VSV methods, which could be a major limitation for the application in bone metastases with heterogeneous density. The aim of this investigation is a comparison of these methods for bone lesion dosimetry in mCRPC patients receiving Lu-177-PSMA therapy. Results In total, 289 bone lesions in 15 mCRPC patients were analyzed. Percentage deviation (PD) of absorbed lesion doses compared to full MC was + 7 ± 13% (min: -60%; max: +47%) for the OLINDA unit density sphere model. With an applied CT-based density weighting to account for density differences in bone lesions, PD was − 15 ± 6% (min: -54%; max: -2%). For a soft tissue VSV approach, large PDs of + 16 ± 13% (min: -56%; max: +57%) were found; after voxel-wise density correction this was reduced to -5 ± 2% (min: -15%; max: -2%). The use of a combination of standard soft tissue and cortical bone VSVs showed deviations of -35 ± 8% (min: -76%; max: +5%). With additional voxel-wise density weighting, the PD was − 3 ± 2% (min: -13%; max: 0%). Conclusion Based on our bone lesion dosimetry results, a VSV approach with subsequent CT-based, voxel-wise density correction enabled dose estimates, that closely replicate computationally-demanding gold-standard full MC dose simulations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square (Research Square)Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207