Investigation of the Importance of Applying Various Methods of Calculation in Determining the Blood-Absorbed Dose for Patients with Differentiated Thyroid Carcinoma.

IF 1 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Journal of nuclear medicine technology Pub Date : 2023-12-05 DOI:10.2967/jnmt.122.265214
Issa A Al-Shakhrah
{"title":"Investigation of the Importance of Applying Various Methods of Calculation in Determining the Blood-Absorbed Dose for Patients with Differentiated Thyroid Carcinoma.","authors":"Issa A Al-Shakhrah","doi":"10.2967/jnmt.122.265214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective was to compare estimated total blood-absorbed doses obtained by applying 4 methods to the same group of patients. In addition, these results were compared with those for the patients of other researchers, who used various other techniques over a period of more than 20 y. <b>Methods:</b> Twenty-seven patients (22 women and 5 men) with differentiated thyroid carcinoma were enrolled in the study. Whole-body measurements were performed as conjugate-view (anterior and posterior) counts by scintillation camera imaging. All patients received 3.7 GBq of <sup>131</sup>I for thyroid ablation. <b>Results:</b> The mean total blood-absorbed doses by the first, second, third, and fourth methods in the 27 patients were estimated to be 0.46 ± 0.12, 0.45 ± 0.13, 0.46 ± 0.19, and 0.62 ± 0.23 Gy, respectively. The maximum values were 1.40, 0.81, 1.04. and 1.33 Gy, respectively. The difference between the mean values was 37.22%. In the comparison with the total blood-absorbed doses for the patients of other researchers, the difference was 50.77% (difference between the means of 0.65 and 0.32 Gy). <b>Conclusion:</b> None of the total absorbed doses to the blood by the 4 methods in my 27 patients was 2 Gy, the maximum permissible dose. The difference between the total absorbed doses to the blood obtained by different teams of researchers was 50.77%, whereas the difference between the values by the 4 different methods in the 27 patients was 37.22%.</p>","PeriodicalId":16548,"journal":{"name":"Journal of nuclear medicine technology","volume":" ","pages":"296-301"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of nuclear medicine technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.122.265214","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The objective was to compare estimated total blood-absorbed doses obtained by applying 4 methods to the same group of patients. In addition, these results were compared with those for the patients of other researchers, who used various other techniques over a period of more than 20 y. Methods: Twenty-seven patients (22 women and 5 men) with differentiated thyroid carcinoma were enrolled in the study. Whole-body measurements were performed as conjugate-view (anterior and posterior) counts by scintillation camera imaging. All patients received 3.7 GBq of 131I for thyroid ablation. Results: The mean total blood-absorbed doses by the first, second, third, and fourth methods in the 27 patients were estimated to be 0.46 ± 0.12, 0.45 ± 0.13, 0.46 ± 0.19, and 0.62 ± 0.23 Gy, respectively. The maximum values were 1.40, 0.81, 1.04. and 1.33 Gy, respectively. The difference between the mean values was 37.22%. In the comparison with the total blood-absorbed doses for the patients of other researchers, the difference was 50.77% (difference between the means of 0.65 and 0.32 Gy). Conclusion: None of the total absorbed doses to the blood by the 4 methods in my 27 patients was 2 Gy, the maximum permissible dose. The difference between the total absorbed doses to the blood obtained by different teams of researchers was 50.77%, whereas the difference between the values by the 4 different methods in the 27 patients was 37.22%.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
应用多种计算方法测定分化型甲状腺癌患者血吸收剂量的重要性探讨。
目的是比较对同一组患者应用4种方法获得的估计总血吸收剂量。此外,这些结果与其他研究人员在超过20年的时间里使用各种其他技术的患者的结果进行了比较。方法:27名分化甲状腺癌患者(22名女性和5名男性)参加了这项研究。全身测量通过闪烁相机成像进行共轭视图(前、后)计数。所有患者均接受3.7 GBq的131I甲状腺消融治疗。结果:27例患者第一、二、三、四种方法的平均总血吸收剂量分别为0.46±0.12、0.45±0.13、0.46±0.19、0.62±0.23 Gy。最大值分别为1.40、0.81、1.04。和1.33 Gy。平均值的差异为37.22%。与其他研究人员的患者总血吸收剂量比较,差异为50.77%(平均值0.65 ~ 0.32 Gy)。结论:27例患者4种方法对血液的总吸收剂量均未达到最大允许剂量2 Gy。不同研究组测定的总血吸收剂量相差50.77%,而27例患者4种不同方法测定的总血吸收剂量相差37.22%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of nuclear medicine technology
Journal of nuclear medicine technology RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
15.40%
发文量
57
期刊最新文献
Amyloid Imaging Update: How the Amyloid Landscape Is Changing in Light of the Recent Food and Drug Administration Approval of Antiamyloid Therapeutics. Brain Imaging-PET: Tau. Decoding the Jargon: Understanding the Nomenclature of Clinical Education. Delivery Methods of Radiopharmaceuticals: Exploring Global Strategies to Minimize Occupational Radiation Exposure. SPECT Views for Cardiac Amyloidosis Imaging.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1