ライフサイエンスコーパス: absorbed dose

1 -0.581 to 0.537 MBq/cm(3) (-28.9 to 26.7 Gy absorbed dose).

2 ors in 8 patients were ascribed a mean tumor-absorbed dose.

3 dosimetry provide a first-order estimate of absorbed dose.

4 with the consequence of underestimating the absorbed dose.

5 mab, with special emphasis on determining RM-absorbed dose.

6 ifferences in structural damage for the same absorbed dose.

7 e genes showed a nonmonotonous dependence on absorbed dose.

8 tered activity and whole-body and red marrow-absorbed dose.

9 t the nanoSPECT/CT system underestimated the absorbed dose.

10 nstead of the conventionally used mean tumor-absorbed dose.

11 the large variations in response for similar absorbed doses.

12 fferentially regulated in each tissue at all absorbed doses.

13 In these 2 patients with a large absorbed dose (112 and 374 Gy), the culprit vessel was i

14 4-EGF because of a 9.3-fold-higher radiation-absorbed dose (55.0 vs. 5.9 Gy, respectively).

15 analyzed to assess the relationship between absorbed dose (AD) of radiation and response after initi

16 of NHL patients, we investigated whether the absorbed dose (AD) to the artery wall in radioimmunother

17 For the known-volume group, average lesion-absorbed dose (AD) values were calculated, whereas for t

18 density, mass, and the shape of the tumor on absorbed dose (AD).

19 The ratio of the average tumor absorbed dose after stimulation by THW compared with sti

20 nteresting relationship was observed between absorbed dose and administered volume, which merits furt

21 We report and discuss measurements of the absorbed dose and dose equivalent from galactic cosmic r

22 At a threshold of 200 cGy, both mean absorbed dose and EUD had a positive predictive value fo

23 The relationship between tumor-absorbed dose and posttreatment metabolic activity was a

24 eliable methods of biodosimetry to determine absorbed dose and required triage.

25 characterize the relationship between tumor-absorbed dose and response after (90)Y radioembolization

26 A linear relationship between the absorbed dose and the intensities of the ESR spectra was

27 a, and a significant correlation between the absorbed dose and tumor reduction was found, with a Pear

28 ults imply a significant correlation between absorbed dose and tumor reduction.

29 tion and estimate the normal-organ radiation-absorbed doses and effective dose from (18)F-CP-18.

30 pproach deviated by at most 4% in both organ-absorbed doses and effective dose.

31 Measured absorbed doses and effective doses are comparable to oth

32 developed for calculating the uncertainty of absorbed doses and effective doses for 7 radiopharmaceut

33 Mean organ-absorbed doses and effective doses were calculated using

34 Mean organ-absorbed doses and effective doses were calculated via q

35 odels and S values, and the uncertainties of absorbed doses and effective doses were calculated.

36 The (self and total) RM- and organ-absorbed doses and effective whole-body radiation dose w

37 cG250 data can be used to accurately predict absorbed doses and myelotoxicity of radioimmunotherapy w

38 rmine the biodistribution, pharmacokinetics, absorbed doses, and safety from 2 sequential weight-base

39 Injection of (18)F-FTC-146 is safe, and absorbed doses are acceptable.

40 Absorbed doses are highly localized to CSF and spinal re

41 ween 97.5th and 2.5th percentiles) for organ-absorbed doses are in the range of 1.1-3.3.

42 BM toxicity was in correlation with the mean absorbed dose as higher depletions at nadir and longer d

43 erformed encompassing a conventional average absorbed dose assessment, a compartmental macrodosimetri

44 and the urinary bladder wall had the highest absorbed dose at 376 +/- 19 muGy/MBq using the 4.8-h bla

45 the urinary bladder wall having the highest absorbed dose at 536 +/- 61 muGy/MBq using a 4.8-h bladd

46 Absorbed doses at the voxel scale were then obtained wit

47 n, the accuracy of the predicted therapeutic absorbed doses, based on diagnostic (111)In-cG250 data,

48 Ab 1-5 h after therapy results in sufficient absorbed doses both to single cells and throughout micro

49 s or may contribute to an unintentional mean absorbed dose burden.

50 ckage insert, we found differences in median absorbed dose by multiples of 24 in the kidneys, 1.8 in

51 m)Tc-MAA SPECT/CT provided good estimates of absorbed doses calculated from posttreatment (90)Y TOF P

52 (26% for the cases studied) as compared with absorbed doses calculated with Monte Carlo, provided tha

53 tumors were used, and mean organ- and tumor-absorbed doses calculated with OEDIPE and OLINDA/EXM wer

54 was determined and the relative influence on absorbed doses calculated.

55 Individualized absorbed dose calculation is essential to optimize the t

56 (DK) methods have been proposed to speed up absorbed dose calculations in molecular radionuclide the

57 The accuracy of absorbed dose calculations in personalized internal radi

58 The absorbed dose calculations relied on sequential SPECT/CT

59 Tumor-absorbed dose calculations were performed for 24 lesions

60 Absorbed dose calculations were performed using a direct

61 proposed and improved the comparison in the absorbed dose calculations when using our voxel S value

62 As input to the absorbed dose calculations, volumes of interest were dra

63 ensity sphere model from OLINDA was used for absorbed dose calculations.

64 tolerance criteria based on either OAR mean absorbed doses (D(mean)) or OAR dose-volume histograms (

65 For each individual voxel, the VD absorbed dose, D(VD), calculated assuming uniform densit

66 ck of adverse myelotoxicity implies that the absorbed dose delivered from the circulating activity ma

67 f radiolabeled antibodies; however, the mean absorbed dose delivered to tumor cells was above 30 Gy,

68 Finally, OEDIPE was used to evaluate the absorbed doses delivered if those activities were inject

69 The range of absorbed doses delivered to the bone surfaces from alpha

70 intestinal toxicity is likely due to the low absorbed doses delivered to the gut wall from the gut co

71 The ranges of absorbed doses delivered to the red marrow were 177-994

72 contributes to a better understanding of the absorbed dose distribution in the fetus.

73 ined on CT at multiple time points to obtain absorbed dose distributions in the presence of tumor def

74 tions were integrated over time to obtain 3D absorbed dose distributions.

75 an influence concentrations in the body, and absorbed doses during a trip can be small compared to ba

76 embolization in a porcine model at different absorbed-dose endpoints.

77 The liver radiation absorbed doses estimated by SPECT, PET, and SPECT-MC wer

78 ologies with appropriate corrections yielded absorbed dose estimates consistent with 3D-RD.

79 (90)Yttrium absorbed dose estimates demonstrated excellent target-to

80 Absorbed dose estimates for all target organs were deter

81 mulation validation was performed to compare absorbed dose estimates for common organs in a preexisti

82 rved with a 15-mL volume, resulting in lower absorbed dose estimates for several intrathecal and noni

83 In the clinical study, mean absorbed dose estimates in liver regions with high absor

84 The radiation absorbed dose estimates were 1.67, 1.36, and 0.32 mGy/MB

85 Absorbed dose estimates were highest (0.3-0.8 mGy/MBq) i

86 could be used as a tool for subject-specific absorbed dose estimation.

87 d 3D algorithms for SPECT reconstruction and absorbed dose estimation.

88 d tumor-absorbed dose summary measures (mean absorbed dose, EUD, and other measures from dose-volume

89 16-0.368 MBq/mug, 67 nM) for 18 h versus the absorbed dose followed a linear survival curve with alph

90 Predosing with lilotomab reduces the RM-absorbed dose for (177)Lu-lilotomab satetraxetan patient

91 n and radiobiologic modeling when estimating absorbed dose for correlation with outcome.

92 Final estimates of absorbed dose for radiopharmaceuticals, for example, wer

93 The median value of mean absorbed dose for stable disease, partial response, and

94 Mean radiation absorbed doses for (111)In- and for (90)Y-ibritumomab ti

95 Additionally, radiation absorbed doses for major tissues of human were calculate

96 Standard S factors can yield mean absorbed doses for normal organs or tumors with a reason

97 Tumor-absorbed doses for patients treated with (177)Lu-lilotom

98 The aim of this work was to compare RM-absorbed doses for the two arms and to correlate absorbe

99 The highest organ-absorbed doses (for 150 MBq injected) were found in the

100 Mean absorbed dose ([Formula: see text]) was evaluated to com

101 The contributions to the absorbed dose from (177m)Lu and secondary (177)Lu were n

102 Data from the literature show that the fetal absorbed dose from (18)F-FDG administration to the pregn

103 d other tissues despite large differences in absorbed dose from (211)At.

104 The organs receiving the highest absorbed dose from the (11)C-nicotine injection were the

105 The contribution to the absorbed dose from the radionuclide impurity of (177m)Lu

106 The absorbed doses from (131)I for the lungs, liver, heart,

107 Prior estimates of radiation-absorbed doses from (82)Rb, a frequently used PET perfus

108 proximation, which allows the calculation of absorbed doses from a single measurement of the abdomina

109 this study, we evaluated the organ radiation absorbed doses from intravenously administered (111)In-

110 The absorbed doses from the second treatment were correlated

111 as observed in patients receiving mean tumor-absorbed doses greater than 200 cGy than in those receiv

112 The estimated mean tumor-absorbed dose had a median value of 275 cGy (range, 94-7

113 interest in voxel-level estimates of tissue-absorbed dose has been driven by the desire to report ra

114 have been explained by citing differences in absorbed-dose heterogeneity at the microscopic level.

115 We investigated microscopic absorbed-dose heterogeneity in radioembolization as a fu

116 t although melanoma were with high radiation absorbed doses, high radioactivity accumulation by liver

117 old: to restate its schema for assessment of absorbed dose in a manner consistent with the needs of b

118 icrospheres demonstrated a rapid decrease in absorbed dose in and around the portal tracts where the

119 tional comparison for tumor and normal organ absorbed dose in patients prepared using both methods is

120 notherapy depends on the distribution of the absorbed dose in relation to viable cancer cells within

121 Tumor response significantly correlated with absorbed dose in target lesions (r = 0.60, 95% CI, 0.41-

122 These were used to calculate the theoretic absorbed dose in the case a (166)Ho scout dose had been

123 ffective dose and 103 +/- 4 muGy/MBq for the absorbed dose in the urinary bladder wall.

124 osited in small tissue volumes, resulting in absorbed doses in excess of 100 Gy.

125 y after a first treatment cycle predicts the absorbed doses in further cycles.

126 cribes the use of tracers for predicting the absorbed doses in molecular radiotherapy and, thus, the

127 For an activity of 250 MBq, the absorbed doses in the bladder, liver, kidney, and spleen

128 Radiation-absorbed doses in the tumor and normal organs were estim

129 The evaluation of radiation absorbed doses in tumorous and healthy tissues is of inc

130 to assess the biologic effects of nonuniform absorbed dose including the effects of the unlabeled ant

131 ssess the biologic effects of the nonuniform absorbed dose, including the cold antibody effect.

132 sity may have an effect on microscopic tumor absorbed-dose inhomogeneity.

133 However, the total absorbed dose is always well below the threshold for non

134 Absorbed dose is expressed in units of joules per kilogr

135 The absorbed dose is highest in the lungs, spleen, kidney, a

136 The absorbed dose is nonuniformly distributed in the fetus a

137 For calculation of the absorbed dose, it is generally assumed that the long-ter

138 We aimed to evaluate the absorbed dose levels required for tumor eradication and

139 ately delineated--displayed the lowest fetal absorbed dose, likely because of more accurate region dr

140 rapy with (90)Y-labeled DOTATATE, the kidney absorbed dose limits the maximum amount of total activit

141 ation of multimodal quantitative imaging and absorbed dose measurements is impeded by the lack of sui

142 Tumor-absorbed dose measures were estimated for 130 tumors in

143 The 5 organs receiving the highest absorbed dose (mGy/MBq) were the kidneys (0.106 +/- 0.03

144 The 5 organs receiving the highest absorbed dose (mGy/MBq), averaged over both men and wome

145 The effective absorbed dose of (11)C-cholylsarcosine was 4.4 muSv/MBq.

146 Mean absorbed dose of (131)I-MIBG to blood was 0.134 cGy/MBq,

147 eived the highest radiation dose with a mean absorbed dose of 0.186 +/- 0.195 mGy/MBq.

148 s the gallbladder, with an average radiation-absorbed dose of 0.394 mSv/MBq.

149 argest tumor reduction was 57% after a total absorbed dose of 170 Gy.

150 be the dose-limiting organ, with an average absorbed dose of 2.01 x 10(-2) mSv/MBq (7.43 x 10(-2) re

151 dose-limiting organ, with an estimated human absorbed dose of 2.20E-01 mSv/MBq.

152 of 200 patients, the kidneys accumulated an absorbed dose of 23 Gy before the bone marrow reached 2

153 Dosimetry calculations showed a tumor-absorbed dose of 43.8 Gy per millicurie injected dose of

154 ould theoretically have resulted in a median absorbed dose of 6.0 Gy (range, 0.9-374 Gy).

155 An inverse relationship between the mass and absorbed dose of the tumor lesions was observed.

156 of this study was to estimate the radiation absorbed doses of (18)F-PBR06 based on biodistribution d

157 irradiation of cashew nut samples at average absorbed doses of 1 kGy and above.

158 bed dose to tumor of 79 Gy without exceeding absorbed doses of 23 Gy to kidneys and 2 Gy to bone marr

159 tients had 13 soft-tissue lesions with tumor-absorbed doses of 26-378 Gy.

160 105.1 MBq were infused, resulting in average absorbed doses of between 35.5 and 91.9 Gy to the gastri

161 ity variability resulted from differences in absorbed doses of the associated energies of the beta-em

162 py outcomes may be explained by the specific absorbed dose (or biologically effective dose), they may

163 Both mean tumor-absorbed dose (P = 0.025) and equivalent biologic effect

164 r-predicted and therapy-delivered mean tumor-absorbed doses (P < 0.001; r = 0.85).

165 the exception of 3 lesions of 1 patient, the absorbed dose per unit administered activity of (131)I w

166 The ratio of mean tumor to bone marrow absorbed dose per unit administered activity of (131)I,

167 The absorbed dose per unit administered activity to the bone

168 The highest mean absorbed dose per unit administered radioactivity (muGy/

169 l fluid (CSF) regions to produce voxel-level absorbed dose per unit cumulated activity maps for 9 sel

170 dy, a framework was developed to incorporate absorbed doses, PK properties, and in vitro dose-respons

171 ic evaluation was performed to determine the absorbed-dose profile within the gastrointestinal wall.

172 administered activity (r = 0.85), whole-body absorbed dose (r = 0.65), and red marrow dose (r = 0.62

173 Mean tumor-absorbed dose ranged from 6 to 22 Gy/GBq during cycle 1.

174 Total RM-absorbed doses ranged from 67 to 127 cGy in arm 1 and fr

175 Absorbed doses ranged from 75 to 794 cGy, with a median

176 Absorbed-dose rate distribution images at the moment of

177 xpression and both the mean activity and the absorbed-dose rate in regions of interest changed from p

178 igen expression and both activity uptake and absorbed-dose rate were calculated for several regions o

179 The THW-to-rhTSH organ absorbed dose ratio averaged over 5 organs for the first

180 A higher tumor-to-kidney absorbed dose ratio might be achieved by optimizing the

181 e tumor-to-dose-limiting-organ (bone marrow) absorbed dose ratio, that is, the therapeutic index, was

182 the response of a given cell depends on the absorbed dose received from radiations emitted by decays

183 Scenarios using predicted absorbed doses resulted in a larger number of bin misass

184 onship between bone marrow (BM) toxicity and absorbed dose seems to be elusive.

185 Of the evaluated tumor-absorbed dose summary measures (mean absorbed dose, EUD,

186 ed to identify dosimetry quantities based on absorbed dose that address deterministic effects relevan

187 To account for the relative effect per unit absorbed dose that has been observed for different types

188 ecreases by an increase in the average tumor-absorbed dose, that is, by increasing the radioembolizat

189 iologic effects to radiation exposure is the absorbed dose, the energy imparted per unit mass of tiss

190 f effective doses are lower in comparison to absorbed doses, the maximum value being approximately 1.

191 curves and residence times were derived and absorbed doses then calculated using the OLINDA software

192 PET/CT in pregnant rhesus monkeys-radiation absorbed dose to a human fetus administered (18)F-FLT.

193 ng to the MIRD committee formalism, the mean absorbed dose to a target is given by the product of the

194 ioactivity is often correlated with the mean absorbed dose to a tissue element.

195 reat thyroid cancer is that which limits the absorbed dose to blood (as a surrogate of marrow) to les

196 The total absorbed dose to blood (DTotal) was the sum of mean whol

197 Absorbed dose to blood, but not to spleen or bone marrow

198 hese values were compared with the estimated absorbed dose to blood, spleen, bone marrow, and tumor a

199 The model was used to calculate the absorbed dose to both anticipated microtumors and critic

200 nuclide and specific activity, calculate the absorbed dose to each cell, and perform a Monte Carlo si

201 thod was used to predict the (90)Y radiation absorbed dose to functional liver tissue (DFL) by calcul

202 Differences in maximum tolerable absorbed dose to normal liver between (90)Y radioemboliz

203 sibly can be predicted by the calculation of absorbed dose to RM from SPECT/CT images.

204 Absorbed dose to the bladder and the effective dose can

205 inear fit from 0 to 2 h as a function of the absorbed dose to the blood agreed with our in vitro cali

206 ent sample was analyzed as a function of the absorbed dose to the blood and compared with an in vitro

207 k (DSB) formation and its correlation to the absorbed dose to the blood in patients with surgically t

208 For a single cycle of 7.4 GBq, the absorbed dose to the bone marrow and the kidney ranged f

209 ata over time was developed to determine the absorbed dose to the bone marrow.

210 e objective of this study was to compare the absorbed dose to the critical organs and tumors determin

211 The absorbed dose to the kidney was calculated from the phar

212 articular unacceptable underestimates of the absorbed dose to the kidneys.

213 lowed kinetic modeling and estimation of the absorbed dose to the kidneys.

214 st a high patient variability in the overall absorbed dose to the normal organs per MBq of (131)I adm

215 The absorbed dose to the pregnant model is less influenced b

216 M2 by incorporating reconstructed radiation absorbed dose to the thyroid.

217 studies show that even when the macroscopic absorbed dose to the tissue element is constant, the res

218 However, the relation between the absorbed dose to the tumor and treatment response has so

219 ed, leading to a significant increase in the absorbed dose to the tumor versus the pancreas (200 pmol

220 tment planning, allowing optimization of the absorbed dose to the tumors.

221 o anticipate the biologically relevant dose (absorbed dose to tissue) in highly perfused organs such

222 Similarly, the absorbed dose to tumor (DT) was predicted by calculation

223 The peak number of foci correlated with the absorbed dose to tumor and bone marrow and the extent of

224 gests that (188)Re-ZHER2:V2 would provide an absorbed dose to tumor of 79 Gy without exceeding absorb

225 IT regimen calibrated to deliver a radiation absorbed dose to tumor of more than 100 Gy would lead to

226 activity, 167 MBq/mouse; estimated radiation absorbed dose to tumor, 110 Gy).

227 NDA/EXM sphere dose calculator to obtain the absorbed dose to tumors.

228 ided a broad framework for assessment of the absorbed dose to whole organs, tissue subregions, voxeli

229 Absorbed doses to blood, marrow, and lymph nodes were es

230 and sex-specific risk factors, we converted absorbed doses to excess risk of cancer incidence and us

231 Absorbed doses to liver and kidneys were slightly but si

232 The relatively small absorbed doses to normal organs allow for the safe admin

233 The relatively small absorbed doses to normal organs allow for the safe injec

234 tissue uptake were determined, and radiation-absorbed doses to normal organs were calculated using OL

235 This study aimed to estimate the radiation absorbed doses to normal tissues and tumor lesions durin

236 study was to investigate biodistribution and absorbed doses to organs at risk.

237 r exhibits a favorable dosimetry, delivering absorbed doses to organs that are lower than those deliv

238 The mean absorbed doses to RM were 0.9 mGy/MBq for arm 1 (lilotom

239 simetry was used to calculate the mean organ-absorbed doses to the 2 pediatric patients.

240 ped to more appropriately estimate radiation absorbed doses to the different structural/functional el

241 For (18)F-FDG, the estimated absorbed doses to the embryo/fetus are 3.05E-02, 2.27E-0

242 The absorbed doses to the liver and gallbladder wall were sl

243 Finally, absorbed doses to the lungs are not the limiting criteri

244 Radiation-absorbed doses to the tumor were 30 and 22 Gy for (177)L

245 Mean estimated organ-absorbed doses to the upper large intestine, small intes

246 T images allowed for the calculation of mean absorbed doses to the whole BM of 2.1 and 3.4 Gy for (18

247 The absorbed doses to total body and tumors obtained when in

248 Radiation absorbed doses to tumor derived from SPECT/CT (102 Gy) a

249 r treatment response and calculate radiation absorbed doses to tumor.

250 Radiation-absorbed doses to tumors and normal tissues were estimat

251 Mean absorbed doses to tumors and organs were estimated from

252 (188)Re-ZHER2:V2 can deliver high absorbed doses to tumors without exceeding kidney and bo

253 The highest mean organ-absorbed doses under stress were as follows: heart wall,

254 Tumor-absorbed doses until best response ranged approximately

255 Median absorbed dose values calculated by this method were comp

256 urther aim was to investigate to what extent absorbed dose values were affected when including these

257 The average 3D-RD absorbed dose values, D(3DRD), were compared with D(VD)

258 on methods curb potentially achievable tumor-absorbed dose values.

259 The mean tumor-absorbed dose was 51 +/- 28 Gy (range, 7-174 Gy).

260 The effective tumor-absorbed dose was conservatively estimated at a minimum

261 r the (11)C-labeled protein, and its overall absorbed dose was considerably lower.

262 Absorbed dose was estimated for each subject using the i

263 Organ activity was determined and absorbed dose was estimated with OLINDA/EXM software.

264 rrelation between the dosage level and tumor-absorbed dose was found.

265 se of the renal excretion of the tracer, the absorbed dose was highest in the urinary bladder wall an

266 The highest (89)Zr-absorbed dose was observed in the liver with 2.60 +/- 0.

267 Tumor-absorbed dose was quantified on (90)Y PET.

268 The highest mean absorbed dose was received by the renal cortex, with 1.9

269 A higher mean tumor-absorbed dose was significantly predictive of improved P

270 The organ receiving the largest mean absorbed dose was the kidneys at 0.066 mSv/MBq (0.24 rem

271 A wide range of interpatient absorbed doses was delivered to normal organs.

272 ormal-organ and lesion uptake, and radiation absorbed dose were estimated, and the effect of mass esc

273 The organs receiving highest absorbed dose were the gallbladder, spleen, stomach, liv

274 Median predicted mean radiation absorbed doses were 106 Gy (95% CI, 105-146 Gy) to tumor

275 Other organ mean absorbed doses were as follows: 2.7 mGy, liver; 2.1 mGy,

276 Differences in mean absorbed doses were as high as 140% when realistic cumul

277 BM mean absorbed doses were calculated according to the MIRD for

278 Absorbed doses were calculated for the whole body, red m

279 Absorbed doses were calculated using OLINDA/EXM 1.1.

280 Absorbed doses were calculated using OLINDA/EXM, version

281 Radiation-absorbed doses were calculated using the MIRD Committee

282 ed dose estimates in liver regions with high absorbed doses were consistently higher for SPECT-MC tha

283 The absorbed doses were corrected for partial-volume effect

284 Radiation absorbed doses were estimated by the MIRD scheme.

285 Absorbed doses were estimated using dose factors from th

286 cally significant differences in soft-tissue absorbed doses were found between the two predosing regi

287 For all treatment levels investigated, the absorbed doses were found to be modest when compared wit

288 Intrapatient absorbed doses were significantly correlated between the

289 Calculated mean absorbed doses were similar for the simulated and measur

290 Radiation absorbed doses were similar to those observed using a be

291 showed that the organs receiving the highest absorbed doses were the liver and heart wall, with media

292 gans receiving the highest mean sex-averaged absorbed doses were the thyroid (0.135 +/- 0.079 mSv/MBq

293 The organs with the highest absorbed doses were the urinary bladder wall (0.62 mSv/M

294 Tumor-absorbed doses were then calculated using the OLINDA sph

295 or predicted values for clearance rates and absorbed doses were used in the PK/PD model to evaluate

296 Hence tumor-absorbed dose, which can be estimated before therapy, ca

297 gnificantly reduces the acquisition time and absorbed dose, which can be of vital importance for many

298 Absorbed doses (whole body and red marrow) based on the

299 y, the model was in good agreement for the 2 absorbed doses with experimental measurements of cell de

300 rbed doses for the two arms and to correlate absorbed doses with hematologic toxicity.