ライフサイエンスコーパス: absorbed dose

1 that are applied clinically to calculate the 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 ity, leading to a corresponding reduction in absorbed dose.

8 ed activity values which relate to radiation absorbed dose.

9 efficients/residence times and finally organ absorbed doses.

10 the large variations in response for similar absorbed doses.

11 ents and residence times and, finally, organ-absorbed doses.

12 hed the relationship among signal intensity, absorbed dose (0, 1, 2 and 4 kGy) and storage time (0-18

13 The kidneys exhibited the highest absorbed dose, 0.067 mGy/MBq.

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

15 4-EGF because of a 9.3-fold-higher radiation-absorbed dose (55.0 vs. 5.9 Gy, respectively).

16 ET/CT accuracy and precision with reduced CT absorbed dose across sites.

17 or voxel-level dosimetry to determine lesion absorbed dose (AD) metrics, biological effective dose (B

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

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

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

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

22 The relation between tumor-absorbed dose and both tumor-level and patient-level res

23 The linear energy transfer (LET) spectrum, absorbed dose and dose equivalent from secondary particl

24 anistic models of DNA damage and repair with absorbed dose and LET have been published as the Manches

25 The relationship between tumor-absorbed dose and patient- and tumor-level response was

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

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

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

29 ine the relationship between tumor radiation-absorbed dose and survival and tumor response in locally

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

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

32 Absorbed doses and dose rates to blood were derived from

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

34 Measured absorbed doses and effective doses are comparable to oth

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

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

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

38 Mean organ-absorbed doses and effective doses were calculated.

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

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

41 Monte Carlo simulation results for physical absorbed dose, and a first-order biologic model to predi

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

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

44 Absorbed doses are highly localized to CSF and spinal re

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

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

47 interest as it promises the visualization of absorbed doses at a voxel level.

48 rapies, because it promises visualization of absorbed doses at a voxel level.

49 Absorbed doses at the voxel scale were then obtained wit

50 PET, CT, and absorbed dose biases were assessed.

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

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

53 Conclusion: The estimated bone marrow absorbed doses by image-based techniques and the correla

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

55 These include absorbed doses calculated over a variety of spatial scal

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

57 online dosimetric tools and patient-specific absorbed dose calculation software, together with educat

58 The accuracy of absorbed dose calculations in personalized internal radi

59 The absorbed dose calculations relied on sequential SPECT/CT

60 Tumor-absorbed dose calculations were performed for 24 lesions

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

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

63 The absorbed dose coefficients (mGy/kBq) of the tumor and ki

64 Conclusion Higher tumor radiation-absorbed dose computed at technetium 99m macroaggregated

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

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

67 mor dose and was compared with an equivalent absorbed dose delivered via external-beam radiotherapy u

68 Absorbed doses delivered by (90)Y-NM600 per injected act

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

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

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

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

73 me were correlated with the functional liver absorbed doses, determined on (90)Y PET/CT.

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

75 Specifically, one should remember that the absorbed dose distribution is mainly a convolved version

76 ifically, it should be kept in mind that the absorbed dose distribution is mainly a convolved version

77 Based on these activity concentration maps, absorbed dose distributions were calculated with pre-cal

78 basis of these activity concentration maps, absorbed dose distributions were calculated with precalc

79 ney phantom was performed, and the resulting absorbed dose distributions were examined.

80 ney phantom was performed, and the resulting absorbed dose distributions were examined.

81 es might directly translate into unrealistic absorbed dose distributions, thus questioning the reliab

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

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

84 The highest absorbed dose estimates (mGy/MBq) in normal tissues were

85 cokinetics are suitable for PET imaging, and absorbed dose estimates are comparable to those of other

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

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

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

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

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

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

92 ity in a long-term follow-up with individual absorbed dose estimations.

93 16-0.368 MBq/mug, 67 nM) for 18 h versus the absorbed dose followed a linear survival curve with alph

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

95 The average CT absorbed dose for mouse and rat decreased to 37 mGy and

96 Mean projected absorbed doses for (131)I-omburtamab based on (124)I-omb

97 Predicted and true clinical absorbed doses for [(18)F]FDG and [(18)F]AlF-NOTA-OC wer

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

99 The average CT absorbed doses for mouse and rat were 72 mGy and 40 mGy,

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

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

102 The median absorbed doses for tumors, stomach, kidneys, and bone ma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

112 The absorbed doses from the second treatment were correlated

113 40 participants (78%) with a tumor radiation-absorbed dose greater than or equal to 100 Gy and optima

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

115 f preclinical PET/CT protocols, including CT absorbed dose guidelines, is essentially nonexistent.

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

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

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

119 n of the underlying activity and, therefore, absorbed dose in a volume of interest of the expected ob

120 n of the underlying activity and, therefore, absorbed dose in a volume-of-interest of the expected ob

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

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

123 directly from the source dominates the local absorbed dose in the diagnostic X-ray energy range.

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 erapeutic (177)Lu-NM600, which showed larger absorbed doses in the tumor compared to normal tissues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

136 umber elements absorb X-rays and deposit the absorbed dose locally, even doubling (or more) the local

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

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

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

140 The highest organ-absorbed doses (muGy/MBq) after oral (18)F-FDG administr

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

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

143 tments yielded significant differences at an absorbed dose of 10 Gy, both in terms of decreased morta

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

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

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

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

148 y better than for patients with a mean tumor-absorbed dose of less than 90 Gy (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95

149 dministered activity, targeting a mean tumor-absorbed dose of more than 90 Gy and a parenchymal dose

150 Survival for patients with a mean tumor-absorbed dose of more than 90 Gy was significantly bette

151 The absorbed dose of the salivary glands was 0.015 mGy/MBq.

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

153 (177)Lu-NM600 dosimetry showed absorbed doses of 2.04 +/- 0.32 and 1.68 +/- 0.06 Gy/MBq

154 based voxel-level dosimetry resulted in mean absorbed doses of 3.0-6.6 Gy (cortex) and 2.7-5.1 Gy (me

155 In contrast to the calculated nominal absorbed doses of 7.8 and 1.6 Gy (in the cortex and medu

156 In contrast to the calculated nominal absorbed doses of 7.8/1.6 Gy (cortex/medulla), SPECT/CT-

157 105.1 MBq were infused, resulting in average absorbed doses of between 35.5 and 91.9 Gy to the gastri

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

159 , morning and afternoon doses are comparably absorbed, dosing on consecutive days increases PHep and

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

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

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

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

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

165 The absorbed dose per unit administered activity to the bone

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

167 The organs with the highest mean absorbed dose per unit of administered radioactivity wer

168 Average calculated radiation absorbed doses per unit of administered activity for a t

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

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

171 le-body tumor SUV(mean) correlated with mean absorbed dose (r = 0.62), and SUV(max) of the parotids c

172 and SUV(max) of the parotids correlated with absorbed dose (r = 0.67).

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 ic estimations suggested that the insulinoma absorbed dose ranges from 30.3 to 127.8 Gy.

177 based voxel-level dosimetry resulted in mean absorbed doses ranging from 3.0-6.6 Gy (cortex) and 2.7-

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

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

180 The tumor-to-kidney absorbed dose ratio was higher for (203)Pb-L3 (3.2) and

181 ly enhanced tumor uptake and tumor-to-kidney absorbed dose ratio, (177)Lu-HTK03121 and (177)Lu-HTK031

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

183 umin binders to maximize the tumor-to-kidney absorbed dose ratio.

184 2.0-fold improvement in the tumor-to-kidney absorbed dose ratios.

185 High CSF-to-blood absorbed-dose ratios are noted, allowing for an improved

186 The aim of this study was to investigate the absorbed dose-response relationship and its association

187 clusion: These results confirm a significant absorbed dose-response relationship in (166)Ho radioembo

188 The absorbed dose-response relationship was assessed using a

189 This constitutes a robust absorbed dose-response relationship.

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

191 Calculations of the absorbed doses showed that a lower specific activity is

192 For all methods, the bone marrow absorbed dose significantly correlated with decreased pl

193 ry studies estimating the maximum insulinoma absorbed dose that could be achieved without causing rad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

202 e to tumor but only 6.4- and 6.3-fold higher absorbed dose to kidneys, leading to 2.9- and 2.0-fold i

203 Results: Mean absorbed dose to kidneys, submandibular and parotid glan

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

205 Individual differences in absorbed dose to possible microtumors were due to variat

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

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

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

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

210 The mean absorbed dose to the blood was 0.051 +/- 0.11 cGy/MBq fo

211 The mean estimated total absorbed dose to the BM was 0.992 Gy for all patients (r

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

213 dosimetry estimations revealed mean (+/-SD) absorbed dose to the CSF for (131)I-8H9 of 0.62 +/- 0.40

214 The absorbed dose to the kidneys was 1.54 +/- 0.25 mGy/MBq,

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

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

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

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

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

222 TK03123 delivered 18.7- and 12.7-fold higher absorbed dose to tumor but only 6.4- and 6.3-fold higher

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

224 Conclusion: rA1M did not negatively impact absorbed dose to tumor or therapeutic response in combin

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

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

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

228 Absorbed doses to liver and kidneys were slightly but si

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

240 Conclusion: (177)Lu-PSMA-617 delivers high absorbed doses to tumor, with a significant correlation

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

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

243 Mean absorbed doses to tumors and organs were estimated from

244 e analyzed to identify relationships between absorbed dose, tumor burden, and patient physiology.

245 points (Pearson r = 0.78; P < 0.01) and with absorbed dose until 4 h after injection only (Pearson r

246 Tumor-absorbed doses until best response ranged approximately

247 el level were calculated and translated into absorbed dose using voxel S values.

248 By applying PETPVC, the absorbed dose values are separated into 2 peaks.

249 racteristic curve and median tumor radiation-absorbed dose values in the study groups) with those rec

250 ECT/CT imaging blurs the 2 discrete suborgan absorbed dose values into a continuous distribution.

251 /CT imaging blurs the two discrete sub-organ absorbed dose values into a continuous distribution.

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

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

254 Median whole-body tumor-absorbed dose was 11.55 Gy and correlated with prostate-

255 hs, 10.7 months), and median tumor radiation-absorbed dose was 112 Gy (IQR: 68-220 Gy).

256 The median parenchyma-absorbed dose was 37 Gy (range, 12-55 Gy).

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

258 The mean tumor-absorbed dose was 84% higher in patients with complete o

259 sion 5, and its relationship with parenchyma-absorbed dose was assessed using linear models.

260 A 1.0 Gy increase in mean, median, and D(70) absorbed dose was associated with a reduction in tumor v

261 Tumor-absorbed dose was computed using technetium 99m ((99m)Tc

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

263 onse, the threshold for a minimal mean tumor-absorbed dose was determined and its impact on survival

264 Absorbed dose was estimated for each subject using the i

265 Absorbed dose was estimated using 2 methods: independent

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

267 , a significant difference in geometric mean absorbed dose was found between complete response (232 G

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

269 e dose-tumor response group, tumor radiation-absorbed dose was higher in participants with disease co

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

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

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

273 The organ with the highest absorbed dose was the kidney (47.3 +/- 10.2 mGy/100 MBq)

274 An additional set of absorbed doses was calculated after applying PETPVC for

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

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

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

278 nd T-SPECT, the estimated median bone marrow absorbed doses were 0.19, 0.36, 0.40, 0.39, and 0.46 Gy/

279 The mean bone marrow absorbed doses were 3%-69% higher for patients with skel

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

281 The bone marrow absorbed doses were calculated from the cross doses of t

282 Absorbed doses were calculated using OLINDA/EXM 1.0.

283 Absorbed doses were calculated using OLINDA/EXM, version

284 The absorbed doses were corrected for partial-volume effect

285 Absorbed doses were estimated using the activity distrib

286 Absorbed doses were evaluated using OLINDA/EXM, version

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

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

289 In most organs, absorbed doses were higher for (177)Lu-PSMA I&T.

290 en, kidneys, and red marrow, and the highest absorbed doses were in spleen and liver.

291 Intrapatient absorbed doses were significantly correlated between the

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

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

294 The organs with the highest absorbed doses were the urinary bladder wall (0.38 mSv/M

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

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

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

298 uantitative biases in preclinical PET/CT and absorbed doses with default protocols.

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.