Abstract:This paper presents a systematic analysis of the inherent uncertainty in internal dose calculations for radiopharmaceuticals. A generic equation for internal dose is presented, and the uncertainty in each of the individual terms is analyzed, with the relative uncertainty of all terms compared. The combined uncertainties in most radiopharmaceutical dose estimates will be typically at least a factor of 2 and may be considerably greater. In therapy applications, if patient-individualized absorbed doses are calcul… Show more
“…The combined uncertainties (phantom and biokinetic parameters and variations in the tissueweighting factors over time), in any given radiopharmaceutical dose estimate are typically, at a minimum, a factor of 2 and may be considerably greater, in general, because of normal human variability, and particularly in disease states (Stabin, 2008). The differences observed in the effective doses between the present work and the literature may be attributed to these uncertainties.…”
“…The combined uncertainties (phantom and biokinetic parameters and variations in the tissueweighting factors over time), in any given radiopharmaceutical dose estimate are typically, at a minimum, a factor of 2 and may be considerably greater, in general, because of normal human variability, and particularly in disease states (Stabin, 2008). The differences observed in the effective doses between the present work and the literature may be attributed to these uncertainties.…”
“…For evaluation of the overall uncertainty in a radiation dose estimate, the uncertainty in each of the contributing terms must be considered, as described in a separate recent study (20). The conclusions of the analysis are that internal dose estimates for diagnostic agents are model based, not based on measurements for individual subjects, and carry significant inherent uncertainties.…”
Section: Uncertainties In Internal Dose Calculationsmentioning
The technical basis for the dose estimates for several radiopharmaceuticals used in nuclear cardiology is reviewed, and cases in which uncertainty has been encountered in the dosimetry of an agent are discussed. Also discussed is the issue of uncertainties in radiation dose estimates and how to compare the relative risks of studies. Methods: Radiation dose estimates (organ absorbed doses and effective doses) from different literature sources were directly compared. Typical values for administered activity per study were used to compare doses that are to be expected in clinical applications. Results: The effective doses for all agents varied from 2 to 15 mSv per study, with the lowest values being seen for 13 N-NH 3 and 15 O-H 2 O studies and the highest values being seen for 201 Tl-chloride studies. The effective doses for 99m Tl-labeled agents differed by about a factor of 2, a factor that is comparable to the uncertainty in individual values. This uncertainty results from the application of standard anthropomorphic and biokinetic models, presumably representative of the exposed population, to individual patients. Conclusion: Considerations such as diagnostic accuracy, ease of use, image quality, and patient comfort and convenience should generally dictate the choice of a radiopharmaceutical, with radiation dose being only a secondary or even tertiary consideration. Counseling of nuclear medicine patients who may be concerned about exposure should include a reasonable estimate of the median dose for the type of examination and administered activity of the radiopharmaceutical; in addition, it should be explained that the theoretic risks of the procedure are orders of magnitude lower than the actual benefits of the examination. Providing numeric estimates of risks from studies to individual patients is inappropriate, given the uncertainties in the dose estimates and the limited predictive power of current dose-risk models in the low-dose (i.e., diagnostic) range.
“…However, for all ages, one of the major contributors to uncertainty in dose coefficients is the mass. Biokinetic parameters are smaller contributors, suggesting that careful consideration of the knowledge of the mass, as one of the most prominent contributors, should be used to reduce uncertainties (Brill et al, 2006;Stabin, 2008).…”
-Currently, internal dosimetry evaluations are performed using reference computational phantoms. There are significant discrepancies in the organ absorbed doses regarding the variations in organ mass. In this study, to investigate the effects of changes in the lung mass on the results of internal dosimetry, 98 similar mathematical phantoms were developed, so that the masses of their lungs changed with a Gaussian distribution. The lung was selected as the source. Doses delivered to the organs/tissues for photons with different energy levels, and also per decay of 131 I, were calculated using MCNPX. The results showed that changing the mass of the lung has effects on the dose of the lung, especially for low-energy photons and electrons resulting from the decay of 131 I. According to the statistical distribution in terms of the SAF as a function of the lung mass, the average value of organ SAFs and the coefficient of variations were estimated. The uncertainties of the lung SAF due to the lung mass variation can be described by the coefficient of variation (CV), which changed from 9% to 19%. This occurs for photon energy in the range of 10 to 4000 keV. This figure stands at 18% per decay of 131 I.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.