<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Oleksandra v Ivashchenko | Theragnostic Imaging</title>
    <link>https://www.theragnostics.no/en/author/oleksandra-v-ivashchenko/</link>
      <atom:link href="https://www.theragnostics.no/en/author/oleksandra-v-ivashchenko/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description>Oleksandra v Ivashchenko</description>
    <generator>Hugo Blox Builder (https://hugoblox.com)</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    
    
    <item>
      <title>Implementation of dosimetry for molecular radiotherapy; results from a European survey</title>
      <link>https://www.theragnostics.no/en/publications/peters-2024-implementation/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.theragnostics.no/en/publications/peters-2024-implementation/</guid>
      <description>&lt;hr&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The use of molecular radiotherapy (MRT) has been rapidly evolving over the last years. The aim of this study was to assess the current implementation of dosimetry for MRTs in Europe. A web-based questionnaire was open for treating centres between April and June 2022, and focused on 2020-2022. Questions addressed the application of 16 different MRTs, the availability and involvement of medical physicists, software used, quality assurance, as well as the target regions for dosimetry, whether treatment planning and/or verification were performed, and the dosimetric methods used. A total of 173 responses suitable for analysis was received from centres performing MRT, geographically distributed over 27 European countries. Of these, 146 centres (84 %) indicated to perform some form of dosimetry, and 97 % of these centres had a medical physicist available and almost always involved in dosimetry. The most common MRTs were &lt;sup&gt;131&lt;/sup&gt;I-based treatments for thyroid diseases and thyroid cancer, and [&lt;sup&gt;223&lt;/sup&gt;Ra]RaCl&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; for bone metastases. The implementation of dosimetry varied widely between therapies, from almost all centres performing dosimetry-based planning for microsphere treatments to none for some of the less common treatments (like &lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;P sodium-phosphate for myeloproliferative disease and [&lt;sup&gt;89&lt;/sup&gt;Sr]SrCl&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; for bone metastases). Over the last years, implementation of dosimetry, both for pre-therapeutic treatment planning and post-therapy absorbed dose verification, increased for several treatments, especially for microsphere treatments. For other treatments that have moved from research to clinical routine, the use of dosimetry decreased in recent years. However, there are still large differences both across and within countries.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <title>Time-Activity data fitting in molecular Radiotherapy: Methodology and pitfalls</title>
      <link>https://www.theragnostics.no/en/publications/ivashchenko-2024-time-activity/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.theragnostics.no/en/publications/ivashchenko-2024-time-activity/</guid>
      <description>&lt;hr&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Absorbed radiation doses are essential in assessing the effects, e.g. safety and efficacy, of radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT). Patient-specific absorbed dose calculations in the target or the organ at risk require multiple inputs. These include the number of disintegrations in the organ, i.e. the time-integrated activities (TIAs) of the organs, as well as other parameters describing the process of radiation energy deposition in the target tissue (i.e. mean energy per disintegration, radiation dose constants, etc). TIAs are then estimated by incorporating the area under the radiopharmaceutical&amp;rsquo;s time-activity curve (TAC), which can be obtained by quantitative measurements of the biokinetics in the patient (typically based on imaging data such as planar scintigraphy, SPECT/CT, PET/CT, or blood and urine samples). The process of TAC determination/calculation for RPT generally depends on the user, e.g., the chosen number and schedule of measured time points, the selection of the fit function, the error model for the data and the fit algorithm. These decisions can strongly affect the final TIA values and thus the accuracy of calculated absorbed doses. Despite the high clinical importance of the TIA values, there is currently no consensus on processing time-activity data or even a clear understanding of the influence of uncertainties and variations in personalised RPT dosimetry related to user-dependent TAC calculation. As a first step towards minimising site-dependent variability in RPT dosimetry, this work provides an overview of quality assurance and uncertainty management considerations of the TIA estimation.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>
