Export citation and abstract BibTeX RIS
In the paragraph: Calculation of the radiation absorbed dose, we wrote:
'the S factor for the liver is 18.1 mGy/MBq for Y90 with a residence time equal to the half-life of Y90 (2.67 days) (Weber et al 1989).'
This should be corrected to read:
'the S factor for the liver is 26 mGy/MBq for Y90 with a residence time equal to the half-life of Y90 (2.67 days) (Weber et al 1989).'
As a consequence of this error, all calculated absorbed doses were underestimated by a factor (1/ln(2) = 1.44). As this correction is a linear transformation of the data, all statistic analyses remain the same, as well as the conclusions of the study.
One sentence in the abstract should be changed.
'The median (95% CI) simulated absorbed dose (Gy) was 20 Gy (1–68 Gy) and 46 Gy (22–110 Gy) in the poor (<50% TLG change) and the good responders (TLG change>50%), respectively.'
This should be corrected to read:
'The median (95% CI) simulated absorbed dose (Gy) was 29 Gy (1–98 Gy) and 66 Gy (32–159 Gy) in the poor (<50% TLG change) and the good responders (TLG change > 50%), respectively.'
In the results section:
'The mean absorbed dose of the normal liver parenchyma was 27 Gy (95% CI: 22–33 Gy)'
should be corrected to:
'The mean absorbed dose of the normal liver parenchyma was 39 Gy (95% CI: 32–48 Gy)'
Hereunder, the corrected tables and figure, where changes have been made:
In table 1 the Sim abs dose (Gy)b data have been changed and are shown in bold:
Table 1.
| N | Mean ± SD | Min | Q1a | Median | Q3a | Max | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline lesion volume (cc) | 39 | 160 ± 266 | 3 | 10 | 41 | 154 | 1329 |
| Baseline mean SUV | 39 | 6.1 ± 1.9 | 1.7 | 5.3 | 5.7 | 6.6 | 16.2 |
| Baseline TLG | 39 | 1.06 ± 169 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.24 | 1.6 | 8.04 |
| Lesion volume post SIRT | 39 | 108.5 ± 169.0 | 0 | 1.49 | 14.66 | 158.56 | 651.29 |
| Mean SUV post SIRT | 39 | 4.6 ± 1.7 | 1.71 | 3.59 | 4.78 | 5.94 | 7.52 |
| TLG post SIRT | 39 | 0.65 ± 1.07 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.09 | 1.1 | 4.71 |
| Simulated Y90 activity | 39 | 929 ± 995 | 33 | 392 | 674 | 1343 | 6047 |
| (kbq ml−1) | |||||||
| MAA uptake ratio | 39 | 1.7 ± 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 5.9 |
| (tumor/normal liver) | |||||||
| Sim abs dose (Gy)b | 39 | 53.4 ± 36 | 1.5 | 27.4 | 49 | 72.1 | 158.7 |
| TLG change (%)c | 39 | 30 ± 78 | −192 | −2 | 48 | 98 | 100 |
a Q1, Q3: first and third quartile of the distribution. b Sim abs D(Gy): simulated absorbed dose, expressed in gray. c TLG: total lesion glycolsis.
In table 3 the Mean sim abs dose (Gy) data have been changed and are shown in bold:
Table 3.
| TLG change <50 (N = 20) | TLG change >50 (N = 19) | p-value (Mann–Whitney) | Area under the ROC curve | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline lesion volume | Mean ± SD | 163 ± 201 | 157 ± 326 | NS | 0.57 |
| Median | 64 | 34 | |||
| (min–max) | (6–553) | (3–1329) | |||
| Baseline mean SUV | Mean ± SD | 6.1 ± 1.3 | 6.1 ± 2.5 | 0.02 | 0.72 |
| Median | 6.4 | 5.5 | |||
| (min–max) | (1.8–7.5) | (4.7–16.2) | |||
| Baseline mean TLG | Mean ± SD | 1.1 ± 1.4 | 0.99 ± 1.98 | NS | 0.58 |
| Median | 0.37 | 0.18 | |||
| (min–max) | (0.01–3.69) | (0.01–8.04) | |||
| Mean sim Y90 | Mean ± SD | 488 ± 392 | 1392 ± 1219 | <0.001 | 0.87 |
| Activity (kbq ml−1) | Median | 421 | 1027 | ||
| (min–max) | (33–1613) | (451–6047) | |||
| Mean sim abs | Mean ± SD | 33.2 ± 24.5 | 75 ± 33.2 | <0.001 | 0.86 |
| Dose (Gy) | Median | 28.9 | 66.4 | ||
| (min–max) | (1.5–98.1) | (31.7–158.7) | |||
| MAA uptake ratio | Mean ± SD | 0.9 ± 0.7 | 2.6 ± 1.6 | <0.001 | 0.87 |
| Median | 0.6 | 2 | |||
| (min–max) | (0.1–2.1) | (0.7–5.9) |
Changes have been made to figure 4:
Figure 4. Regression analysis of the simulated absorbed dose and the metabolic response as assessed by the SIRT induced change of TLG. The original graph was corrected by dividing the x-coordinates by ln(2). Thus, all initially reported calculated absorbed doses were underestimated by a factor 1.44.
Download figure:
Standard image High-resolution image