Skip to main content

Table 2 Percentage differences in effective half-life from “original method” (combination trapezoidal/3-point mono-exponential fit)

From: Personalized radiation dosimetry for PRRT—how many scans are really required?

Comparison of estimated half-life nMean % difference from “original method”95% confidence interval for mean % difference2.5–97.5 percentile interval% VOIs with absolute % difference > 10%
4-point mono-exponential fit 0–∞Tumors852.1%− 2.1 − 6.3%− 36.0 − 40.2%28
Kidneys590.5%− 1.4 − 2.3%− 12.8 − 7.6%7
Liver30− 2.9%− 5.5 −  0.2%− 17.1 − 11.4%5
Spleen27− 0.9%− 4.7 − 3.0%− 20.4 − 18.7%5
3-point (2, 3, 4) mono-exponential fit 0–∞Tumors85****
Kidneys59****
Liver30****
Spleen27****
2-point (2, 4) mono-exponential fit 0–∞Tumors850.7%0.2 − 1.3%− 3.9 − 5.4%1
Kidneys590.2%0.1 − 0.6%− 2.1 − 1.4%0
Liver300.5%0.2 − 1.3%− 3.2 − 4.3%0
Spleen270.1%− 0.5 − 0.7%− 2.9 − 3.1%0
2-point (2, 3) mono-exponential fit 0–∞Tumors85− 2.7%− 6.4 − 1.0%− 35.5 − 30.1%33
Kidneys59− 1.7%− 3.8 − 0.4%− 17.0 − 5.8%12
Liver300.9%− 8.8 − 10.6%− 49.3 − 51.1%14
Spleen27− 1.3%− 5.8 − 3.2%− 23.2 − 20.7%9
2-point (3, 4) mono-exponential fit 0–∞Tumors8531.3%10.3 − 52.3%− 154.3 − 216.9%53
Kidneys5910.6%0.7 − 20.6%− 62.2 − 46.3%29
Liver3027.3%0.9 − 53.7%− 109.4 − 164.0%24
Spleen277.8%− 1.0 − 16.6%− 35.3 − 50.9%17
  1. *Note that the 3-point (2, 3, 4) mono-exponential fit 0–∞ is identical to the fit used for the “original method” combined trapezoidal/mono-exponential fit method: hence, half-life is identical