Abstract
Dosimetry is Radionuclide Therapy which is a topic often and sometimes even passionately debated among scientists. It revolves around the question whether dosimetry calculations are useful or even necessary and if the calculated values have any clinical significance or advantage for the patient.
This article aims to give answers to these questions by systematically reviewing the different aspects of Radionuclide Therapy. First, the most important radionuclides, carrier molecules, and corresponding imaging techniques used in diagnosis and therapy are discussed in the ways they can be combined for theragnostic approaches. Furthermore, the different forms of dosimetry and their levels of detail are outlined including a precis on the physical and radiobiological dose quantities found in literature.
Moving forward the evidence for dose-effect relationships is presented, i.e., quantifiable tissue responses as a function of the calculated radiation dose. This includes radiotoxicities of normal, healthy organs which cause an upper limit of the administered activity and are controlled very well. In the case of the kidney the toxicity by Radionuclide Therapy was successfully described via radiobiologic models.
Regarding the dose-response of malignant tissue the data is not as comprehensive as in external beam radiotherapy; however, the few studies clearly indicate the existence of a mathematical relation for the mean absorbed dose as well as for more complex dose quantities.
Finally, the results are discussed in the context of personalized medicine where the benefits and limits of dosimetry in Radionuclide Therapy are presented.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
6.1 The Gretchenfrage
How is it now with thy religion, say?
I know thou art a dear good man,
But fear thy thoughts do not run much that way.
Faust; a Tragedy. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
The lines above are uttered by Gretchen (diminutive of the given name Margarete) in Faust, Part one, the most known work of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who is considered by many the greatest German poet of all time. Gretchen’s question (the “Gretchenfrage” in German) became a dictum for any issue which is both crucial as well as delicate. Gretchen, an innocent and faithful character asks Dr. Faust about his piety, with the respondent being secretly in league with the devil. Answering puts him in a dilemma. Honesty most probably would make his love interest leave and deceit always is the cornerstone of downfall and tragedy, so Faust evades the question. Ironically enough, he must have some kind of religious faith, since it would not make any sense for a categorical atheist to bond with a godlike, though sinister entity as Mephistopheles.
What does this have to do with dosimetry in Radionuclide Therapy, except the obvious geographical analogy, i.e., the cultural center Weimar as domain of Goethe and Schiller and the nearby Zentralklinik in Bad Berka as the scientific spearhead in the diagnosis and treatment with unsealed, radiolabeled compounds? Just like the Gretchenfrage, the question about the necessity, usefulness, and accuracy of dosimetry calculations in Radionuclide Therapy is both crucial as well as delicate. Crucial, because Radionuclide Therapy has proved its effectiveness in many studies and with regard to different nuclides [1,2,3,4,5]. Moreover, there is no doubt that the reduction of tumor mass stems from the effects of ionizing radiation on malignant cells rather than any other property of the radiolabeled compound.
And yet, in the field of Radionuclide Therapy, this radiobiological knowledge, developed and ensured by decades of radiation research, somehow cannot be transformed smoothly to an elegant correlation function with the calculated, absorbed radiation dose on one side, and the reduction of metastatic tissue on the other. This is the delicate aspect when it comes to dosimetry calculations in Radionuclide Therapy and not uncommonly physicians and medical physicists are tempted, just as Dr. Faust, to evade the question about its necessity, usefulness and accuracy, as well as the associated effort. An ongoing debate among scientists on the value of dosimetry beyond the preclinical phase of radiopharmaceutical development, such as the clinical implementation of personalized, image-based dosimetry, has been held in conferences and journals for years [6,7,8,9]. The purpose of this article is to give a structured and unbiased overview on the issue of dosimetry in Radionuclide Therapy, in the hope to spare the reader from Faust’s lament:
And here, at last, I stand, poor fool!
As wise as when I entered school;
6.2 The Forms of Dosimetry in a Nutshell
The basis for all dosimetry in Nuclear Medicine is of course the MIRD (Medical Internal Radiation Dose) methodology. This article refrains from unrolling the mathematical and physical details, since there is plenty of excellent literature doing this, with [10] and [11] being just two examples.
Quantitative molecular imaging such as planar scintigraphy, SPECT/CT, and PET/CT is used to get hold of the tracer’s bio-distribution within the patient whereas the radiation transport and the resulting dose deposition pattern solely depends on the radionuclide’s emission spectrum and the geometry, i.e., the anatomy. The latter can be represented by phantoms, i.e., computational body models that have developed from being composed of simple geometric forms [12, 13] to the voxel-based ICRP (International Commission on Radiological Protection) reference phantoms [14]. Among the software packages that include these necessary data matrices were the original MIRDOSE [15] which then became OLINDA/EXM [16], as well as IDAC [17]. All the above offer so-called organ dosimetry, i.e., they calculate the mean absorbed radiation dose (AD) to an organ with both, the activity distribution in the source organ as well as the AD in the target organ being homogenously distributed over the organ’s volume, with the option for adjustment to the weight of the patients’ organs. In this simplified form of dosimetry, the AD to lesions can be approximated by the geometrical assumption of the lesion being a sphere (aka spherical model) [17].
Phantom-based organ dosimetry, as described in the last paragraph, is the most widely applied form of dosimetry. However, it is certainly not the most sophisticated form of personalized medicine. For this one needs to perform three-dimensional (3D), voxel-based dosimetry [18], where neither the source nor the target is represented by an a-priory phantom geometry, but by the patients’ imaging data, i.e., PET/CT or SPECT/CT. There the heterogenous activity distribution is given by sequential, nuclear scans and the likewise heterogenous dose distribution is calculated on the voxel base (see Fig. 6.1) by means of Monte Carlo simulations [20] or some forms of convolutions with dose kernels [21,22,23,24]. Naturally this form of dosimetry is both, much more complex as well as prone to errors and only a few commercial software packages offer a workflow for it.
The expression theragnostics (also spelled theranostics) is a fusion of the word therapy and diagnosis. In nuclear medicine, this term describes the use of one or multiple tracers to either predict the absorbed dose in the course of treatment planning and with the help of a diagnostic scan, or to calculate dosimetry via accompanying imaging during therapy. Thereby, often pairs of radionuclides are used that either are isotopes of the same element or can be labeled to the same carrier molecule, thus assuming the biokinetics to be identical. Table 6.1 gives a short overview of the most common radionuclides used in theranostics. Both, phantom based as well as individual voxel-based dosimetry, can be used for thernostics and the following sections shall give you a review of the respective studies.
6.3 Dose Quantities and Dose-Response in EBRT
In very general terms natural sciences is all about finding the right quantity to describe or model the phenomena observed. The basic quantity in radiation dosimetry is the mean absorbed dose (AD), which equals the energy deposited by ionizing radiation per unit mass of an anatomic structure (e.g., organ, tumor). This quantity is averaged for the mass and the irradiation time. In external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) multiple studies have demonstrated dose-response relationships between the lesions’ AD and its response to the therapy, i.e., its shrinkage, often in the form of a sigmoidal dose-response curve [40, 41], as depicted in Fig. 6.2. When radiation oncologists perform treatment planning in EBRT they not only use the AD, but also other dosimetric concepts, such as dose volume histograms (DVH), the equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions (EQD2) [43], or the biologic effective dose (BED). The latter takes into account the differences in dose rate, the repair half-time for sublethal tissue damage, the average doubling time for tumor clonogenic cells, as well as the assumed intrinsic radiosensitivity which is based on the linear-quadratic model [10, 44,45,46].
Just as for the AD, dose-response curves can be found in EBRT with respect to the BED [42]. When pondering about the dose-response relationship of tumor tissue, the unofficial supreme discipline of radiation oncology, one may not forget the dose-response relationships of healthy tissue, i.e., radiotoxicities, which is equally important for the patients’ wellbeing. Here too, EBRT [47] as well as brachytherapy [43] have produced a remarkable evidence base.
Finally, the equivalent uniform (biological effective) dose (EUD) models the impact of the spatial dose distribution on the response [48]. The BED of each voxel is used to generate an EUD value for a specified volume (e.g., organ, tumor). Mathematically, in the case of dose nonuniformity the value of the EUD is always lower than the AD, which is why some studies suggested the EUD to be a better predictor of tumor response [19, 48,49,50]. Other quantities derived from voxel-based dosimetry include threshold approaches such as, e.g., D70 (the minimum dose to 70% of the voxels constituting the tumor volume) which in one study reliably predicted response or local failure in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with 90Y resin microspheres [51]. Yet another study on this particular therapeutic field showed that the coverage of a lesion in terms of the DVH is much more predictive for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) than the mean absorbed dose [52].
6.4 Dose-Response I: Radiotoxicities in Radionuclide Therapy
The concept of BED was implemented in a multiregional kidney dosimetry model in MIRD Pamphlet No. 20 [46].
Bodei et al. [53] used this model and retrospective patient data to calculate a threshold for kidney toxicity at a BED of 40 Gy in patients without risk factors. Given the normally accepted tolerable dose for healthy kidneys of 23 Gy as known from EBRT [54], this value can now be exceeded since, e.g., the threshold BED of 40 Gy for 177Lu-DOTATATE corresponds to an AD of 28 Gy. If fractionation is taken into account, i.e., multiple therapy cycles of radionuclide therapy, this value can even be increased to 35 Gy, thereby also increasing the potential dose to malignant tissue and demonstrating the practical value of dosimetry in radionuclide therapy, where the kidney is always the organ with the highest radiation burden.
Nevertheless, renal impairment is by far means not the only dose-effect of healthy tissue. For a comprehensive review it is referred to the formidable meta-analysis of Strigari and co-workers [55], who found 79 studies investigating dosimetry, of which 48 studies found an absorbed dose-effect correlation. Apart from renal toxicity, radiotoxicities due to radionuclide therapy mainly affect blood, marrow, and liver as listed in Table 6.2. A closer look reveals that liver toxicity only occurs in selective internal radionuclide therapy (SIRT), a treatment modality explicitly used to irradiate liver malignancies, thus explaining its high radiation burden. In researching the published literature on 177Lu-PSMA therapy of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, which became the rising star in radionuclide therapy within the last years, toxicities regarding kidney, blood and salivary gland were found to be minimal [3].
Altogether it can be said that dosimetry did a fine job in quantifying possible radiotoxicities, calculating threshold doses, and establishing safety protocols, in some cases with the help of more sophisticated, radiobiological dose models as for the kidneys [46, 53], thereby making it possible to keep damage to healthy tissue in check and developing radionuclide therapy toward a cancer treatment modality with relatively mild side effects.
6.5 Dose-Response II: Tumor Response in Radionuclide Therapy
As alluded above, data from studies becomes sparse when the focus is on the dose-response of lesions, i.e., if one wants to correlate the tumor control with the radiation dose in the form of a dose-response curve as in Fig. 6.2. Table 6.2 gives an overview and concentrates on studies that actually reported dose-response curves, rather than mere threshold doses.
Pioneering work on this field includes the study of Koral and co-workers, who produced a sigmoidal curve relating AD and tumor volume for untreated patients suffering from low-grade follicular lymphoma and receiving 131I-tositumomab [64]. Another work often cited is from Pauwels et al., who presented the first correlation between AD and tumor reduction for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NET), treated with 90Y-DOTATOC [32]. The most relevant study for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) however is a recent one by Ilan et al. [65] where the correlation between AD and tumor volume reduction of patients treated with 177Lu-DOTATATE yielded Pearson coefficients R2 never seen before, with 0.64 for tumors of diameter >2.2 cm and 0.91 (!) for tumors of diameter >4 cm (Fig. 6.3). Furthermore, Dewajara et al. [49] demonstrated a correlation between tumor reduction and EUD for refractory B-cell lymphoma treated with 131I-tositumomab, albeit with rather low correlation coefficients (see Table 6.3).
When studying the results of Table 6.3 one should not forget all studies, that didn’t report a dose-response relationship for lesions in radionuclide therapy. Substitutionally, two examples are given here: Jahn et al. [66] were unable to relate tumor shrinkage or biochemical response to the AD for small intestinal NET. Similarly, Barna et al. [67] looked into the dose-effect relationships in 177Lu-PSMA I&T radionuclide therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer by investigating 217 possible correlations between dosimetric quantities, biomarkers, and tumor shrinkage and only found 37 of them to be statically significant, none of them related to tumor reduction. For the sake of completeness, it has to be added that this study relied on planar scintigraphy rather than SPECT/CT.
In discussing the correlation between radiation dose and tumor reduction one should not forget the circumstances of radionuclide therapy, in particular the quantity and availability of data which of course has a huge impact on the likelihood to observe certain phenomena. Table 6.3 illustrates this issue by the fact that only one study actually performed voxel-based, patient-specific dosimetry [49] which inevitably is necessary for the calculation of a voxel-based quantity such as the EUD. This way the question remains whether the EUD is not reported more frequently because (a) the associated prediction of tumor response is poor or (b) simply because of the lack of studies that take the trouble and effort to perform this more complex and laborious form of dose calculations.
Likewise, when comparing the number of cases in EBRT with the ones in Radionuclide Therapy, it is not realistic to expect the same degree of consolidation regarding dose-response relationships for tumor tissue. Moreover, patients undergoing radionuclide therapy almost always had several previous treatments, like hormonal therapy and/or chemotherapy, all of which affect the immune system as well as the individual state of health and subsequently also the tumor response. Certainly, the radio-oncologic lessons learned from EBRT cannot be extrapolated straightforward to Radionuclide Therapy, which in its application form rather resembles a systemic therapy than a local one.
6.6 The Answer to the Gretchenfrage
Facing the load of scientific studies cited above we return to the beginning, the Gretchenfrage:
How do we feel about dosimetry in Radionuclide Therapy?
In the scientific context one might reformulate it to:
What is the benefit of dosimetry in Radionuclide Therapy?
The term benefit in this discussion shall not only relate to scientific exploration, i.e., the investigation of dose-response relationships, but also to advantages for the individual patient and the clinical workflow. In EBRT the often-used keyword “Personalized Medicine” is realized by tailoring the spatial dose distribution to the individual case by means of several, adjustable parameters, such as angular distribution, frequency, and intensity modulation. Radionuclide Therapy is far away from this luxury and basically only has one adjusting screw, the administered activity. Here, personalized medicine implies the tailoring of the injected activity for the individual patient in a way, that malignant tissues receive the highest possible dose without the occurrence of radiotoxicities, thus avoiding under- as well as overtreatment.
Dosimetry calculations can do exactly that and in case of the combinations 124I/131I as well as 111In/86Y/90Y enable an a-priory treatment planning. The diagnostic scan yields the tracer’s biokinetics and uptake in lesions which are then used in the computation and prediction of the dose distribution of the therapeutic nuclide [19, 25,26,27, 31,32,33,34, 48]. In doing this, either phantom-based dose calculations including the spherical model for lesions or voxel-based dosimetry based on patient-specific imaging data can be applied. Both procedures, in smaller or greater detail, provide the possibility of tailoring the administered activity for the sake of the best, individualized treatment. Reminding Table 6.3, voxel-based dosimetry does not necessarily produce a higher correlation coefficient. A voxel also constitutes a finite volume and there is no guarantee that it provides the absorbed dose at the biologically relevant scale, since dosimetry at a microscopic level remains inaccessible [9]. Nonetheless, it has to be kept in mind that the a-priory knowledge of the dose to malignant tissue in combination with published threshold doses for tumor response [55] and/or dose-response curves as in Table 6.3 enable the assessment of the expected course of the disease and therefore allow for prospective treatment planning.
This ideal scenario does of course not work for all forms of radionuclide therapy as outlined in Table 6.1. 68Ga-PET/CT scans may be feasible for the correlation of lesions’ SUV in PET with the absorbed dose from the later therapy or for the selection of appropriate candidates for PRRT (see [8] for a review), but cannot be used for a real dose calculation due to the short half-life of 68Ga which is unable to produce the necessary biokinetics of the later phase. Still, dosimetry based on the accompanying 177Lu scans is very useful, since the evaluation of the calculated organ and lesion doses of a cycle provides the necessary information to adjust the administered activity for all futures cycles and therewith enable a patient-specific optimization of radionuclide therapy. The incorporation of multiple cycles into the BED concept for kidney toxicity [53] is a good example for the value of optimization.
There is of course no guarantee that subsequent cycles will show the same relation between administered activity and absorbed dose, since uptake and biokinetics of irritated tissue, in particular lesions, will vary. Both, studies showing big differences [68] as well as minimal ones [69, 70], can be found in the literature. Another important result reported by Garkavij et al. [69] is that patients evaluated with planar-based dosimetry may have been undertreated compared to other methods. This is confirmed by Zechman et al. [71] who showed in their review that the absorbed doses to the kidneys are systematically overestimated when using planar imaging.
Last but not least, in order to systematically investigate dosimetry in Radionuclide Therapy and dose-response effects, one has to do dosimetric studies. Solid and quantitative data which has way higher R2 than in Table 6.3 are a prerequisite for personalized medicine and subsequently for the patient’s welfare. Dosimetry might not be the only predictor for this, but certainly is an essential one. It’s neither a magic flute nor will it generically explain all the effects in Radionuclide Therapy. But it can be used for personalized treatment planning as well as optimization, and it is getting better and more accurate with every new study performed.
Dr. Faust, in his despair to gain knowledge, even gives in to magic. Luckily as scientist we can rely on reason and evidence to face the same challenge:
That I may know what the world contains
In its innermost heart and finer veins.
Faust; a Tragedy. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
References
Kulkarni HR, Singh A, Schuchardt C, Niepsch K, Sayeg M, Leshch Y, et al. PSMA-based radioligand therapy for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: the bad Berka experience since 2013. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(3):97S–104S. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27694180.
Baum RP, Kulkarni HR. Theranostics: from molecular imaging using Ga-68 labeled tracers and PET/CT to personalized radionuclide therapy - the bad Berka experience. Theranostics. 2012;2:437–47.
Baum RP, Kulkarni HR, Schuchardt C, Singh A, Wirtz M, Wiessalla S, et al. 177Lu-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen radioligand therapy of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: safety and efficacy. J Nucl Med. 2016;57(7):1006–13.
Riley AS, McKenzie GAG, Green V, Schettino G, England RJA, Greenman J. The effect of radioiodine treatment on the diseased thyroid gland. Int J Radiat Biol. 2019;95(12):1718–27.
Goldsmith SJ. Targeted radionuclide therapy: a historical and personal review. Semin Nucl Med. 2019;50(1):87–97.
Brans B, Bodei L, Giammarile F, Linden O, Luster M, Oyen WJG, et al. Clinical radionuclide therapy dosimetry: the quest for the “Holy Gray”. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34(5):772–86. Available from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1914264&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.
Flux G, Bardies M, Chiesa C, Monsieurs M, Savolainen S, Strand S-E, et al. Clinical radionuclide therapy dosimetry: the quest for the “Holy Gray”. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007;34(10):1699–700. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17565497.
Blaickner M, Baum RP. Relevance of PET for pretherapeutic prediction of doses in peptide receptor radionuclide therapy. PET Clin. 2014;9(1):99–112.
Chiesa C, Bardiès M, Zaidi H. Voxel-based dosimetry is superior to mean absorbed dose approach for establishing dose-effect relationship in targeted radionuclide therapy. Med Phys. 2019;46(12):5403–6.
Eberlein U, Cremonesi M, Lassmann M. Individualized dosimetry for theranostics: necessary, nice to have, or counterproductive? J Nucl Med. 2017;58(2):97S–103S.
Bolch WE, Eckerman KF, Sgouros G, Thomas SR. MIRD pamphlet No. 21: a generalized schema for radiopharmaceutical dosimetry–standardization of nomenclature. J Nucl Med. 2009;50(3):477–84. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19258258.
Snyder WS, Fisher HL, Ford MR, Warner GG. Estimates of absorbed fractions for monoenergetic photon sources uniformly distributed in various organs of a heterogeneous phantom. J Nucl Med. 1969;3:7–52.
Blaickner M, Kindl P. Diversification of existing reference phantoms in nuclear medicine: calculation of specific absorbed fractions for 21 mathematical phantoms and validation through dose estimates resulting from the administration of18F-FDG. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2008;23(6):767–82.
Menzel H, Clement C, DeLuca PM. ICRP Publication 110. Realistic reference phantoms: an ICRP/ICRU joint effort. A report of adult reference computational phantoms. 2009.
Stabin MG. MIRDOSE: personal computer software for internal dose assessment in nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med. 1996;37(3):538–46.
Stabin MG, Sparks RB, Crowe E. OLINDA/EXM: the second-generation personal computer software for internal dose assessment in nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(6):1023–7. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15937315.
Andersson M, Johansson L, Eckerman K, Mattsson S. IDAC-Dose 2.1, an internal dosimetry program for diagnostic nuclear medicine based on the ICRP adult reference voxel phantoms. EJNMMI Res. 2017;7(1):88. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29098485.
Flux G, Bardies M, Monsieurs M, Savolainen S, Strands S-E, Lassmann M. The impact of PET and SPECT on dosimetry for targeted radionuclide therapy. Z Med Phys. 2006;16(1):47–59. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16696370.
Sgouros G, Hobbs RF, Atkins FB, Van Nostrand D, Ladenson PW, Wahl RL. Three-dimensional radiobiological dosimetry (3D-RD) with 124I PET for 131I therapy of thyroid cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(1):41–7. Available from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3172686&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.
Villoing D, Marcatili S, Garcia MP, Bardiès M. Internal dosimetry with the Monte Carlo code GATE: Validation using the ICRP/ICRU female reference computational model. Phys Med Biol. 2017;62(5):1885–904.
Reiner D, Blaickner M, Rattay F. Discrete beta dose kernel matrices for nuclides applied in targeted radionuclide therapy (TRT) calculated with MCNP5. Med Phys. 2009;36(11):4890–6.
Dieudonné A, Hobbs RF, Bolch WE, Sgouros G, Gardin I. Fine-resolution voxel S values for constructing absorbed dose distributions at variable voxel size. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(10):1600–7. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20847175.
Amato E, Minutoli F, Pacilio M, Campenni A, Baldari S. An analytical method for computing voxel S values for electrons and photons. Med Phys. 2012;39(11):6808–17. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23127074.
Lanconelli N, Pacilio M, Lo Meo S, Botta F, Di Dia A, Aroche AT, et al. A free database of radionuclide voxel S values for the dosimetry of nonuniform activity distributions. Phys Med Biol. 2012;57(2):517–33. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22217735.
Lassmann M, Reiners C, Luster M. Dosimetry and thyroid cancer: the individual dosage of radioiodine. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2010;17(3):161–72. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20448022.
Luster M, Clarke SE, Dietlein M, Lassmann M, Lind P, Oyen WJG, et al. Guidelines for radioiodine therapy of differentiated thyroid cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35:1941–59.
Sgouros G, Kolbert KS, Sheikh A, Pentlow KS, Mun EF, Barth A, et al. Patient-specific dosimetry for 131I thyroid cancer therapy using 124I PET and 3-dimensional-internal dosimetry (3D-ID) software. J Nucl Med. 2004;45(8):1366–72. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15299063.
Bodei L, Mueller-Brand J, Baum RP, Pavel ME, Hörsch D, O’Dorisio MS, et al. The joint IAEA, EANM, and SNMMI practical guidance on peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRNT) in neuroendocrine tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(5):800–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-012-2330-6.
Cremonesi M, Ferrari ME, Bodei L, Chiesa C, Sarnelli A, Garibaldi C, et al. Correlation of dose with toxicity and tumour response to 90 Y- and 177 Lu-PRRT provides the basis for optimization through individualized treatment planning. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(13):2426–41.
Okamoto S, Thieme A, Allmann J, D’Alessandria C, Maurer T, Retz M, et al. Radiation dosimetry for 177 Lu-PSMA I&T in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: absorbed dose in normal organs and tumor lesions. J Nucl Med. 2017;58(3):445–50.
Cremonesi M, Botta F, Di Dia A, Ferrari M, Bodei L, De Cicco C, et al. Dosimetry for treatment with radiolabelled somatostatin analogues. A review. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;54:37–51.
Pauwels S, Barone R, Walrand S, Borson-Chazot F, Valkema R, Kvols LK, et al. Practical dosimetry of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with (90)Y-labeled somatostatin analogs. J Nucl Med. 2005;46(1):92–8. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15653657.
Helisch A, Förster GJ, Reber H, Buchholz H-G, Arnold R, Göke B, et al. Pre-therapeutic dosimetry and biodistribution of 86Y-DOTA-Phe1-Tyr3-octreotide versus 111In-pentetreotide in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2004;31(10):1386–92. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15175836.
Förster GJ, Engelbach MJ, Brockmann JJ, Reber HJ, Buchholz HG, Mäcke HR, et al. Preliminary data on biodistribution and dosimetry for therapy planning of somatostatin receptor positive tumours: comparison of (86)Y-DOTATOC and (111)In-DTPA-octreotide. Eur J Nucl Med. 2001;28(12):1743–50. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11734910.
Fabbri C, Sarti G, Cremonesi M, Ferrari M, Di Dia A, Agostini M, et al. Quantitative analysis of 90Y Bremsstrahlung SPECT-CT images for application to 3D patient-specific dosimetry. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2009;24(1):145–54. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19243257.
Potrebko PS, Shridhar R, Biagioli MC, Sensakovic WF, Andl G, Poleszczuk J, et al. SPECT/CT image-based dosimetry for Yttrium-90 radionuclide therapy: application to treatment response. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2018;19(5):435–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/acm2.12400.
Lhommel R, van Elmbt L, Goffette P, Van den Eynde M, Jamar F, Pauwels S, et al. Feasibility of 90Y TOF PET-based dosimetry in liver metastasis therapy using SIR-Spheres. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(9):1654–62. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20422185.
D’Arienzo M, Chiaramida P, Chiacchiararelli L, Coniglio A, Cianni R, Salvatori R, et al. 90Y PET-based dosimetry after selective internal radiotherapy treatments. Nucl Med Commun. 2012;33(6):633–40. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22407156.
Ho CL, Chen S, Cheung SK, Leung YL, Cheng KC, Wong KN, et al. Radioembolization with 90Y glass microspheres for hepatocellular carcinoma: significance of pretreatment 11C-acetate and 18F-FDG PET/CT and posttreatment 90Y PET/CT in individualized dose prescription. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45(12):2110–21. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29948107.
King CR. The dose–response of salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiother Oncol. 2016;121(2):199–203.
Kim HJ, Suh YG, Lee YC, Lee SK, Shin SK, Cho BC, et al. Dose-response relationship between radiation dose and loco-regional control in patients with stage II-III esophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy. Cancer Res Treat. 2017;49(3):669–77.
Wulf J, Baier K, Mueller G, Flentje MP. Dose-response in stereotactic irradiation of lung tumors. Radiother Oncol. 2005;77(1):83–7. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16209896.
Georg P, Pötter R, Georg D, Lang S, Dimopoulos JCA, Sturdza AE, et al. Dose effect relationship for late side effects of the rectum and urinary bladder in magnetic resonance image-guided adaptive cervix cancer brachytherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82(2):653–7. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21345618.
Dale R, Carabe-Fernandez A. The radiobiology of conventional radiotherapy and its application to radionuclide therapy. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2005;20:47–51.
Baechler S, Hobbs RF, Prideaux AR, Wahl RL, Sgouros G. Extension of the biological effective dose to the MIRD schema and possible implications in radionuclide therapy dosimetry. Med Phys. 2008;35(3):1123–34. Available from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2974633&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.
Wessels BW, Konijnenberg MW, Dale RG, Breitz HB, Cremonesi M, Meredith RF, et al. MIRD pamphlet No. 20: the effect of model assumptions on kidney dosimetry and response–implications for radionuclide therapy. J Nucl Med. 2008;49(11):1884–99. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18927342.
Dunavoelgyi R, Dieckmann K, Gleiss A, Sacu S, Kircher K, Georgopoulos M, et al. Radiogenic side effects after hypofractionated stereotactic photon radiotherapy of choroidal melanoma in 212 patients treated between 1997 and 2007. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83(1):121–8. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21945109.
Prideaux AR, Song H, Hobbs RF, He B, Frey EC, Ladenson PW, et al. Three-dimensional radiobiologic dosimetry: application of radiobiologic modeling to patient-specific 3-dimensional imaging-based internal dosimetry. J Nucl Med. 2007;48(6):1008–16. Available from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2974276&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.
Dewaraja YK, Schipper MJ, Roberson PL, Wilderman SJ, Amro H, Regan DD, et al. 131I-tositumomab radioimmunotherapy: initial tumor dose-response results using 3-dimensional dosimetry including radiobiologic modeling. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(7):1155–62. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20554734.
Chiesa C, Mira M, Maccauro M, Spreafico C, Romito R, Morosi C, et al. Radioembolization of hepatocarcinoma with 90Y glass microspheres: development of an individualized treatment planning strategy based on dosimetry and radiobiology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42(11):1718–38.
Kao YH, Steinberg JD, Tay YS, Lim GKY, Yan J, Townsend DW, et al. Post-radioembolization yttrium-90 PET/CT-part 2: dose-response and tumor predictive dosimetry for resin microspheres. EJNMMI Res. 2013;3(1):1–27.
Allimant C, Kafrouni M, Delicque J, Ilonca D, Cassinotto C, Assenat E, et al. Tumor targeting and three-dimensional voxel-based dosimetry to predict tumor response, toxicity, and survival after Yttrium-90 resin microsphere radioembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018;29(12):1662–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2018.07.006.
Bodei L, Cremonesi M, Ferrari M, Pacifici M, Grana CM, Bartolomei M, et al. Long-term evaluation of renal toxicity after peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with 90Y-DOTATOC and 177Lu-DOTATATE: the role of associated risk factors. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008;35(10):1847–56.
Emami B, Lyman J, Brown A, Coia L, Goitein M, Munzenrider JE, et al. Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;21(1):109–22. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2032882.
Strigari L, Konijnenberg M, Chiesa C, Bardies M, Du Y, Gleisner KS, et al. The evidence base for the use of internal dosimetry in the clinical practice of molecular radiotherapy, vol. 41. Berlin: Springer; 2014. p. 1976–88. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24915892.
Hartung-Knemeyer V, Nagarajah J, Jentzen W, Ruhlmann M, Freudenberg LS, Stahl AR, et al. Pre-therapeutic blood dosimetry in patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma using 124-iodine: predicted blood doses correlate with changes in blood cell counts after radioiodine therapy and depend on modes of TSH stimulation and number of preceding radioiodine therapies. Ann Nucl Med. 2012;26(9):723–9. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22802008.
Bianchi L, Baroli A, Lomuscio G, Pedrazzini L, Pepe A, Pozzi L, et al. Dosimetry in the therapy of metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer administering high 131I activity: the experience of Busto Arsizio Hospital (Italy). Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;56(6):515–21. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23358404.
Walrand S, Barone R, Pauwels S, Jamar F. Experimental facts supporting a red marrow uptake due to radiometal transchelation in 90Y-DOTATOC therapy and relationship to the decrease of platelet counts. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38(7):1270–80. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21318451.
Strigari L, Sciuto R, Rea S, Carpanese L, Pizzi G, Soriani A, et al. Efficacy and toxicity related to treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with 90Y-SIR spheres: radiobiologic considerations. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(9):1377–85. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20720056.
Sangro B, Gil-Alzugaray B, Rodriguez J, Sola I, Martinez-Cuesta A, Viudez A, et al. Liver disease induced by radioembolization of liver tumors. Cancer. 2008;112(7):1538–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23339.
Chiesa C, Mira M, Maccauro M, Romito R, Spreafico C, Sposito C, et al. A dosimetric treatment planning strategy in radioembolization of hepatocarcinoma with90Y glass microspheres. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;56:503–8.
Smits MLJ, Nijsen JFW, van den Bosch MAAJ, Lam MGEH, Vente MAD, Mali WPTM, et al. Holmium-166 radioembolisation in patients with unresectable, chemorefractory liver metastases (HEPAR trial): a phase 1, dose-escalation study. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(10):1025–34. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22920685.
Ho S, Lau WY, Leung TW, Chan M, Johnson PJ, Li AK. Clinical evaluation of the partition model for estimating radiation doses from yttrium-90 microspheres in the treatment of hepatic cancer. Eur J Nucl Med. 1997;24(3):293–8. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9143467.
Koral KF, Francis IR, Kroll S, Zasadny KR, Kaminski MS, Wahl RL. Volume reduction versus radiation dose for tumors in previously untreated lymphoma patients who received iodine-131 tositumomab therapy. Cancer. 2002;94(S4):1258–63.
Ilan E, Sandstrom M, Wassberg C, Sundin A, Garske-Roman U, Eriksson B, et al. Dose response of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors treated with peptide receptor radionuclide therapy using 177Lu-DOTATATE. J Nucl Med. 2015;56(2):177–82.
Jahn U, Ilan E, Sandström M, Garske-Román U, Lubberink M, Sundin A. 177Lu-DOTATATE peptide receptor radionuclide therapy: dose response in small intestinal neuroendocrine tumors. Neuroendocrinology. 2019;110(7-8):662–70.
Barna S, Haug AR, Hartenbach M, Sazan R, Grubmüller B, Kramer G, et al. Dose calculations and dose-effect relationships in Lu-177-PSMA I&T radionuclide therapy for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer. Clin Nucl Med. 2020;45(9):661–7.
Kairemo K, Kangasmäki A. 4D SPECT/CT acquisition for 3D dose calculation and dose planning in 177Lu-peptide receptor radionuclide therapy: applications for clinical routine. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2013;194:537–50. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22918781.
Garkavij M, Nickel M, Sjögreen-Gleisner K, Ljungberg M, Ohlsson T, Wingårdh K, et al. 177Lu-[DOTA0,Tyr3] octreotate therapy in patients with disseminated neuroendocrine tumors: analysis of dosimetry with impa1. Garkavij, M. et al. 177Lu-[DOTA0,Tyr3] octreotate therapy in patients with disseminated neuroendocrine tumors: analysis of dosimet. Cancer. 2010;116(4):1084–92.
Larsson M, Bernhardt P, Svensson JB, Wängberg B, Ahlman H, Forssell-Aronsson E. Estimation of absorbed dose to the kidneys in patients after treatment with 177Lu-octreotate: comparison between methods based on planar scintigraphy. EJNMMI Res. 2012;2(1):1–13.
Zechmann CM, Afshar-Oromieh A, Armor T, Stubbs JB, Mier W, Hadaschik B, et al. Radiation dosimetry and first therapy results with a 124I/131I-labeled small molecule (MIP-1095) targeting PSMA for prostate cancer therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(7):1280–92. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24577951.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Blaickner, M. (2024). “How Do You Feel About Dosimetry?” The Gretchenfrage of Radionuclide Therapy. In: Prasad, V. (eds) Beyond Becquerel and Biology to Precision Radiomolecular Oncology: Festschrift in Honor of Richard P. Baum. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33533-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33533-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-33532-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-33533-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)