Clinical Efficacy and Safety Comparison of ^sup 177^Lu-EDTMP with ^sup 153^Sm-EDTMP on an Equidose Basis in Patients with Painful Skeletal Metastases

This prospective study compared ...Lu-ethylene diamine tetramethylene phosphonate (EDTMP) with ...Sm-EDTMP for painful skeletal metastases. Half of the 32 patients were treated with ...Lu-EDTMP and half with ...Sm-EDTMP, at 37 MBq/kg of body weight. Analgesic, pain, and quality-of-life scores (EORTC...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of nuclear medicine (1978) 2015-10, Vol.56 (10), p.1513
Hauptverfasser: Thapa, Pradeep, Nikam, Dilip, Das, Tapas, Sonawane, Geeta, Agarwal, Jai Prakash, Basu, Sandip
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This prospective study compared ...Lu-ethylene diamine tetramethylene phosphonate (EDTMP) with ...Sm-EDTMP for painful skeletal metastases. Half of the 32 patients were treated with ...Lu-EDTMP and half with ...Sm-EDTMP, at 37 MBq/kg of body weight. Analgesic, pain, and quality-of-life scores (EORTC, Karnofsky, ECOG) and bone proliferation marker were used to examine efficacy. Hematologic toxicity was evaluated using NCI-CTCAE and compared between groups at baseline and each month till 3 mo after therapy. Pain relief was categorized as complete, partial, minimal, or none. Pain relief with ...Lu-EDTMP was 80%: 50% complete, 41.67% partial, and 8.33% minimal. Pain relief with ...Sm-EDTMP was 75%: 33.33% complete, 58.33% partial, and 8.33% minimal. The difference was not significant (P = 1.000). Quality of life at 3 mo after therapy improved significantly in both groups as per ECOG score (P = 0.014 and 0.005 for ...Lu-EDTMP and ...Sm-EDTMP, respectively), Karnofsky index (P = 0.007 and 0.023 for ...Lu-EDTMP and ...Sm-EDTMP, respectively), and EORTC score (P = 0.004 and < 0.001 for ...Lu-EDTMP and ...Sm-EDTMP, respectively). Bone proliferation marker in responders of both groups dropped significantly (P = 0.008 for 177Lu-EDTMP and P = 0.019 for ...Sm-EDTMP), parallel to clinical response. For ...Lu-EDTMP, anemia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia were nonserious (grade I/II) in 46.67%, 46.67%, and 20%, respectively, and serious (grade III/IV) in 20%, 6.67%, and 0%, respectively. For ...Sm-EDTMP, anemia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia were nonserious (grade I/II) in 62.5%, 31.25%, and 18.75%, respectively, and serious (grade III/IV) in 18.75%, 0%, and 6.25%, respectively. One patient treated with ...Sm-EDTMP had grade IV thrombocytopenia but required no blood transfusion. Differences between groups were not significant for either nonserious or serious toxicity. For ...Lu-EDTMP, 3 of 12 responders experienced the flare phenomenon on the third day after therapy and one on the fifth day, showing no response to therapy. For ...Sm-EDTMP, 2 of 12 responders experienced the flare phenomenon, both on the third day after therapy. ...Lu-EDTMP has pain response efficacy similar to that of ...Sm-EDTMP and is a feasible and safe alternative, especially in centers with no nearby access to ...Sm-EDTMP. (ProQuest: ... denotes formulae/symbols omitted.)
ISSN:0161-5505
1535-5667