A comparison of simplified protocols of personalized dosimetry in NEN patients treated by radioligand therapy (RLT) with [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE to favor its use in clinical practice

The role of internal dosimetry is usually proposed for investigational purposes in patients treated by RLT, even if its application is not yet the standard method in clinical practice. This limited use is partially justified by several concomitant factors that make calculations a complex process. Th...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging 2023-05, Vol.50 (6), p.1753-1764
Hauptverfasser: Pirozzi Palmese, Valentina, D’Ambrosio, Laura, Di Gennaro, Francesca, Maisto, Costantina, de Marino, Roberta, Morisco, Anna, Coluccia, Sergio, Di Gennaro, Piergiacomo, De Lauro, Francesco, Raddi, Marco, Gaballo, Paolo, Tafuto, Salvatore, Celentano, Egidio, Lastoria, Secondo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The role of internal dosimetry is usually proposed for investigational purposes in patients treated by RLT, even if its application is not yet the standard method in clinical practice. This limited use is partially justified by several concomitant factors that make calculations a complex process. Therefore, simplified dosimetry protocols are required. Methods In our study, dosimetric evaluations were performed in thirty patients with NENs who underwent RLT with [ 177 Lu]Lu-DOTATATE. The reference method (M0) calculated the cumulative absorbed dose performing dosimetry after each of the four cycles. Obtained data were employed to assess the feasibility of simplified protocols: defining the dosimetry only after the first cycle (M1) and after the first and last one (M2). Results The mean differences of the cumulative absorbed doses between M1 and M0 were – 10% for kidney, – 5% for spleen, + 34% for liver, + 13% for red marrow, and + 37% for tumor lesions. Conversely, differences lower than ± 10% were measured between M2 and M0. Conclusion Cumulative absorbed doses obtained with the M2 protocol resembled the doses calculated by M0, while the M1 protocol overestimated the absorbed doses in all organs at risk, except for the spleen.
ISSN:1619-7070
1619-7089
DOI:10.1007/s00259-023-06112-8