JNM
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplemental Data
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in JNM
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kontogeorgakos, D. K.
Right arrow Articles by Vlahos, L. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kontogeorgakos, D. K.
Right arrow Articles by Vlahos, L. J.
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Vol. 47 No. 9 1476-1482
© 2006 by Society of Nuclear Medicine


Basic Science Investigation

Patient-Specific Dosimetry Calculations Using Mathematic Models of Different Anatomic Sizes During Therapy with 111In-DTPA-D-Phe1-Octreotide Infusions After Catheterization of the Hepatic Artery

Dimitrios K. Kontogeorgakos, Panagiotis A. Dimitriou, Georgios S. Limouris and Lambros J. Vlahos

Nuclear Medicine Division, Radiology Department, Aretaieion University Hospital, Athens, Greece

Correspondence: For correspondence or reprints contact: Georgios S. Limouris, MD, PhD, Nuclear Medicine Division, Radiology Department, Aretaieion University Hospital, 76 Vas. Sophias Ave., Athens, Greece 11528. E-mail: nucleard{at}aretaieio.uoa.gr

The aim of the study was to provide dosimetric data on intrahepatic 111In-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA)-D-Phe1-octreotide therapy for neuroendocrine tumors with overexpression of somatostatin receptors. Methods: A dosimetric protocol was designed to estimate the absorbed dose to the tumor and healthy tissue in a course of 48 treatments for 12 patients, who received a mean activity of 5.4 ± 1.7 GBq per session. The patient-specific dosimetry calculations, based on quantitative biplanar whole-body scintigrams, were performed using a Monte Carlo simulation program for 3 male and 3 female mathematic models of different anatomic sizes. Thirty minutes and 2, 6, 24, and 48 h after the radionuclide infusion, blood-sample data were collected for estimation of the red marrow radiation burden. Results: The mean absorbed doses per administered activity (mGy/MBq) by the critical organs liver, spleen, kidneys, bladder wall, and bone marrow were 0.14 ± 0.04, 1.4 ± 0.6, 0.41 ± 0.08, 0.094 ± 0.013, and (3.5 ± 0.8) x 10–3, respectively; the tumor absorbed dose ranged from 2.2 to 19.6 mGy/MBq, strongly depending on the lesion size and tissue type. Conclusion: The results of the present study quantitatively confirm the therapeutic efficacy of transhepatic administration; the tumor–to–healthy-tissue uptake ratio was enhanced, compared with the results after antecubital infusions. Planning of treatment was also optimized by use of the patient-specific dosimetric protocol.

Key Words: neuroendocrine tumors • dosimetry • 111In-DTPA-D-Phe1-octreotide • peptide therapy • hepatic artery catheterization


Related articles in JNM:

This Month in JNM

JNM 2006 47: 9-10. [Full Text]  






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE TECHNOLOGY THE JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE
Copyright © 2006 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine.