Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
OtherLetter to the Editor

Reply: Stunning Effect

James C. Sisson
Journal of Nuclear Medicine February 2007, 48 (2) 329-330;
James C. Sisson
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

REPLY: The correspondents argue that 131I in diagnostic doses has the potential to cause “stunning” of the uptake of the subsequent 131I treatment dose that is given to patients with well-differentiated thyroid carcinomas. We agree that the energy deposited by 131I can injure the function of residual thyroid tissues, benign and malignant. However, the questions are (i) what administered dose of diagnostic 131I is unlikely to produce significant impairment of the subsequent treatment? and (ii) is there a more efficacious method of preliminary evaluation of patients who are candidates for the therapy?

Determination of the absorbed dose of radiation from a given administered dose of 131I is not possible with our current methods. However, from our literature review (1), it seems likely that 1 mCi (37 MBq) will produce modest, if any, impairment of function in the target tissues. In any case, the largest differences between diagnostic and therapeutic images, and in the quantitative measurements made of those images, appear to arise from early effects of the therapeutic dose (1).

The options for pretherapeutic assessments are no thyroid imaging, 123I imaging, or 131I imaging. We agree with Park (2) that not every patient who has had a thyroidectomy for well-differentiated thyroid carcinoma requires therapeutic radioiodine and that a decision for treatment dose will vary with the results of diagnostic scintigraphy.

Although 123I imaging has many virtues, it also exhibits substantial drawbacks. The target-to-background ratio in thyroid scintigraphy is improved by waiting 2 or 3 d after the administration of either radioiodine, thereby permitting the radioiodide in nonthyroid tissues to be excreted; this has been a long-standing principle in scintigraphy of this type. The efficiency of detection of γ-photons is greater for 123I but, at 2 d when 123I has decayed through 3–4 half-lives, the administered dose of 123I must be about 10 mCi (370 MBq) to equal the information obtained from 1 mCi of 131I. Indeed, although there were no differences in accuracy between 0.3 mCi (11.1 MBq) of 123I and 3–10 mCi (111–370 MBq) of 131I in detecting thyroid remnants (tissues that often concentrate 1%–10% of the dose), in reassessments after ablative therapy, when any persisting tissues are less prominent, images made with 131I had an advantage over 123I, 92.5% vs. 69.4% (3).

More important is the application of dosimetry. This type of evaluation aids in determining prescriptions of therapeutic radioiodine when larger doses are thought to be more effective in treatment of health- and life-impairing carcinomas and in avoiding serious toxicity from 131I as reiterated in a recent issue of The Journal of Nuclear Medicine (4). Measurements for dosimetry often require acquisitions of data for up to 4 d, information that is unattainable with any reasonable doses of 123I.

In summary, even small amounts of ionizing radiation have the potential to injure thyroid tissues. However, the advantages of scintigraphy in evaluating patients with thyroid carcinoma generally override a small risk. We believe that images made with 1 mCi of 131I pose a small and acceptable risk. The limitations of 123I, especially in making measurements for dosimetry, are unacceptable, particularly when treating patients with advanced disease who are in the greatest need of an optimum therapeutic dose of 131I.

We regret the omission of reports by Lees et al. (5) and Hilditch et al. (6) in our review of literature (1).

Footnotes

  • COPYRIGHT © 2007 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine, Inc.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Sisson JC, Avram AM, Lawson SA, et al. The so-called stunning of thyroid tissues. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1406–1412.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Park H-M. Thyroid stunning by diagnostic use of radioiodine I-131. Endocrinologist. 1998;8:443–448.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    Park H-M, Park Y-H, Zhou X-H. Detection of thyroid remnant/metastasis without stunning: an ongoing dilemma. Thyroid. 1997;7:277–280.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Tuttle RM, Leboeuf R, Robbins RJ, et al. Empiric radioactive iodine dosing regimens frequently exceed maximum tolerated activity levels in elderly patients with thyroid cancer. J Nucl Med. 2006;47:1587–1591.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    Lees W, Mansberg R, Roberts J, et al. The clinical effects of thyroid stunning after diagnostic whole-body scanning with 185 MBq 131I. Eur J Nucl Med. 2002;29:1421–1427.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    Hilditch TE, Dempsy MF, Bolster AA, et al. Self-stunning in thyroid ablation: evidence from comparative studies of diagnostic 131I and 123I. Eur J Nucl Med. 2002;29:783–788.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 48 (2)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 48, Issue 2
February 2007
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reply: Stunning Effect
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Reply: Stunning Effect
James C. Sisson
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Feb 2007, 48 (2) 329-330;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Reply: Stunning Effect
James C. Sisson
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Feb 2007, 48 (2) 329-330;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Reply to “The Value of Functional PET in Quantifying Neurotransmitter Dynamics”
  • Reply to “The Randomized, Phase 2 LuCAP Study”
  • Maintaining the Evidence for In Vivo Brain Estrogen Receptor Density by Neuroendocrine Aging and Relationships with Cognition and Symptomatology
Show more Letter to the Editor

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire