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
OtherBASIC SCIENCE INVESTIGATIONS

131I Therapy: Inpatient or Outpatient?

John M.H. de Klerk
Journal of Nuclear Medicine November 2000, 41 (11) 1876-1878;
John M.H. de Klerk
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

A widely accepted therapy is 131I for patients with hyperthyroidism caused by Graves' disease, toxic nodular disease, euthyroid multinodular goiters, and differentiated thyroid carcinomas (1–6). It has been proven to be a safe and a relatively inexpensive treatment modality. 131I can lead to complete remission, even in thyroid cancer patients with metastatic disease. Therapeutic doses of 131I commonly range from 100 to 7400 MBq, with the larger activities used to ablate thyroid remnants or to treat metastatic disease in patients with thyroid cancer. After a therapeutic administration of 131I, the patient becomes a potential radiation hazard to other individuals. Radiation is emitted from radioactivity in the patient, and radioiodine is secreted in body fluids such as sweat and saliva and excreted into urine and feces. Precautions should be taken to limit the radiation exposure of the nuclear medicine physician, nursing personnel, the patient's family, and members of the public with whom a treated patient may come in contact. These precautions vary between countries, but recommendations are usually based on measurement of 131I retention or instantaneous dose rates. Most patients who receive high doses of 131I are isolated in a private room. The patient is monitored daily, and radiation safety precautions are updated as needed. Nursing care and visitors are limited to nonpregnant adults as necessary. The patients are advised against bringing anything with them that they would be unwilling to leave behind should contamination occur. The patient's radiation exposure is commonly monitored using direct external exposure rate measurements. Alternatively, using fractionated treatment regimens, outpatient treatment schedules have been proposed for large multinodular goiters that commonly require the administration of high doses of 131I (7).

In Europe, the administered doses of 131I on an outpatient basis differ among European countries. In Germany, the patient is required to have <75 MBq on discharge, which is a rather stringent criteria, giving rise to 131I tourism to neighboring countries, where criteria for release are less stringent. In the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, and The Netherlands, the maximum permissible radioactivity for ambulatory treatment with radioiodine is between 370 and 740 MBq (8). Generally, the amount of radioiodine to be administered has been used as the criterion in determination of the need for hospitalization. This is inaccurate on an individual basis because all 131I-treated patients do not necessarily have the same iodine kinetics. For example, public safety may be better preserved if some patients with toxic goiter who are being treated with 400 MBq 131I are hospitalized for longer than some thyroidectomized thyroid cancer patients who receive a much higher ablative dose of 131I because of the rapid clearance of 131I in these thyroid cancer patients. The exposure dose that is considered acceptable for the safety of the general public, resulting from a patient's treatment, has been reduced in Europe after revised recommendations from the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). The annual public dose limit is 1 mSv, although adult members of the patient's family are allowed to receive higher doses, provided that the average over 5 consecutive years does not exceed 1 mSv/y (9).

Barrington et al. (10) recently reported that if hyperthyroid patients who were being treated with 131I (dosage range, 195–800 MBq) on an outpatient basis were given appropriate radiation protection advice, they complied with a 5-mSv dose limit (range, 0.2–5.8 mSv) for adults in 97% of cases and with a 1-mSv dose limit (range, 0.2–7.2 mSv) for children in 89% of cases. However, 6 of 17 children, ≤3 y old, had a dose that exceeded 1 mSv because they were likely to spend more time in close contact with their mothers than was recommended. In the case of parents of children who are ≥3 y old, the preference is not to treat them as outpatients unless arrangements can made for an alternative caregiver for the child after treatment. Furthermore, outpatients treated with 200, 400, 600, or 800 MBq 131I should be advised to sleep alone for 1, 5, 9, or 12 d, respectively (to comply with a 3-mSv dose constraint), and to avoid contact closer than 1 m with children 3–5 y old for 11, 16, 20, or 22 d or with children >5 y old for 5, 11, 14 or 16 d to comply with a 1-mSv limit. These constraints are suggested in a recent European Commission guidance document in which dose constraints are linked to age (11). On the basis of the recommendations for discharge of patients made by the European Commission, the following dose constraints have been proposed for family and close friends: children (including the unborn child), 1 mSv; adults up to 60 y old, 3 mSv; adults >60 y old, 15 mSv; and third persons or general public, 0.3 mSv. In another study, Barrington et al. (12) reported radiation dose rates from patients receiving 131I therapy for thyroid cancer. For a patient who received an ablative dose of 1850 MBq 131I, the cumulative dose to nursing staff for a week after treatment depended on patient mobility and was estimated at 0.08 mSv for a self-caring patient to 6.3 mSv for a totally helpless patient. In the follow-up group (residual or recurrent disease), the cumulative doses were 0.18–12.3 mSv (3700 MBq 131I) or 0.36–24.6 mSv (7400 MBq 131I). If no restriction is applied, cumulative annual doses as high as 103 mSv for the partner and as high as 132 mSv for children <2 y old (administered dose of 7400 MBq 131I in ablation patients) may be obtained. To restrict the dose to 1 mSv, they calculated that partners are required to sleep apart for 3 d (1850 MBq in follow-up of patient) to 23 d in the case of an ablative dose of 7400 MBq. Time restriction of contact with children ranged from 2 to 24 d depending on the dosage and the age of the child.

In the United States, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is charged with protection of health and safety from various radioactive materials, including 131I. The NCR decreased occupational and public radiation dose limits in 1994 from a maximum of 120 mSv/y and an average annual dose of 50 mSv/y to a maximum of 50 mSv in any single year. The radiation dose limit to members of the public, not including patients who received diagnostic or therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals, was reduced from 5 to 1 mSv. For many years the NCR has controlled this potential by requiring medical licensees to hospitalize patients whose administered activity is ≥1100 MBq (30 mCi). As an alternative to this 1100-MBq rule, the hospital is allowed to release the patient when the dose rate is <50 μSv/h at a distance of 1 m from the patient (13).

In January 1997, the NCR amended its regulations concerning the criteria for release of patients treated with radiopharmaceuticals (14): “The new criteria for patient release are based on the potential dose to other individuals exposed to the patient. The new criteria are consistent with the recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). This final rule requires the licensee to provide written instructions to patients on how to maintain the dose to others as low as is reasonably achievable, if the total effective dose equivalent to any other individual exposed to the released patient is likely to exceed 1 mSv.” Furthermore, the NCR proposed a new Code of Federal Regulations, title 10, part 35.75, to change the patient release criteria to a total effective dose equivalent not to exceed 5 mSv in any year to an individual from exposure to a released patient. These proposed changes were supported by the recommendations of the ICRP and NCRP that an individual could be allowed to receive an annual dose up to 5 mSv in temporary situations when exposure to radiation is not expected to result in annual doses >1 mSv for long periods of time (14). This dose-based limit also provides a single limit that could be used to provide an equivalent level of risks from all radionuclides. Different radionuclides with the same activity can give very different doses under identical exposure conditions.

The article by Coover et al. (15) in this issue of The Journal of Nuclear Medicine presents practical data for the treatment of 131I-treated patients as outpatients, in compliance with the Code of the Federal Regulations, title 10, part 35.75. In accordance with these regulations, Coover et al. developed a model to calculate the maximum dose of 131I that may be administered to an outpatient.

An important item in these calculations is the so-called occupancy factor, which consists of 3 separate factors for each of the 3 periods after 131I treatment: the pre-equilibrium period (first 8 h), the constrained activity period (interval after the pre-equilibrium period during which the patient's social interactions are constrained, and the nonconstrained activity period (the following infinite period of time).

Coover et al. (15) clearly illustrate the article by examples and tables, which simplify the application of the proposed model. For hyperthyroid patients, the administered dose of 131I will usually be low enough to administer as outpatient treatment. In cases of (toxic) multinodular goiters and in thyroid cancer patients, the formulas and tables described by the authors can be used to establish a maximum dosage. The clinical situation, however, should indicate whether a patient requires a higher dosage, necessitating hospitalization. For example, in thyroid cancer patients with a large metastatic load, the 131I uptake may be much higher than 5% and these patients usually need high doses of 131I (≥7400 MBq).

Application of calculations by Coover et al. (15) will enhance patient convenience and facilitate more cost-effective outpatient management. As mentioned by Mountford and O'Doherty (16), hospitalizing a patient requires the allocation of expensive resources, and the instructions for a patient after leaving the hospital could cause serious disruption of their domestic and working life. Therefore, hospitalization time and instructions to be followed after discharge should be based on a sound radioprotective assessment and should not be excessively restrictive. The occupancy factors may be based on the patient's lifestyle, including the patient's unique living situation, and on their ability to adopt a set of social limitations for several days.

In addition to the emitted radiation hazard, a contamination hazard from 131I excretion through perspiration, saliva, breath, feces, and urine may arise. This may be as high as 10% of the radiation dose caused by external radiation. This internal radiation exposure resulting from incorporation of 131I should also be considered. Ibis et al. (17) reported a relative high skin concentration and specific activity in the saliva of thyroid cancer patients at time of discharge, thus emphasizing the need for instructing patients to prevent significant transfer of 131I to family members and others after release from the hospital.

The use of calculations by Coover et al. (15) enables the nuclear medicine physician to determine the maximum 131I dose that can be prescribed for each individual patient. This has many advantages because some patients will choose to sleep apart from their partners for days to weeks, whereas other patients (patients with young children) prefer a short stay in a nuclear medicine ward. Coover et al. note that the use of their model in clinical practice does not preclude alternative release criteria but is predicted on the basis of the new NCR regulations, which are applicable only in NCR states. Nevertheless, the article by Coover et al. contains interesting data for countries other than the United States that are attempting to treat patients with higher 131I doses as ambulatory patients.

Footnotes

  • Received Feb. 28, 2000; revision accepted Mar. 28, 2000.

    For correspondence or reprints contact: John M.H. de Klerk, MD, PhD, Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Rm. E02.222, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    Schlumberger MJ. Papillary and follicular thyroid carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1998;338:297–306.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. Harbert JC. Radioiodine therapy of differentiated thyroid carcinoma. In: Harbert JC, Eckelman WC, Neumann RD, eds. Nuclear Medicine: Diagnosis and Therapy New York, NY: Thieme Medical; 1996:975–1020.
  3. Maxon HR, Smith HS. Radioiodine-131 in the diagnosis and treatment of metastatic well differentiated thyroid cancer. Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am 1990;19:685–719.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. Hermus AR, Huysmans DA. Treatment of benign nodular thyroid disease. N Engl J Med 1998;338:1438–1447.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. de Klerk JMH, van Isselt JW, van Dijk A, et al. Iodine-131 therapy in sporadic non-toxic goiter. J Nucl Med 1997;38:372–376.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    Harbert JC. Radioiodine therapy of hyperthyroidism. In: Harbert JC, Eckelman WC, Neumann RD, eds. Nuclear Medicine: Diagnosis and Therapy New York, NY: Thieme Medical; 1996:951–973.
  7. ↵
    Howarth DM, Epstein MT, Thomas PA, Allen LW, Akerman R, Lan L. Outpatient management of patients with large multinodular goitres treated with fractionated radioiodine. Eur J Nucl Med 1997;24:1465–1469.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Beckers C. Regulations and policies on radioiodine I-131 therapy in Europe. Thyroid 1997;7:221–224.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    Council of the European Union. Guideline 96/29/EURATOM to determine basic directions for health protection of public and workers against ionising radiation related dangers. J Eur Comm 1996;L 159/1.
  10. ↵
    Barrington SF, O'Doherty MJ, Kettle AG, et al. Radiation exposure of the families of outpatients treated with radioiodine (iodine-131) for hyperthyroidism. Eur J Nucl Med 1999;26:686–692.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    European Commission. Radiation Protection 97: Radiation Protection Following Iodine-131 Therapy (Exposure Due to Out-Patients or Discharged In Patients). Luxembourg, Belgium: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 1998.
  12. ↵
    Barrington SF, Kettle AG, O'Doherty MJ, Wells CP, Sonner EJR, Coakley AJ. Radiation dose rates from patients receiving iodine-131 therapy for carcinoma of the thyroid. Eur J Nucl Med 1996;23:123–130.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    Vetter RJ. Regulations for radioiodine therapy in the United States: current status and the process of change. Thyroid 1997;7:209–211.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    The Code of Federal Regulations: title 10, energy; part 35, medical use of byproduct material; section 75, release of individuals containing radiopharmaceuticals or permanent implants. Fed Regist 1997;62:4133.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    Coover LR, Silberstein EB, Kuhn PJ, Graves MW. Therapeutic 131I in outpatients: a simplified method confirming to the Code of Federal Regulations, title 10, part 35.75. J Nucl Med 2000;41:1868–1875.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    Mountford PJ, O'Doherty MJO. Restrictions following iodine-131 treatment: a time for change or more data required? Eur J Nucl Med 1994;21:903–905.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    Ibis E, Wilson CR, Collier BD, Akansel G, Isitman AT, Yoss RG. Iodine-131 contamination from thyroid cancer patients. J Nucl Med 1992;33:2110–2115.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 41, Issue 11
November 1, 2000
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • 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.
131I Therapy: Inpatient or Outpatient?
(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
131I Therapy: Inpatient or Outpatient?
John M.H. de Klerk
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Nov 2000, 41 (11) 1876-1878;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
131I Therapy: Inpatient or Outpatient?
John M.H. de Klerk
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Nov 2000, 41 (11) 1876-1878;
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

  • Therapeutic 131I in Outpatients: A Simplified Method Conforming to the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 35.75
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Design and Fabrication of Kidney Phantoms for Internal Radiation Dosimetry Using 3D Printing Technology
  • Synthesis and Biologic Evaluation of Novel 18F-Labeled Probes Targeting Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen for PET of Prostate Cancer
  • Tumor-Specific Binding of Radiolabeled PEGylated GIRLRG Peptide: A Novel Agent for Targeting Cancers
Show more Invited Commentary

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire