Skip to main content

Main menu

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

Thyroid Stunning After 131I Diagnostic Whole-Body Scanning

Rhona M. McMenemin, Thomas E. Hilditch, Mary F. Dempsey and Nicholas S. Reed
Journal of Nuclear Medicine June 2001, 42 (6) 986-987;
Rhona M. McMenemin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas E. Hilditch
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mary F. Dempsey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicholas S. Reed
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

TO THE EDITOR:

From their study of patients referred for radioiodine ablation, Cholewinski et al. (1) concluded that diagnostic whole-body scanning can be performed effectively with a 185-MBq (5-mCi) dose of 131I 72 h before radioiodine ablation with no evidence of, and therefore no concern for, thyroid stunning.

Their study group consisted of 122 patients who were given a diagnostic dose of 185 MBq 131I and who were scanned 72 h later. On the day of scanning, after its completion, the patients received an ablation dose of 131I (5,550 MBq in most cases); whole-body imaging (with spot views) was undertaken 72 h later. The diagnostic and postablation scans were inspected visually, taking note of the number of foci of uptake and the intensity of uptake. Analysis of their observations led to the conclusion that no stunning had occurred and that this was a consequence of the short time interval between the diagnostic and ablation doses.

The phenomenon of stunning has been investigated using both qualitative (2,3) and quantitative methods, the latter using profile scanning (4) or an external neck probe (5). In our center we use a twin-head gamma camera in the measurement of uptake after the diagnostic dose (120 MBq) and, more recently, therapeutic dose (4,000 MBq) of radioiodine, taking into account correction for the effects of high counting rates. Uptake on the diagnostic scan is measured at 72 h and uptake of the ablation dose is measured on 1 or more occasions in the time interval 24–72 h. Shorter time intervals after the ablation dose were used to investigate the possibility of rapid turnover of the “destructive” ablation dose in the thyroid remnants.

To date, 26 patients have been investigated. Thyroid uptake after the ablation dose was reduced in 25 of the 26 patients, being 39.4% ± 22.9% (mean ± SD) of the diagnostic uptake (range, 10%–100%). The mean uptake (±SD) of the diagnostic dose was 7.6% ± 6.4%, and the mean time interval (±SD) between the diagnostic dose and the ablation dose was 16 ± 10 d. Within the study group, 2 patients received the ablation dose on the day of the diagnostic scan and another patient received the ablation dose 4 d after the diagnostic dose. In all 3 patients, the uptake of the ablation dose was reduced, being 86%, 59%, and 40% of the diagnostic uptake, respectively. No differences between the diagnostic and postablation scans were seen on visual inspection.

On the basis of our experience, quantitative assessment is an essential prerequisite before any conclusions are made with regard to the presence or absence of stunning. As a consequence, we believe that considerable doubts remain in relation to the authors’ conclusion that there is no stunning effect using their protocol, and we are continuing to assess the magnitude of the problem in a larger pool of patients.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    Cholewinski SP, Yoo KS, Klieger PS, O’Mara RE. Absence of thyroid stunning after diagnostic whole-body scanning with 185 MBq 131I. J Nucl Med 2000;41:1198–1202.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    McDougall IR. 74 MBq radioiodine 131I does not prevent uptake of therapeutic doses of 131I (i.e. it does not cause stunning) in differentiated thyroid cancer. Nucl Med Commun 1997;18:505–512.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    Park HM, Perkins OW, Edmondson JW, Schnute RB, Manatunga A. Influence of diagnostic radioiodines on the uptake of ablative dose of 131I. Thyroid 1994;4:49–54.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    Huic D, Medvedec M, Dodig D, et al. Radioiodine uptake in thyroid cancer patients after diagnostic application of low-dose 131I. Nucl Med Commun 1996;17:839–842.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Leger FA, Izembart M, Dagousset F, et al. Decreased uptake of therapeutic doses of 131I after 185 MBq 131I diagnostic imaging for thyroid remnants in differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med 1998;25:242–246.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

REPLY:

We thank McMenemin et al. for their interest in our article (1) by communicating their data, which, though preliminary, seem to suggest that quantitative parameters obtained using a dual-head gamma camera show reduced uptake of a therapeutic dose of 131I administered after a diagnostic dose.

The article by McDougall (2) cited by the authors indeed looks at the phenomenon of stunning but reports only 2 of 147 patients with reduced uptake and concludes that a dose of 74 MBq 131I does not adversely affect a subsequent therapeutic dose. We believe that our investigation (1) further extends this conclusion to a 185-MBq dose as used in our protocol.

Regarding various reports in the literature looking at quantitative measurements, including data on 26 patients presented by the authors, we find it intriguing that although the quantitative parameters indicate significant reductions in uptake of the therapeutic dose, usually no visual differences are found.

Considering the 3 cases described in this letter, the authors’ methodology, which includes an unspecified correction for the effects of high counting rates, shows that the uptake of the therapeutic dose was reduced by 14% (100% − 86%), 41% (100% − 59%), and 60% (100% − 40%) compared with the diagnostic dose of 120 MBq. We submit that, at least in the last 2 cases, some visual effect should be apparent because a trained observer should be able to detect easily the almost halving of uptake. Indeed, evidence that 25 of 26 patients show an average reduction of about 60% (100% − 39.4%), which remains visually undetectable in a majority of cases and unsupported by adverse clinical outcomes, would lead one to at least suspect, until disproven by additional information, a systematic bias of measurement rather than a true reduction. If such a large calculated reduction (by about one half) is not apparent visually nor borne out by subsequent clinical evolution, then a worthwhile scientific inquiry must reexamine more thoroughly the process generating those numbers.

We agree that a robust methodology of quantitation should be used. However, we maintain that the numbers, particularly those presented in the literature to date, should not be regarded as being definitive proof of stunning (i.e., reduced therapeutic efficacy of the therapeutic dose) unless the following criteria are also met:

  1. Significant reductions (say, >33%) are apparent to an experienced observer. Experience with other imaging tests in nuclear medicine suggests that this level of reduction certainly should, and would, be visually apparent.

  2. 2. A lesion showing a significant level of stunning by quantitation shows clinical behavior consistent with reduced efficacy of treatment. This may include demonstration of a requirement for additional therapeutic doses compared with lesions not showing stunning; an increase in size or intensity (or both), either on nuclear medicine imaging or a correlative imaging modality such as CT; or an adverse clinical outcome attributable to failure of radioiodine therapy because of stunning.

We are encouraged by the fact that several groups continue to study the phenomenon further, and we look forward to their additions to the literature. Our article (1) was not intended to decide the issue conclusively but, more, to present a clinically oriented view. We hope that other groups, including the authors of this letter, do not lose sight of clinical correlation based on quantitative techniques that may not be totally robust. As we maintain above (and in other replies), any conclusion of stunning must be regarded as hypothesis and not proven fact, until and unless additional criteria as described above are met.

The interest generated by our study (1) and other previous articles seems to suggest that an appropriately designed multicenter study of 131I therapy with 2 groups of patients—1 group receiving a diagnostic dose and the other group not receiving a diagnostic dose—before radioiodine therapy would provide additional insight. Such a study would provide evidence whether efficacy of the therapeutic dose is (or is not) affected significantly by a diagnostic dose. Otherwise, clinical points of view (e.g., such as ours and that of McDougall (2)) and quantitative approaches (e.g., such as by McMenemin et al. and others) will remain limited by not encompassing the entire issue.

We look forward to further publications on this issue, including by the authors of this letter, hopefully considering the criteria raised by us.

REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    Cholewinski SP, Yoo KS, Klieger PS, O’Mara RE. Absence of thyroid stunning after diagnostic whole-body scanning with 185 MBq 131I. J Nucl Med 2000;41:1198–1202.
  2. ↵
    McDougall IR. 74 MBq radioiodine 131I does not prevent uptake of therapeutic doses of 131I (i.e. it does not cause stunning) in differentiated thyroid cancer. Nucl Med Commun 1997;18:505–512.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 42 (6)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 42, Issue 6
June 1, 2001
  • Table of Contents
  • 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.
Thyroid Stunning After 131I Diagnostic Whole-Body Scanning
(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
Thyroid Stunning After 131I Diagnostic Whole-Body Scanning
Rhona M. McMenemin, Thomas E. Hilditch, Mary F. Dempsey, Nicholas S. Reed
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jun 2001, 42 (6) 986-987;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Thyroid Stunning After 131I Diagnostic Whole-Body Scanning
Rhona M. McMenemin, Thomas E. Hilditch, Mary F. Dempsey, Nicholas S. Reed
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jun 2001, 42 (6) 986-987;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • REFERENCES
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • A case of stunning of lung and bone metastases of papillary thyroid cancer after a therapeutic dose (3.7 GBq) of 131I and review of the literature: implications for sequential treatments
  • 131I Dosimetry and Thyroid Stunning
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Recruitment
  • Recruitment
  • Recruitment
Show more Authors of the Letter and the Reply

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2023 Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Powered by HighWire