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
Meeting ReportRadiopharmaceutical Chemistry: Dosimetry/ISRTRD Alpha Symposium

Comparison of three radiation dosimetry models for Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolotherapy

S. Cheenu Kappadath, William Erwin, Pritesh Mutha, Shashank Prasad and Ravi Murthy
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2009, 50 (supplement 2) 209;
S. Cheenu Kappadath
1UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
William Erwin
1UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pritesh Mutha
1UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shashank Prasad
1UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ravi Murthy
1UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

209

Objectives Quantify differences of 3 dosimetry models for treatment of hepatic tumors with 90Y-microsphere radioembolotherapy (RE).

Methods The 90Y microsphere (SIR-Spheres, Sirtex Medical, Australia) package insert recommends a cumulative liver dose <80Gy via a simple dosimetry model that assumes uniform 90Y distribution in tumor and liver & organ masses based on MIRD Standard Man (SM): total body 73.7kg, liver 1.91kg, lung 1kg. Two 3-compartment (liver, tumor, lung) partition models were investigated: CT-based (CTB) & weight-based (WTB). The main difference between them is in estimation of liver mass: in CTB it was estimated from CT image segmentation; while in WTB the SM liver mass was scaled by patient weight/sex. SM lung mass was scaled by patient weight/sex for CTB & WTB. Tumor fraction was estimated from CT & tumor uptake was estimated from pre-therapy 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT. Model differences in estimated lung, liver, tumor doses were analyzed for 11 patients.

Results The mean absolute liver mass difference was 0.64kg between CTB & SM and 0.42kg between CTB & WTB. Lung doses (3–12Gy) were similar between all 3 models with mean difference 0.1±1.5Gy. WTB & CTB non-tumor liver doses (4–31Gy) were similar with mean difference 0.7±5.5Gy but lower than SM by ~28Gy. WTB & CTB tumor doses (63–227Gy) were similar with mean difference 10±35Gy but higher than SM by ~65Gy.

Conclusions The more realistic WTB or CTB models, that incorporate patient anatomical and functional data, yielded lower normal liver but similar lung doses than SM, and therefore should be the preferred methodology for 90Y RE treatments.

  • © 2009 by Society of Nuclear Medicine
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 50, Issue supplement 2
May 2009
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
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.
Comparison of three radiation dosimetry models for Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolotherapy
(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
Comparison of three radiation dosimetry models for Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolotherapy
S. Cheenu Kappadath, William Erwin, Pritesh Mutha, Shashank Prasad, Ravi Murthy
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2009, 50 (supplement 2) 209;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Comparison of three radiation dosimetry models for Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolotherapy
S. Cheenu Kappadath, William Erwin, Pritesh Mutha, Shashank Prasad, Ravi Murthy
Journal of Nuclear Medicine May 2009, 50 (supplement 2) 209;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry: Dosimetry/ISRTRD Alpha Symposium

  • Preclinical safety, biodistribution and dosimetry estimates of 99mTc-DTPA-glipizide as a novel compound imaging pancreatic islet cells
  • Comparisons of animal-human translated and human 18F-BAY94-9172 amyloid radiation dosimetry
  • Cellular dosimetry of 111In using Monte Carlo N-particle (MCNP) computer code: Comparison with reported analytical methods and predictive value
Show more Radiopharmaceutical Chemistry: Dosimetry/ISRTRD Alpha Symposium

Dosimetry/Radiobiology II: Intrahepatic Sphere

  • Hepatic dosimetry for holmium-166 poly(L-lactic acid) microspheres: MIRD and beyond
  • Y-90 microsphere dosimetry in hepatic malignancies
  • Analysis of resected hepatic tumor and normal tissues regarding heterogeneity in specific radioactivity following pre-surgical radioembolization with 90Y resin microspheres
Show more Dosimetry/Radiobiology II: Intrahepatic Sphere

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire