Article Figures & Data
Figures
- FIGURE 1.
Optimization based on normal-organ MTD (A; Eq. 1) and MTBED (B; Eqs. 6 or 8) constraints in AB vs. AZ plots. Blue line shows lung, red line shows liver, and green line shows kidney constraints. Lines are solid when they represent the activity-limiting constraint; dotted line constraints are automatically satisfied by solid line criteria.
- FIGURE 2.
Illustration of tumor BED-based optimization (case 1). Tumor dose and BED are plotted as function of AB. Here, optimal AB (and AZ) values (ABopt, AZopt) are same as intersection values (ABint, AZint).
- FIGURE 3.
Illustration of different cases. Case 3 (C and D) shows constraints and tumor BED for example where optimal dosing is not equal to intersection of MTD constraints. Case 4 (E and F) shows case for single limiting organ. Case 5 (G and H) illustrates case where all 3 organ constraints must be considered.
- FIGURE 4.
Multiple tumor optimization. (A) Optimization for tumors separately in different colors and for EUBED (in red). (B) Enlargement of EUBED curve.
Tables
Parameter NHL Lungs Liver Kidneys α/β (Gy) 8.6 (28) 3.3 (29) 2.5 (30) 2.6 (18) λB (h−1) N/A 0.0106 (31) 0.0124 (31) 0.0115 (31) λZ (h−1) N/A 0.0182 (32) 0.00728 (32) 0.00957 (32) μ (h−1) 1.3 (33) 0.46 (34) 0.28 (35) 0.25 (18) Numbers in parentheses indicate reference from which value was taken.
Parameter (Gy/GBq) Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 dBLi 0.97 1.01 0.87 0.87 0.87 dZLi 6.21 10.46 3.84 3.84 8.81 dBLu 1.20 1.32 0.97 1.32 1.20 dZLu 2.85 2.44 3.03 3.35 2.70 dBKi 0.72 0.98 0.55 0.55 0.98 dZKi 2.85 2.73 2.73 2.73 4.05 dBtum 2.50 2.50 2.00 3.0 3.0 dZtum 10.0 10.0 12.0 10.0 10.0 Quantity Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 ABmax (GBq) 21.3 19.4 26.3 19.4 21.3 ABint (GBq) 17.9 18.0 11.3 — 17.0, 20.4 ABopt (GBq) 17.9 17.9 2.40 3.93 17.1 95% range 12.9–19.0 15.8–18.5 0.0–12.1 0.0–12.0 15.7–21.0 AZmax (GBq) 4.41 2.62 7.14 7.14 3.11 AZint (GBq) 1.82 0.98 5.15 — 0.50, 1.62 AZopt (GBq) 1.82 0.98 6.77 5.97 1.64 95% range 1.24–2.71 0.59–1.24 4.90–7.14 3.30–7.14 0.15–1.82 BEDli (Gy) 35.0 35.0 35.0 31.9 35.0 BEDlu (Gy) 30.0 30.0 27.7 30.0 28.0 BEDki (Gy) 20.9 24.9 24.0 21.8 28.0 ADtum (Gy) 62.7 54.6 86.1 71.5 67.6 BEDtum (Gy) 65.4 56.6 93.7 76.4 70.6 Parameter Tumor 1 Tumor 2 Tumor 3 Tumor 4 dBtum (Gy/GBq) 2.5 2.0 3.0 1.6 dZtum (Gy/GBq) 10.0 12.0 14.0 10.0 mtum (g) 10 12 5 25 Quantity Tumor 1 Tumor 2 Tumor 3 Tumor 4 Combined ABopt (GBq) 17.9 12.2 17.9 11.3 15.3 AZopt (GBq) 1.81 2.84 1.81 2.99 2.30 BEDtum1 (Gy) 54.6* 49.3 54.6* 48.3 52.4 BEDtum2 (Gy) 59.8 61.2* 59.8 61.1 60.8 BEDtum3 (Gy) 83.3* 80.9 83.3* 80.2 82.6 BEDtum4 (Gy) 48.2 49.7 48.2 49.8* 49.2 EUBED (Gy) 54.7 54.6 54.7 54.3 55.0* ↵* Maximum BED values obtained for optimization of respective tumor (e.g., maximum BED for tumor 1 is obtained when optimization is run for tumor 1 itself).
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- Computational Nuclear Oncology Toward Precision Radiopharmaceutical Therapies: Current Tools, Techniques, and Uncharted Territories
- MIRD Pamphlet No. 31: MIRDcell V4--Artificial Intelligence Tools to Formulate Optimized Radiopharmaceutical Cocktails for Therapy
- Membrane and Nuclear Absorbed Doses from 177Lu and 161Tb in Tumor Clusters: Effect of Cellular Heterogeneity and Potential Benefit of Dual Targeting--A Monte Carlo Study
- Membrane and Nuclear Absorbed Doses from 177Lu and 161Tb in Tumor Clusters: Effect of Cellular Heterogeneity and Potential Benefit of Dual Targeting--A Monte Carlo Study
- Dosimetry in Radiopharmaceutical Therapy
- Dosimetry for Radiopharmaceutical Therapy: Current Practices and Commercial Resources
- Novel Treatment Strategies for Cancer and Their Tumor-targeting Approaches Using Antibodies Against Tumor-associated Antigens