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 ReportGU

Multi-cycle dosimetry of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from the VISION trial sub-study

Ken Herrmann, Kambiz Rahbar, Matthias Eiber, Richard Sparks, Nicholas Baca, Bernd Krause, Michael Lassmann, Walter Jentzen, Daniela Chicco, Patrick Klein, Lars Blumenstein, Jean-Rene Basque and Jens Kurth
Journal of Nuclear Medicine August 2022, 63 (supplement 2) 2626;
Ken Herrmann
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kambiz Rahbar
2Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Matthias Eiber
3Technical University Munich
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard Sparks
4CDE Dosimetry Services, Inc
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicholas Baca
5CDE Dosimetry
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bernd Krause
6Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Lassmann
7Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Walter Jentzen
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Essen, Essen, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniela Chicco
8Advanced Accelerator Applications, a Novartis Company, Turin, Piedmont, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patrick Klein
9Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, East Hanover, NJ, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lars Blumenstein
10Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Basel, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jean-Rene Basque
11Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jens Kurth
6Rostock University Medical Center, Rostock, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Abstract

2626

Introduction: The phase 3 VISION trial (NCT03511664) evaluated the efficacy and safety of lutetium (177Lu) vipivotide tetraxetan (also known as [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-167; 177Lu-PSMA-617) in patients with prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Targeted radioligand therapy with 177Lu-PSMA-617 plus protocol-permitted standard of care (SoC) significantly improved overall survival and radiographic progression-free survival compared with SoC alone. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events of grade 3 or above was higher with 177Lu-PSMA-617 plus SoC versus SoC alone, but health-related quality of life and pain were not adversely affected. The VISION dosimetry sub-study aimed to quantify the absorbed dose of 177Lu-PSMA-617 in organs at risk of radiotoxicity due to exposure levels or radiosensitivity.

Methods: In this VISION sub-study, dosimetry was performed in a separate cohort of 29 eligible non-randomized participants at four German sites. Patients received SoC plus 177Lu-PSMA-617 7.4 GBq every 6 weeks for a maximum of 6 cycles (44.4 GBq maximum cumulative activity). Whole-body conjugate planar-image scintigraphy and abdominal single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography (SPECT/CT) images were collected at 2, 24, 48, and 168 hours after administration in cycle 1; and at a single time point 24 or 48 hours after administration in cycles 2–6. Whole-body and specific organ absorbed doses for cycles 2–6 were derived using single time point data and time–activity curves generated for cycle 1. Red marrow absorbed doses were estimated based on assay of blood samples and the remainder of body activity from cycle 1. For cycles 2–6, the remainder of body activity was scaled according to the respective imaging data. Absorbed doses were estimated using OLINDA/EXM software version 2.2. Lacrimal gland dosimetry used the MIRD/RADAR method. Dosimetry outcomes were absorbed dose per unit acitivty (Gy/GBq) during cycle 1 and cycles 2–6, and predicted and observed cumulative absorbed dose (Gy) over all 6 cycles (44.4 GBq). Cumulative absorbed doses were predicted by extrapolation from cycle 1 doses in all patients and were measured in patients who completed all 6 cycles. Toxicity was assessed using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0.

Results: Of 29 patients enrolled in the sub-study, 21 received 2 or 3 cycles, 18 received 4 cycles, 13 received 5 cycles, and 11 received 6 cycles. During cycles 2–6, the at-risk organs receiving the largest absorbed doses per cycle were the lacrimal and salivary glands, with mean values ± standard deviation of 1.80 ± 0.61 Gy/GBq and 0.63 ± 0.30 Gy/GBq, respectively; followed by the kidneys with 0.44 ± 0.21 Gy/GBq and the red marrow with 0.0310 ± 0.0071 Gy/GBq. Over all 6 cycles (n = 11), observed cumulative absorbed doses were 78 ± 22 Gy in the lacrimal glands, 29 ± 14 Gy in the salivary glands, 16 ± 7 Gy in the kidneys, and 1.30 ± 0.31 Gy in the red marrow. These values were very similar to 6-cycle cumulative absorbed doses predicted by extrapolation from cycle 1 data (N = 29) (Table). The toxicity affecting at-risk organs during cycles 2–6 was consistent with the safety profile in the main VISION study. No patient in the sub-study experienced renal toxicity of CTCAE grade ≥ 3.

Conclusions: Cumulative absorbed doses in at-risk organs over multiple cycles can be extrapolated with acceptable accuracy from cycle 1 dosimetry data in patients with mCRPC treated with 177Lu-PSMA-617. The extrapolated cumulative doses were generally slightly overestimated which is important for clinical implementation and safety. 177Lu-PSMA-617 had a good safety profile over 6 cycles with low radiotoxicity in at-risk organs. These findings suggest that cost and patient burden could be reduced by omitting dosimetry in cycles 2–6 without unduly compromising patient safety.

Figure
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Previous
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 63, Issue supplement 2
August 1, 2022
  • 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.
Multi-cycle dosimetry of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from the VISION trial sub-study
(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
Multi-cycle dosimetry of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from the VISION trial sub-study
Ken Herrmann, Kambiz Rahbar, Matthias Eiber, Richard Sparks, Nicholas Baca, Bernd Krause, Michael Lassmann, Walter Jentzen, Daniela Chicco, Patrick Klein, Lars Blumenstein, Jean-Rene Basque, Jens Kurth
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2022, 63 (supplement 2) 2626;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Multi-cycle dosimetry of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: results from the VISION trial sub-study
Ken Herrmann, Kambiz Rahbar, Matthias Eiber, Richard Sparks, Nicholas Baca, Bernd Krause, Michael Lassmann, Walter Jentzen, Daniela Chicco, Patrick Klein, Lars Blumenstein, Jean-Rene Basque, Jens Kurth
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2022, 63 (supplement 2) 2626;
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Imaging Prognosis of a Negative 68Ga-PSMA-1 PET Scan on Followup Studies
  • Initial Experience with F18-DCFPyL PET/CT for Metastatic or Biochemically Recurrent Prostate Cancer: A Single Institution Review
  • Comparison of Diagnostic Sensitivity Between [18F]Florastamin and [18F]FDG PET/CT in the Patients with Prostate Cancer
Show more GU

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire