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
Research ArticleClinical Investigation
Open Access

Estimating the Risk for Secondary Cancer After Targeted α-Therapy with 211At Intraperitoneal Radioimmunotherapy

Erik Leidermark, Andreas Hallqvist, Lars Jacobsson, Per Karlsson, Erik Holmberg, Tom Bäck, Mia Johansson, Sture Lindegren, Stig Palm and Per Albertsson
Journal of Nuclear Medicine January 2023, 64 (1) 165-172; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.121.263349
Erik Leidermark
1Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden;
2Department of Radiation Physics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andreas Hallqvist
1Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden;
3Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lars Jacobsson
2Department of Radiation Physics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Per Karlsson
1Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden;
3Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erik Holmberg
3Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; and
4Regional Cancer Center West, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tom Bäck
2Department of Radiation Physics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mia Johansson
1Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden;
3Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sture Lindegren
2Department of Radiation Physics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stig Palm
2Department of Radiation Physics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Per Albertsson
1Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden;
3Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
  • FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    Pooled ERR/Gy for different organs or organ groups with 95% CI. Data for bladder represent only 1 background study (Nekolla et al. 2009 (10)).

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    TABLE 1.

    Background Thorotrast Data

    StudyDesign and statistical methodnSex (n)Age (y)Comparison groupEstimated dosage (mL)*Exclusion criteriaLast follow-upFollow-up time (y)Alive at analysisExcess cancersExcess per 100 subjectsExpected no. of cancers
    Becker (5)Site-specific mortality/SMR2,326M: 1,717 (74%); F: 602 (26%)Mean, 311,890Mean, 21Survival < 3 y†2005Mean, 342%34915114
    Travis (9)Site-specific incidence/SIR and RR1,204M: 670 (56%); F: 534 (44%)Mean, 35‡1,180Mean, 17Survival < 2 y†1992–1993Mean, 227%2291977
    Travis (9)Site-specific mortality/SMR and RR446M: 223 (51%); F: 216 (49%)Mean, 41‡212Mean, 25Survival < 2 y†1992Mean, 2010%501118
    dos Santos Silva (6)Site-specific mortality/SMR and RR1,096M: 685 (62.5%); F: 411 (37.5%)Mean, 35‡1,014Median, 20Survival < 5 y†1996Mean, 156%8685
    Mori (8)Site-specific mortality/RR262§M: 262 (100%)Mean, 251,630Mean, 17Survival < 10 y†1998—7%793030
    Kido (7)Site-specific mortality150∥M: 150 (100%)Mean, 221,14410–19 mL (94%)Dead before 19791998—12%63428
    Mori (8)Autopsy study386M: 348 (90%); F: 38 (10%)Range, 9–47172,350Mean, 18Survival < 10 y†1998Mean, 38; SD, 9—21455105
    • ↵* Thorotrast dosage refers to volume (mL) of Thorotrast injected.

    • ↵† From Thorotrast injection.

    • ↵‡ Estimated age.

    • ↵§ 61 patients included in autopsy study (8).

    • ↵∥ 69 patients included in autopsy study (8).

    • SMR = standardized mortality ratio; SIR = standardized incidence ratio; RR = relative risk.

    • View popup
    TABLE 2.

    Background 224Ra Data

    StudyStudy design and statistical methodnSex (n)Comparison groupEstimated activity (MBq)Exclusion criteriaLast follow-upFollow-up time (y)Alive at analysisExcess cancersExcess per 100 subjectsExpected no. of cancers
    Nekolla (10)Site-specific incidence/SIR682M: 510 (75%); F: 172 (25%)None∼45Age ≤ 20 y (full cohort, n = 899); lag time†2007∼556%92*13*56*
    Wick (11)Site-specific incidence/SIR and RR1,471M: 1332 (91%); F: 139 (9%)1,324∼10 (0.17/kg)Mean, 2632%23*0.3159
    • ↵* Lung cases not included.

    • ↵† Nekolla (10) used 5- and 2-y lag times for solid tumors and hematologic malignancies, respectively.

    • SMR = standardized mortality ratio; SIR = standardized incidence ratio; RR = relative risk.

    • Mean age was not possible to calculate; reported as <20 y or >20 y.

    • View popup
    TABLE 3.

    Calculated Absorbed Dose Data and Background Natural Mortality

    Organ/group of organsICD-10 codeThorotrast (mGy)224Ra, high (mGy)224Ra, low (mGy)211At (mGy)Mortality per 100,000 in women aged 65+
    Lip, oral cavity, pharynxC00–C13174NANA28036,9
    StomachC1639992216080
    Colorectum, anal*C18–C2142297NA36397.2
    Liver, intrahepatic bile ductsC226,90058513010469.6
    Trachea, bronchus, lungC33–C341,0949922320570.5
    Bone and articular cartilageC40–C414,80019,800NA1823.8
    Breast (female)C50NA992228373
    KidneyC64–C65453337434067.3
    Urinary bladderC67NA99NA38076.2
    Lymphoid, hematopoietic, and related tissuesC81–C962,1001,89042030281.9
    • ↵* Colon (C18–19), 70%; rectum (C20), ∼30%.

    • NA = dose data not available.

    • Thorotrast mean administered volume was 20 mL and mean exposure was 30 y using distribution data from Ishikawa et al. (16,18). 224Ra was 45 MBq (high) and 10 MBq (low), applied to distribution from Lassman et al. (19). 211At was 200 MBq/L in intraperitoneal infusion, with 24-h dwell time, from Cederkrantz et al. (4). Mortality data are from NORDCAN (14), weighted by natural mortality in age span (data from Statistics Sweden (15)).

    • View popup
    TABLE 4.

    Influence of Various Assumptions and Competing Risk

    Excess cancer cases per 100 treated
    FIGO stage
    ParameterAdjustment in calculation or used backgroundCancer-freeIIIIIIIV
    Using ERR/Gy based on “male and female”*1.130.900.640.250.11
    Using ERR/Gy based on “female sex only”†1.601.280.910.350.16
    Age-dependence adjustment if low LET equals high LET*1.110.890.630.240.11
    Other second cancer risk after ovarian cancer primary*‡1.531.240.870.340.15
    Age (25 or 65 y) at time of treatmentERR/Gy “male and female”*1.24–0.90
    ERR/Gy “female sex only”†1.84–1.21
    • ↵* Calculations made with “male and female”–derived ERR/Gy in Supplemental Table 4.

    • ↵† Using ERR/Gy based on “female only.”

    • ‡ Hazard risks (33), specified in Supplemental Table 4. No adjustment for decreased survival due to second primary cancer was performed.

    • Excess cancer cases per 100 treated are female patients, 55 y old at treatment. FIGO stage data are 10-y ovarian cancer relative survival according to International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage I–IV (0.80/0.57/0.22/0.11) (36). Influence of age at treatment (25 and 65 y) is as specified in Supplemental Table 5.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental Data

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental Data
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 64 (1)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 64, Issue 1
January 1, 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Complete Issue (PDF)
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.
Estimating the Risk for Secondary Cancer After Targeted α-Therapy with 211At Intraperitoneal Radioimmunotherapy
(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
Estimating the Risk for Secondary Cancer After Targeted α-Therapy with 211At Intraperitoneal Radioimmunotherapy
Erik Leidermark, Andreas Hallqvist, Lars Jacobsson, Per Karlsson, Erik Holmberg, Tom Bäck, Mia Johansson, Sture Lindegren, Stig Palm, Per Albertsson
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jan 2023, 64 (1) 165-172; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.121.263349

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Estimating the Risk for Secondary Cancer After Targeted α-Therapy with 211At Intraperitoneal Radioimmunotherapy
Erik Leidermark, Andreas Hallqvist, Lars Jacobsson, Per Karlsson, Erik Holmberg, Tom Bäck, Mia Johansson, Sture Lindegren, Stig Palm, Per Albertsson
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jan 2023, 64 (1) 165-172; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.121.263349
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Visual Abstract
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Gadolinium-Based Nanoparticles Sensitize Ovarian Peritoneal Carcinomatosis to Targeted Radionuclide Therapy
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Feasibility of Ultra-Low-Activity 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging Using a Long–Axial-Field-of-View PET/CT System
  • Is Long–Axial-Field-of-View PET/CT Cost-Effective? An International Health–Economic Analysis
  • Multicycle Dosimetric Behavior and Dose–Effect Relationships in [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy
Show more Clinical Investigation

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • secondary cancer
  • α-particle
  • targeted α-therapy
  • human
  • astatine-211
  • radium-224
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire