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 ReportOncology, Basic and Translational - Technical Advances & Quantification (this would include image-guided diagnostics/therapy)

Can single time point dosimetry be utilized to estimate the absorbed dose with acceptable accuracy in non-Hodgkins’ lymphoma patients treated with radioimmunotherapy? Data from 2 institutes

Johan Blakkisrud, Caroline Stokke, Ayca Løndalen, Mark Kaminski and Yuni Dewaraja
Journal of Nuclear Medicine June 2023, 64 (supplement 1) P654;
Johan Blakkisrud
1University of Michigan & Oslo University Hospital
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Caroline Stokke
2Oslo University Hospital & University of Oslo
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ayca Løndalen
3Oslo University Hospital
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark Kaminski
4University of Michigan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Yuni Dewaraja
4University of Michigan
  • 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

P654

Introduction: There is much recent interest in reducing imaging time points for routine clinical dosimetry. Two commonly used methods to perform Single timepoint (STP)-dosimetry are the so called Hanscheid-method [J Nuc Med 2018;59:75-81] and the Madsen-method [Med Phys 2018;45:2318-2324]. The former assumes a mono-exponential time activity curve and sampling performed at an optimal time point while the later uses parameter estimates of a known population. To our knowledge, application of these methods in the radioimmunotherapy (RIT) setting has not been reported. In the current work, we make use of multi-timepoint imaging data from two patient groups with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) treated with RIT, to test feasibility of STP methods and identify the optimal sampling time point.

Methods: Tumor time activity-curves (TACs) for 39 NHL patients treated at University of Michigan with 131I-tositumomab and liver, spleen and kidney-TACs for 13 patients treated at Oslo University Hospital with 177Lu-lilotomab satetraxetan were included. For 131I-tositumomab, three SPECT/CT-images from both tracer (days 0, 2 and 6) and therapy administration (days 2, 5 and 7/8) were included. Tracer and therapy STP-estimates were treated separately. For the 177Lu-lilotomab satetraxetan, a three-time point hybrid planar (day 1) and SPECT/CT (days 4 and 7) imaging protocol was used. STP-estimates of the time integrated activity coefficients (TIAC) were calculated from each time point for both the Hanscheid and Madsen-method. For the Madsen-method, the population average was used to estimate the tissue specific population effective half-life. The STP-estimated TIACs were compared to reference (from multi-timepoint imaging) TIACs using the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). For the 131I-tositumomab reference TIAC, a biexponential mixed model fit was used, whereas for the 177Lu-lilotomab satetraxetan data, trapezoidal integration and a monoexponential tail past the penultimate time point was used.

Results: For tumor on the 131I-tositumomab post-therapy-scans, the MAPE + standard deviation for STPs at day 2, 5 and 7/8 were 10.7 ± 9.4, 18.5 ± 17.4 and 47.4 ± 28.3 % for the Hanscheid-method, whereas for the Madsen-method the MAPE was 11.6 ± 9.3, 20.3 ± 16.6 and 42.2 ± 28.5 %. At the optimal time point (day 2; average 44 hours) 70 and 65 % of the STP-estimated TIACs were within 20 % for the Hanscheid and Madsen-method respectively. For tumor on the tracer-scans, the MAPE for STPs at day 0, 2 and 6 were 97.7 ± 1.7, 16.4 ± 15.0 and 17.0 ± 13.4 % for the Hanscheid-method and 42.4 ± 23.9, 17.5 ± 11.8 and 16.8 ± 13.5 % for the Madsen-method. At the optimal time point (day 2, average 47 hours) 87 and 86 % of the tumors were within 20 % with the Hanscheid and Madsen-method respectively. The MAPE across all normal organs for 177Lu-lilotomab satetraxetan were 57.1 ± 13.3, 14.4 ± 9.0 and 10.9 ± 7.1 % for day 1, 4 and 7 estimations respectively for the Hanscheid method and 17.6 ± 14.0, 13.5 ± 8.6 and 8.8 ± 6.7 for the Madsen-method. For the Hanscheid-method and using the optimal time point (day 7, average 173.5 hours) , 100, 77 and 85 % of the STP-estimates were within 20 % for the liver, spleen and kidneys respectively. For the Madsen-method and the same time point, 100 % of the liver and kidneys and 92 % of the spleen-estimates were within 20 %.

Conclusions: For all structures evaluated (tumors for 131I-tositumomab and liver, spleen and kidneys for 177Lu-lilotomab satetraxetan) STP-estimate could potentially be used to calculate the TIAC, and hence the absorbed dose depending on accepted accuracy. For both therapies, the two STP methods performed similarly at their optimal sampling time with <20% difference in TIAC on average relative to multi-time point imaging. The optimal sampling time based on the current data is approximately 2 days post injection for 131I-tositumomab tumor-dosimetry and approximately 7 days post injection for 177Lu-lilotomab satetraxetan liver, spleen, and kidney-dosimetry.

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

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 64, Issue supplement 1
June 1, 2023
  • 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.
Can single time point dosimetry be utilized to estimate the absorbed dose with acceptable accuracy in non-Hodgkins’ lymphoma patients treated with radioimmunotherapy? Data from 2 institutes
(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
Can single time point dosimetry be utilized to estimate the absorbed dose with acceptable accuracy in non-Hodgkins’ lymphoma patients treated with radioimmunotherapy? Data from 2 institutes
Johan Blakkisrud, Caroline Stokke, Ayca Løndalen, Mark Kaminski, Yuni Dewaraja
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jun 2023, 64 (supplement 1) P654;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Can single time point dosimetry be utilized to estimate the absorbed dose with acceptable accuracy in non-Hodgkins’ lymphoma patients treated with radioimmunotherapy? Data from 2 institutes
Johan Blakkisrud, Caroline Stokke, Ayca Løndalen, Mark Kaminski, Yuni Dewaraja
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Jun 2023, 64 (supplement 1) P654;
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

  • Simulated Radiation Dosimetry of Intrathecal Radionuclide Therapy using Ga-66, Ga-67 and Ga-68 Citrate
  • 68Ga-pentixather PET/CT for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: Comparison to 68Ga-pentixafor PET/CT
  • Predicting Tumor Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy based on Pretreatment 18F-FDG PET/CT and Clinical Parameters in Locally Advanced Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Show more Oncology, Basic and Translational - Technical Advances & Quantification (this would include image-guided diagnostics/therapy)

Similar Articles

SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire