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

Dosimetry of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA–Targeted Radiopharmaceutical Therapies in Patients with Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Systematic Review and Metaanalysis

Zachary Ells, Tristan R. Grogan, Johannes Czernin, Magnus Dahlbom and Jeremie Calais
Journal of Nuclear Medicine August 2024, 65 (8) 1264-1271; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.124.267452
Zachary Ells
1Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tristan R. Grogan
2Department of Medicine Statistics Core, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Johannes Czernin
1Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Magnus Dahlbom
1Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeremie Calais
1Ahmanson Translational Theranostics Division, Department of Molecular and Medical Pharmacology, UCLA, Los Angeles, California; 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.

    Study selection for metaanalysis. Using PRISMA criteria, we selected 29 studies for this metaanalysis. Only conference abstracts or fully published articles that were in English and reported absorbed dose to organs at risk or tumors were included.

  • FIGURE 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2.

    Reported absorbed doses (Gy/cycle) to kidney from selected studies, allowing for computation of pooled average absorbed dose. *As reported in VISION trial. †As reported in SPLASH trial.

  • FIGURE 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3.

    Reported absorbed doses (Gy/cycle) to tumor lesions from selected studies that were used to compute pooled average absorbed dose. Individual study estimates: gray box with black bar, each study's effect estimate (mean) is represented by gray box, with size of box proportional to study's weight in metaanalysis; black bar through box indicates CI for estimate; white cross in gray box, studies with very precise estimates; white cross indicates point estimate (mean), with gray box showing narrow CI; pooled estimate (diamond): Diamond Shape: The pooled estimate, or overall effect estimate, of the meta-analysis is shown as a diamond at the bottom of the plot. Width of the Diamond: The width of the diamond represents the confidence interval for the pooled estimate. The left and right tips of the diamond correspond to the lower and upper bounds of the CI, respectively. Center of the Diamond: The center of the diamond represents the overall effect estimate (mean) calculated from combining the individual study estimates. *Lesion location reported as soft tissue. †Lesion location reported as visceral tissue. ‡Lesion location reported within liver. §Lesion location reported within lung. ‖Tumor dosimetry reported from VISION trial.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    TABLE 1.

    Reported Dosimetry for Organs at Risk

    AuthorIsotopeInjected activity (GBq)Kidney (Gy/GBq)Parotid (Gy/GBq)Submandibular (Gy/GBq)Marrow (Gy/GBq)Liver (Gy/GBq)Lacrimal (Gy/GBq)
    Kabasakal (39)6170.20.88 ± 0.41.17 ± 0.31–0.03 ± 0.010.28 ± 0.09–
    Delker (15)6173.60.6 ± 0.181.4 ± 0.53–0.01 ± 0.010.11 ± 0.06–
    Fendler (10)6173.70.55 ± 0.251 ± 0.6–0.1 < 0.1–
    Hohberg (40)6175.50.53 ± 0.170.72 ± 0.14–––2.82 ± 0.76
    Kratochwil (33)6173.00.75 ± 0.191.28 ± 0.41.48 ± 0.370.03 ± 0.01––
    Yadav (12)6172.50.99 ± 0.311.24 ± 0.27–0.05 ± 0.060.36 ± 0.11–
    Scarpa (19)6176.10.6 ± 0.360.56 ± 0.250.5 ± 0.150.04 ± 0.03–1.01 ± 0.69
    Gosewisch (41)6173.7–––0.01 (0.01–0.02)––
    Gosewisch (42)6175.2–––0.012––
    Sarnelli (43)6175.00.67 ± 0.270.81 ± 0.74–0.04 ± 0.020.16 ± 0.15–
    Violet (20)6177.80.39 ± 0.150.58 ± 0.430.44 ± 0.360.11 ± 0.10.1 ± 0.050.36 ± 0.18
    Paganelli (44)6174.40.41 ± 0.191.04 ± 0.820.67 ± 0.360.04 ± 0.020.18 ± 0.142.06 ± 1.24
    Mix (34)6176.00.67 ± 0.24–––––
    Privé/Peters (8,9)6173.00.49 ± 0.110.39 ± 0.17–0.02 ± 0.010.09 ± 0.01–
    Rosar (11)6176.40.54 ± 0.280.81 ± 0.340.72 ± 0.39–0.1 ± 0.05–
    Völter (45)6176.0––––––
    Kamaldeep (16)6174.40.49 ± 0.170.53 ± 0.2–0.03 ± 0.020.07 ± 0.041.23 ± 0.7
    Schuchardt (46)6176.50.80.5–––5.1
    Herrmann/Krause (47,48)6177.40.43 ± 0.160.63 ± 0.36–0.04 ± 0.02–2.1 ± 0.47
    Uijen (22)6173.00.49 (0.34–0.66)–––––
    Okamoto (35)I&T7.40.72 ± 0.210.55 ± 0.140.64 ± 0.4–0.12 ± 0.063.8 ± 1.4
    Baum (17)I&T5.80.8 (0.2–1.9)1.3 (0.3–9.5)–0.03 (0.01–0.04)––
    Barna (13)I&T7.40.71 ± 0.240.77––0.27–
    Chatachot (14)I&T6.70.81 ± 0.240.21 ± 0.14–0.02 ± 0.010.13 ± 0.103.62 ± 1.78
    Schuchardt (46)I&T6.10.90.5–––3.7
    Kelk (49)I&T7.40.3050.110.24–0.030.8
    Feuerecker (18)I&T7.30.73 ± 0.180.8 ± 0.41–0.28 ± 0.20.07 ± 0.03–
    Beauregard (50)I&T6.80.73 ± 0.330.34 ± 0.27–0.03 ± 0.020.05 ± 0.041.2 ± 1.2
    Uijen (22)I&T7.40.73 (0.42–1.31)–––––
    Resch (51)I&T7.42 (1.2–2.4)–––––
    Hohberg (21)I&T7.20.53 ± 0.21–––––
    Bander/Vallabhajosula (27,52)J5912.81.41 ± 0.35––0.32 ± 0.012.1 ± 0.6–
    • Data are reported as mean ± SD or as median followed by range in parentheses.

    • View popup
    TABLE 2.

    Reported Tumor Lesion Dosimetry

    AuthorIsotopeInjected activity (GBq)Unspecified/single-study exploration (Gy/GBq)Skeletal lesion (Gy/GBq)Nodal lesion (Gy/GBq)Liver lesion (Gy/GBq)
    Delker (15)6173.62.1 ± 0.8*5.3 ± 3.74.2 ± 5.3–
    Fendler (10)6173.72.16 ± 0.85*4.92 ± 3.5411.64 ± 5.44–
    Scarpa (19)6176.1–3.4 ± 1.92.6 ± 0.42.4 ± 0.8
    Violet (20)6177.8–5.28 ± 2.463.91 ± 3.93–
    Paganelli (44)6174.4–4.7 (0.74–55.86)3.64 (0.25–15.10)–
    Privé/Peters (8,9)6173.03.25 ± 3.191.1 (0.3–3.1)3.1 (0.6–13)–
    Rosar (11)6176.4–1.68 ± 1.32––
    Volter (45)6176.0–4.7 ± 3.97.7 ± 9.7–
    Schuchardt (46)6176.5–67.1–
    Herrmann/Krause (47,48)6177.4–14.6 ± 29.812.5 ± 15.9–
    Okamoto (35)I&T7.41.75 ± 0.92†3.4 ± 2.73.2 ± 2.21.2 ± 0.67
    Baum (17)I&T5.8–3 (0.2–40)4 (0.14–78)–
    Barna (13)I&T7.4–4.385.474.95
    Schuchardt (46)I&T6.1–5.96.9–
    Feuerecker (18)I&T7.3–1.7 ± 1.134.51 ± 2.69–
    Hohberg (21)I&T7.2–3.47 ± 23.73 ± 1.65–
    Resch (51)I&T7.5–5.8 ± 3.17.7 ± 4.5–
    • ↵* Tumor was deemed soft tissue in nature.

    • ↵† Tumor was deemed lung lesion.

    • Data are reported as mean ± SD or as median followed by range in parentheses.

    • View popup
    TABLE 3.

    Weighted Average of Absorbed Doses for Organs at Risk and Tumors

    617I&TJ591
    Organ or groupGy/GBqGy/7.4-GBq cycleGy/GBqGy/6.8-GBq cycleGy/GBqGy/5.6-GBq cycle617 vs. I&T POverall P
    Kidney0.584.040.714.701.413.950.100.06
    Parotid0.845.850.432.62––<0.01–
    Submandibular0.745.150.644.35––0.56–
    Bone marrow0.030.240.030.190.320.900.31<0.01
    Liver0.161.110.090.562.105.880.05<0.01
    Lacrimal glands1.5811.032.8319.23––0.20–
    Tumor lesion, bone only3.5726.434.1027.87––0.38–
    Tumor lesion, soft-tissue only4.1931.002.9419.98––0.23–
    • Data are summary of pooled doses for organs at risk and tumor lesions from different 177Lu-based molecules shown as average (CI can be seen for kidney and tumors in Figs. 2 and 3 and for rest of organs in Supplemental Figs. 1–5).

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental Data

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental Data
    • PRISMA Checklist
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 65 (8)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 65, Issue 8
August 1, 2024
  • 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.
Dosimetry of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA–Targeted Radiopharmaceutical Therapies in Patients with Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Systematic Review and Metaanalysis
(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
Dosimetry of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA–Targeted Radiopharmaceutical Therapies in Patients with Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Systematic Review and Metaanalysis
Zachary Ells, Tristan R. Grogan, Johannes Czernin, Magnus Dahlbom, Jeremie Calais
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2024, 65 (8) 1264-1271; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.124.267452

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Dosimetry of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA–Targeted Radiopharmaceutical Therapies in Patients with Prostate Cancer: A Comparative Systematic Review and Metaanalysis
Zachary Ells, Tristan R. Grogan, Johannes Czernin, Magnus Dahlbom, Jeremie Calais
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Aug 2024, 65 (8) 1264-1271; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.124.267452
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

  • Errata
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Direct Correlation of Tumor Absorbed Dose with Overall Survival in Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Treated with 177Lu Prostate-Specific Membrane Antigen
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • SNMMI Procedure Standard/EANM Practice Guideline for Brain [18F]FDG PET Imaging, Version 2.0
  • Meeting Upcoming Clinical and Diagnostic Needs in Oncologic Imaging: A Structured Reporting System for Fibroblast-Activation-Protein–Targeted Imaging—FAP-RADS Version 1.0
  • Imaging Efficacy of [18F]CTT1057 PET for the Detection of PSMA-Positive Tumors Using Histopathology as Standard of Truth: Results from the GuideView Phase 2/3 Prospective Multicenter Study
Show more Clinical Investigation

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • 177Lu
  • PSMA
  • dosimetry
  • theranostics
  • metaanalysis
  • prostate cancer
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire