MIRD Pamphlet No. 28, Part 2: Comparative Evaluation of MIRDcalc Dosimetry Software Across a Compendium of Diagnostic Radiopharmaceuticals

Lukas M. Carter; Juan C. Ocampo Ramos; Edmond A. Olguin; Justin L. Brown; Daniel Lafontaine; Derek W. Jokisch; Wesley E. Bolch; Adam L. Kesner

doi:10.2967/jnumed.122.264230

Article Figures & Data

Figures

Tables
Additional Files

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIGURE 1.
Phantoms used to derive dose coefficients compared in this work. Solid arrows denote comparisons using different phantoms and different software. Dashed arrows represent comparisons using same phantoms but different software. DC = dose coefficient; ORNL = Oak Ridge National Laboratory; w_T = tissue-weighting factor.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIGURE 2.
Organ-level absorbed dose coefficients for adult male compared via log relative differences (Eq. 13). (Top) ICRP publication 128 compared against MIRDcalc. (Middle) IDAC-Dose compared against MIRDcalc. (Bottom) OLINDA 2.1 compared against MIRDcalc. Red indicates a dose coefficient estimate higher than that of MIRDcalc; blue indicates lower. Black indicates off-scale values ( > 300).
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIGURE 3.
Organ-level absorbed dose coefficients for adult female compared via log relative differences (Eq. 13). (Top) ICRP publication 128 compared against MIRDcalc. (Middle) IDAC-Dose compared against MIRDcalc. (Bottom) OLINDA compared against MIRDcalc. Red indicates a dose coefficient estimate higher than that of MIRDcalc; blue indicates lower. Black indicates off-scale values ( > 300).
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIGURE 4.
Distribution of log relative differences in organ-level absorbed dose coefficients for adult male phantoms. (Top) ICRP publication 128 compared against MIRDcalc. (Middle) IDAC-Dose compared against MIRDcalc. (Bottom) OLINDA compared against MIRDcalc. Red–green shaded region represents range of reasonable agreement discussed in text; percentage value overlying this region indicates fraction of Δ-values that fall within this range. Histogram bin width is 10.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIGURE 5.
Distribution of log relative differences in organ-level absorbed dose coefficients for adult female phantoms. (Top) ICRP publication 128 compared against MIRDcalc. Upper left histogram is negatively skewed because ICRP publication 128 dose estimates are derived from single 70-kg hermaphroditic adult phantom, whereas MIRDcalc, IDAC-Dose, and OLINDA use a 60-kg female phantom. (Middle) IDAC-Dose compared against MIRDcalc. (Bottom) OLINDA compared against MIRDcalc. Red-green shaded region represents range of reasonable agreement discussed in text; percentage value overlying this region indicates fraction of Δ-values that fall within this range. Histogram bin width is 10.

View popup

TABLE 1.

Adult Effective Dose Coefficients and Relative Differences Compared Among MIRDcalc, IDAC-Dose, and ICRP Publication 128

Radiopharmaceutical	Effective dose coefficient (mSv/MBq)
Radiopharmaceutical	MIRDcalc	IDAC-Dose	OLINDA	ICRP 128
¹¹¹In-octreotide	5.49E−02	5.38E−02	5.89E−02	5.40E−02	−2.0	−2.0%	7.0	7.3%	−1.7	−1.6%
¹²³I-ioflupane	2.50E−02	2.36E−02	2.16E−02	2.50E−02	−5.8	−5.6%	−15	−14%	0.00	0.00%
¹²³I-NaI capsules (high thyroid uptake)	2.45E−01	2.45E−01	2.77E−01	3.00E−01	0.00	0.00%	12	13%	20	22%
¹²³I-NaI capsules (thyroid blocked)	3.04E−02	3.02E−02	2.04E−02	3.70E−02	−0.66	−0.7%	−40	−33%	20	22%
¹³¹I-NaI capsules (high thyroid uptake)	2.17E+01	2.16E+01	2.64E+01	2.90E+01	−0.46	−0.50%	20	22%	29	34%
¹³¹I-NaI (thyroid blocked)	2.10E−01	2.08E−01	1.55E−01	2.80E−01	−0.96	−1.0%	−30	−26%	29	33%
¹³³Xe gas	1.99E−04	1.64E−04	1.86E−04	1.80E−04	−19	−18%	−6.8	−6.5%	−10	−9.5%
¹³³Xe gas (rebreathing for 10 min)	1.27E−03	1.21E−03	1.11E−03	1.10E−03	−4.8	−4.7%	−13	−13%	−14	−13%
¹⁴C-urea, Heliobacter positive	8.68E−02	7.75E−02	8.93E−02	8.10E−02	−11	−11%	2.8	2.9%	−6.9	−6.7%
¹⁴C-urea, normal case	2.42E−02	2.16E−02	2.93E−02	3.10E−02	−11	−11%	19	21%	25	28%
¹⁸F-FDG	1.67E−02	1.61E−02	1.92E−02	1.90E−02	−3.7	−3.6%	14	15%	13	14%
¹⁸F-NaF	1.30E−02	1.28E−02	1.65E−02	1.70E−02	−1.6	−1.5%	24	27%	27	31%
²⁰¹Tl-TlCl	1.13E−01	1.09E−01	8.47E−02	1.40E−01	−3.6	−3.5%	−29	−25%	21	24%
⁶⁷Ga-citrate	9.43E−02	8.97E−02	8.72E−02	1.00E−01	−5.0	−4.9%	−7.8	−7.5%	5.9	6.0%
⁸²Rb-chloride	1.05E−03	1.00E−03	7.77E−04	1.10E−03	−4.9	−4.8%	−30	−26%	4.7	4.8%
^99mTc-DMSA	7.02E−03	6.92E−03	7.24E−03	8.80E−03	−1.4	−1.4%	3.1	3.1%	23	25%
^99mTc-DTPA	3.37E−03	3.26E−03	4.57E−03	4.90E−03	−3.3	−3.3%	30	36%	37	45%
^99mTc-ECD	5.56E−03	5.52E−03	5.08E−03	7.70E−03	−0.72	−0.70%	−9.0	−8.6%	33	39%
^99mTc-iminodiacetic acid derivatives	9.44E−03	9.55E−03	3.84E−03	1.60E−02	1.2	1.2%	−90	−59%	53	70%
^99mTc-macroaggregated albumin	1.40E−02	1.15E−02	1.37E−02	1.10E−02	−20	−18%	−2.2	−2.1%	−24	−21%
^99mTc-MAG3	4.12E−03	4.09E−03	6.38E−03	7.00E−03	−0.73	−0.70%	44	55%	53	70%
^99mTc-sestamibi, exercise	6.19E−03	6.03E−03	3.74E−03	7.90E−03	−2.6	−2.6%	−50	−40%	24	28%
^99mTc-sestamibi, rest	7.09E−03	6.89E−03	4.64E−03	9.00E−03	−2.9	−2.8%	−42	−35%	24	27%
^99mTc-HMPAO	8.35E−03	7.99E−03	7.10E−03	9.30E−03	−4.4	−4.3%	−16	−15%	11	11%
^99mTc sulfur colloid	1.10E−02	1.09E−02	1.11E−02	9.10E−03	−0.91	−0.90%	0.90	0.90%	−19	−17%
^99mTc-pertechnetate, with blocking agent	4.07E−03	3.78E−03	4.47E−03	4.60E−03	−7.4	−7.1%	9.4	9.8%	12	13%
^99mTc-pertechnetate, no blocking agent	9.99E−03	9.87E−03	4.24E−03	1.30E−02	−1.2	−1.2%	−86	−58%	26	30%
^99mTc-MDP	4.32E−03	4.25E−03	5.10E−03	4.90E−03	−1.6	−1.6%	17	18%	13	13%
^99mTc-tetrofosmin, exercise	5.63E−03	5.37E−03	4.51E−03	6.90E−03	−4.7	−4.6%	−22	−20%	20	23%
^99mTc-tetrofosmin, rest	6.09E−03	5.89E−03	4.56E−03	8.00E−03	−3.3	−3.3%	−29	−25%	27	31%

Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG), dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA), diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA), ethylenedicysteine diester (ECD), mercaptoacetyltriglycine (MAG3), hexamethylpropyleneamine oxime (HMPAO), methyl diphosphonate (MDP).