PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Yuni K. Dewaraja AU - Matthew J. Schipper AU - Peter L. Roberson AU - Scott J. Wilderman AU - Hanan Amro AU - Denise D. Regan AU - Kenneth F. Koral AU - Mark S. Kaminski AU - Anca M. Avram TI - <sup>131</sup>I-Tositumomab Radioimmunotherapy: Initial Tumor Dose–Response Results Using 3-Dimensional Dosimetry Including Radiobiologic Modeling AID - 10.2967/jnumed.110.075176 DP - 2010 Jul 01 TA - Journal of Nuclear Medicine PG - 1155--1162 VI - 51 IP - 7 4099 - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/51/7/1155.short 4100 - http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/51/7/1155.full SO - J Nucl Med2010 Jul 01; 51 AB - For optimal treatment planning in radionuclide therapy, robust tumor dose–response correlations must be established. Here, fully 3-dimensional (3D) dosimetry was performed coupling SPECT/CT at multiple time points with Monte Carlo–based voxel-by-voxel dosimetry to examine such correlations. Methods: Twenty patients undergoing 131I-tositumomab for the treatment of refractory B-cell lymphoma volunteered for the study. Sixty tumors were imaged. Activity quantification and dosimetry were performed using previously developed 3D algorithms for SPECT reconstruction and absorbed dose estimation. Tumors were outlined on CT at multiple time points to obtain absorbed dose distributions in the presence of tumor deformation and regression. Equivalent uniform dose (EUD) was calculated to assess the biologic effects of the nonuniform absorbed dose, including the cold antibody effect. Response for correlation analysis was determined on the basis of the percentage reduction in the product of the largest perpendicular tumor diameters on CT at 2 mo. Overall response classification (as complete response, partial response, stable disease, or progressive disease) used for prediction analysis was based on criteria that included findings on PET. Results: Of the evaluated tumor-absorbed dose summary measures (mean absorbed dose, EUD, and other measures from dose-volume histogram analysis), a statistically significant correlation with response was seen only with EUD (r = 0.36 and P = 0.006 at the individual tumor level; r = 0.46 and P = 0.048 at the patient level). The median value of mean absorbed dose for stable disease, partial response, and complete response patients was 196, 346, and 342 cGy, respectively, whereas the median value of EUD for each of these categories was 170, 363, and 406 cGy, respectively. At a threshold of 200 cGy, both mean absorbed dose and EUD had a positive predictive value for responders (partial response + complete response) of 0.875 (14/16) and a negative predictive value of 1.0 (3/3). Conclusion: Improved dose–response correlations were demonstrated when EUD incorporating the cold antibody effect was used instead of the conventionally used mean tumor-absorbed dose. This work demonstrates the importance of 3D calculation and radiobiologic modeling when estimating absorbed dose for correlation with outcome.