Comparison of different calculation techniques for absorbed dose assessment in patient specific peptide receptor radionuclide therapy.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
12
07
2019
accepted:
06
07
2020
entrez:
9
8
2020
pubmed:
9
8
2020
medline:
2
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The present work concerns the comparison of the performances of three systems for dosimetry in RPT that use different techniques for absorbed dose calculation (organ-level dosimetry, voxel-level dose kernel convolution and Monte Carlo simulations). The aim was to assess the importance of the choice of the most adequate calculation modality, providing recommendations about the choice of the computation tool. The performances were evaluated both on phantoms and patients in a multi-level approach. Different phantoms filled with a 177Lu-radioactive solution were used: a homogeneous cylindrical phantom, a phantom with organ-shaped inserts and two cylindrical phantoms with inserts different for shape and volume. A total of 70 patients with NETs treated by PRRT with 177Lu-DOTATOC were retrospectively analysed. The comparisons were performed mainly between the mean values of the absorbed dose in the regions of interest. A general better agreement was obtained between Dose kernel convolution and Monte Carlo simulations results rather than between either of these two and organ-level dosimetry, both for phantoms and patients. Phantoms measurements also showed the discrepancies mainly depend on the geometry of the inserts (e.g. shape and volume). For patients, differences were more pronounced than phantoms and higher inter/intra patient variability was observed. This study suggests that voxel-level techniques for dosimetry calculation are potentially more accurate and personalized than organ-level methods. In particular, a voxel-convolution method provides good results in a short time of calculation, while Monte Carlo based computation should be conducted with very fast calculation systems for a possible use in clinics, despite its intrinsic higher accuracy. Attention to the calculation modality is recommended in case of clinical regions of interest with irregular shape and far from spherical geometry, in which Monte Carlo seems to be more accurate than voxel-convolution methods.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32764764
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236466
pii: PONE-D-19-19536
pmc: PMC7413508
doi:
Substances chimiques
Radioisotopes
0
Receptors, Peptide
0
Lutetium
5H0DOZ21UJ
Lutetium-177
BRH40Y9V1Q
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0236466Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Med Phys. 2013 Jul;40(7):072501
pubmed: 23822450
Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2015 Feb;30(1):16-26
pubmed: 25594357
Phys Med. 2018 Jan;45:177-185
pubmed: 29472084
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013 Aug;40(8):1197-205
pubmed: 23619938
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2008;131(1):123-9
pubmed: 18930928
J Nucl Med. 2018 Jan;59(1):154-160
pubmed: 28887400
J Nucl Med. 1990 Nov;31(11):1884-91
pubmed: 2231006
J Nucl Med. 2009 Mar;50(3):477-84
pubmed: 19258258
Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2003 Jun;18(3):379-92
pubmed: 12954124
J Nucl Med. 2005 Jan;46 Suppl 1:99S-106S
pubmed: 15653658
Ann ICRP. 2019 Sep;48(1):5-95
pubmed: 31565950
J Nucl Med. 1999 Jan;40(1):11S-36S
pubmed: 9935083
Phys Med Biol. 2013 Apr 21;58(8):2491-508
pubmed: 23514870
Phys Med. 2015 Feb;31(1):72-9
pubmed: 25457430
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008 Oct;35(10):1847-56
pubmed: 18427807
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014 Oct;41(10):1976-88
pubmed: 24915892
Radiat Res Suppl. 1985;8:S13-9
pubmed: 3867079
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013 May;40(5):800-16
pubmed: 23389427
EJNMMI Phys. 2017 Dec;4(1):2
pubmed: 28063068
Z Med Phys. 2015 Sep;25(3):264-74
pubmed: 25791740
J Nucl Med. 2005 Jun;46(6):1023-7
pubmed: 15937315
Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2003 Feb;18(1):109-15
pubmed: 12674095
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2009 Jul;36(7):1138-46
pubmed: 19247653
J Nucl Med. 2015 Feb;56(2):177-82
pubmed: 25593115
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005 Apr;32(4):511-2; author reply 513
pubmed: 15688195
J Nucl Med. 2012 Aug;53(8):1310-25
pubmed: 22743252
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jan 12;376(2):125-135
pubmed: 28076709
Br J Cancer. 2013 Apr 16;108(7):1440-8
pubmed: 23492685
Radiat Oncol J. 2012 Mar;30(1):43-8
pubmed: 23120743
Phys Med. 2019 Jan;57:153-159
pubmed: 30738519
Med Phys. 1998 Oct;25(10):1773-829
pubmed: 9800687
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015 Jun 05;25(2):141-51
pubmed: 26110027
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1989 Jun;16(6):1623-30
pubmed: 2722599
Med Phys. 1994 Apr;21(4):581-618
pubmed: 8058027
Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011 Apr;55(2):205-21
pubmed: 21386791
Med Phys. 2013 Nov;40(11):112503
pubmed: 24320462
Nucl Med Commun. 2017 May;38(5):357-365
pubmed: 28338529