Search

Objectives: To investigate and compare quantitative accuracy of kidney absorbed dose measures made from both 2D and 3D imaging in patients receiving 177 Lu-DOTATATE (Lutate) for treatment of neuroendocrine tumours (NETs)., Methods: Patients receiving Lutate therapy underwent both whole body planar imaging and SPECT/CT imaging over the kidneys at time points 0.5, 4, 24, and 96-120 hours after injection. Planar data were corrected for attenuation using transmission data, and were converted to units of absolute activity via two methods, using either a calibration standard in the field of view or relative to pre-voiding image total counts. Hand drawn regions of interest were used to generate time activity curves and kidney absorbed dose estimates in OLINDA-EXM. Fully quantitative SPECT data were generated using CT-derived corrections for both scatter and attenuation, before correction for dead time and application of a camera specific sensitivity factor to convert data to units of absolute activity. Volumes of interest were defined for kidney using the co-registered x-ray CT, before time activity curves and absorbed dose measures were generated in OLINDA-EXM, both with and without corrections made to the model for patient specific kidney volumes. Quantitative SPECT data were also used to derive dose maps through dose kernel convolution (DKC), which was treated as the gold standard., Results: A total of 50 studies were analysed, corresponding to various cycles of treatment from 21 patients. Planar absorbed dose estimates were consistently higher than SPECT derived estimates by, on average, a factor of 3., Conclusion: Quantitative SPECT is considered the gold standard approach for organ specific dosimetry however often relies on in house software. As such planar methods for estimating absorbed dose are much more widely available, and in particular, are often the only source of reference in previously published data. For the case of Lutate dosimetry, planar measures may lead to a three-fold increase in measures of kidney absorbed dose., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicting interests to report.