1. Impact of Single-Time-Point Estimates of 177 Lu-PRRT Absorbed Doses on Patient Management: Validation of a Trained Multiple-Linear-Regression Model in 159 Patients and 477 Therapy Cycles.
- Author
-
Chicheportiche A, Sason M, Zidan M, Godefroy J, Krausz Y, Gross DJ, Grozinsky-Glasberg S, and Ben-Haim S
- Subjects
- Humans, Retrospective Studies, Octreotide adverse effects, Radiometry, Kidney, Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography Computed Tomography, Neuroendocrine Tumors radiotherapy, Neuroendocrine Tumors drug therapy, Organometallic Compounds therapeutic use
- Abstract
Dosimetry after
177 Lu-DOTATATE peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) enables estimation of radiation doses absorbed by normal organs and target lesions. This process is time-consuming and requires multiple posttreatment studies on several subsequent days. In a previous study, we described a newly developed multiple-linear-regression model to predict absorbed doses (ADs) from a single-time-point (STP) posttreatment study acquired 168 h after the first infusion and 24 h after the following ones, with similar results to the standard multiple-time-point (MTP) protocol. The present study aimed to validate this model in a large patient cohort and to assess whether STP dosimetry affects patient management decisions compared with our MTP protocol. Methods: Quantitative177 Lu-DOTATATE SPECT/CT post-PRRT data from 159 consecutive patients (172 therapies, 477 therapy cycles) were retrospectively analyzed. ADs obtained from an STP model were compared with those obtained using an MTP model. We evaluated the impact of the STP model on the decision on whether PRRT should be stopped because of an expected kidney AD exceeding the safety threshold. We hypothesized that patient management based on the STP model does not differ from that based on the MTP model in at least 90% of the cases. Results: There was no difference in management decisions between the MTP and STP models in 170 of 172 therapies (98.8%). A Fisher χ2 test for combined probabilities produced a composite P value of 0.0003. Mean cumulative AD relative differences between the STP and MTP models were 0.8% ± 8.0%, -7.7% ± 4.8%, 0.0% ± 11.4%, -2.8% ± 6.3%, and -2.1% ± 18.4% for kidneys, bone marrow, liver, spleen, and tumors, respectively (Pearson r = 0.99 for all), for patients who underwent 4 therapy cycles. Similar results were obtained with fewer therapy cycles. Conclusion: Estimated radiation ADs and patient management decisions were similar with the STP and MTP models. The STP model can simplify the dosimetry process while also reducing scanner and staff time and improving patient comfort., (© 2023 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF