UNLABELLED: The constant-volume urinary bladder model in the standard MIRD Pamphlet No. 5 (Revised) phantom has recognized limitations. Various investigators have developed detailed models incorporating more physiologically realistic features, such as expanding bladder contents and residual volume, and variable urinary input rate, initial volume and first void time. We have reviewed these published models and have developed a new model for calculation of radiation absorbed dose to the urinary bladder wall incorporating these aspects. METHODS: The model consists of a spherical source with variable volume to simulate the bladder contents and a wall represented by a spherical shell of constant volume. The wall thickness varies as the source expands or contracts. The model provides for variable urine entry rate (three different hydration states), initial bladder contents volume, residual volume and first void time. The voiding schedule includes an extended nighttime gap during which the urine entry rate is reduced to one-half the daytime rate. RESULTS: Radiation-absorbed dose estimates have been calculated for the bladder wall surface (including photon and electron components) and at several depths in the wall (electron component) for 2-18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose, 99mTc-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA), 99mTc-HEDP, 99mTc-pertechnetate, 99mTc-red blood cells (RBCs), 99mTc-glucoheptonate, 99mTc-mercaptoacetyltriglicine chelator (MAG3), 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate (MDP), 99mTc-hexamethylpropylene amine oxime (HMPAO), 99mTc-human serum albumin (HSA), 99mTc-MIBI (rest and stress), 123I-/124I-/131I-OIH, 123I/131I-NaI, 125I-iothalamate, 111In-DTPA and 89Sr-SrCl. CONCLUSION: The new model tends to give a higher radiation absorbed dose to the bladder wall surface than the previous models. Large initial bladder volumes and higher rates of urine flow into the bladder result in lower bladder wall dose. The optimal first voiding time is from 40 min to 3 hr postadministration, depending on radiopharmaceutical. The data as presented in tabular and graphic form for each compound provide guidance for establishing radiation absorbed dose reduction protocols.
UNLABELLED: The constant-volume urinary bladder model in the standard MIRD Pamphlet No. 5 (Revised) phantom has recognized limitations. Various investigators have developed detailed models incorporating more physiologically realistic features, such as expanding bladder contents and residual volume, and variable urinary input rate, initial volume and first void time. We have reviewed these published models and have developed a new model for calculation of radiation absorbed dose to the urinary bladder wall incorporating these aspects. METHODS: The model consists of a spherical source with variable volume to simulate the bladder contents and a wall represented by a spherical shell of constant volume. The wall thickness varies as the source expands or contracts. The model provides for variable urine entry rate (three different hydration states), initial bladder contents volume, residual volume and first void time. The voiding schedule includes an extended nighttime gap during which the urine entry rate is reduced to one-half the daytime rate. RESULTS: Radiation-absorbed dose estimates have been calculated for the bladder wall surface (including photon and electron components) and at several depths in the wall (electron component) for 2-18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose, 99mTc-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA), 99mTc-HEDP, 99mTc-pertechnetate, 99mTc-red blood cells (RBCs), 99mTc-glucoheptonate, 99mTc-mercaptoacetyltriglicine chelator (MAG3), 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate (MDP), 99mTc-hexamethylpropylene amine oxime (HMPAO), 99mTc-human serum albumin (HSA), 99mTc-MIBI (rest and stress), 123I-/124I-/131I-OIH, 123I/131I-NaI, 125I-iothalamate, 111In-DTPA and 89Sr-SrCl. CONCLUSION: The new model tends to give a higher radiation absorbed dose to the bladder wall surface than the previous models. Large initial bladder volumes and higher rates of urine flow into the bladder result in lower bladder wall dose. The optimal first voiding time is from 40 min to 3 hr postadministration, depending on radiopharmaceutical. The data as presented in tabular and graphic form for each compound provide guidance for establishing radiation absorbed dose reduction protocols.
Authors: Catherine L Gallagher; Bradley T Christian; James E Holden; Onofre T Dejesus; Robert J Nickles; Laura Buyan-Dent; Barbara B Bendlin; Sandra J Harding; Charles K Stone; Barb Mueller; Sterling C Johnson Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2011-06-02 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Andrew T Taylor; David C Brandon; Diego de Palma; M Donald Blaufox; Emmanuel Durand; Belkis Erbas; Sandra F Grant; Andrew J W Hilson; Anni Morsing Journal: Semin Nucl Med Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 4.446
Authors: Catherine A Foss; Donika Plyku; Alvaro A Ordonez; Julian Sanchez-Bautista; Hailey B Rosenthal; Il Minn; Martin A Lodge; Martin G Pomper; George Sgouros; Sanjay K Jain Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Anders Josefsson; Robert F Hobbs; Sagar Ranka; Bryan C Schwarz; Donika Plyku; Jose Willegaignon de Amorim de Carvalho; Carlos Alberto Buchpiguel; Marcelo Tatit Sapienza; Wesley E Bolch; George Sgouros Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Cristian C Constantinescu; Cedric Tresse; MingQiang Zheng; Alexandra Gouasmat; Vincent M Carroll; Laetitia Mistico; David Alagille; Christine M Sandiego; Caroline Papin; Kenneth Marek; John P Seibyl; Gilles D Tamagnan; Olivier Barret Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Ingrid L Bakker; Alida C Fröberg; Martijn B Busstra; J Fred Verzijlbergen; Mark Konijnenberg; Geert J L H van Leenders; Ivo G Schoots; Erik de Blois; Wytske M van Weerden; Simone U Dalm; Theodosia Maina; Berthold A Nock; Marion de Jong Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Suraiya R Dubash; Nicholas Keat; Kasia Kozlowski; Chris Barnes; Louis Allott; Diana Brickute; Sam Hill; Mickael Huiban; Tara D Barwick; Laura Kenny; Eric O Aboagye Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2020-03-02 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Tuula Tolvanen; Kari Kalliokoski; Simona Malaspina; Anna Kuisma; Salla Lahdenpohja; Ernst J Postema; Matthew P Miller; Mika Scheinin Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 10.057