J Hermanská1, M Kárný, J Zimák, L Jirsa, M Sámal, P Vlcek. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Faculty Hospital Motol and First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: We proposed an alternative to a monoexponential model of radioiodine kinetics to obtain a more accurate estimate of absorbed doses to postsurgical thyroid remnants. We suggested that part of the difference between the predicted and the actually absorbed therapeutic doses of (131)I, usually explained by radiation damage of thyroid cells, can be attributed to errors resulting from inadequate sampling of data and oversimplified modeling. METHODS: A standard monoexponential model and alternative biphasic model (incorporating both radioiodine uptake and clearance) were used on 2 sets of patient data to fit time-activity measurements after administration of diagnostic and therapeutic activities of radioiodine. One set of data consisted of 633 records of routine measurements, and the second set consisted of 71 prospectively collected records with measurements performed more frequently and for a longer time. The time-activity curves derived from the 2 models were used to calculate residence times for diagnostic and therapeutic activities of (131)I, and the respective residence times were compared using the paired t test. Errors of fitting and prediction of therapeutic time-activity data were also calculated. RESULTS: With both models, a statistically significant difference (P < 0.01) was found between residence times after diagnostic administration of (131)I and residence times after therapeutic administration of (131)I. However, the effects of biphasic modeling and of improved sampling substantially reduced the difference (P < 0.01). Errors of fitting and prediction were smaller with the biphasic model than with the monoexponential model (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The biphasic model more accurately predicts (131)I kinetics when applied to measurements in the short interval after diagnostic administration of radioiodine. The minimum requirement for the biphasic model is measurement twice a day at intervals > 6 h for at least 3 d after administration.
UNLABELLED: We proposed an alternative to a monoexponential model of radioiodine kinetics to obtain a more accurate estimate of absorbed doses to postsurgical thyroid remnants. We suggested that part of the difference between the predicted and the actually absorbed therapeutic doses of (131)I, usually explained by radiation damage of thyroid cells, can be attributed to errors resulting from inadequate sampling of data and oversimplified modeling. METHODS: A standard monoexponential model and alternative biphasic model (incorporating both radioiodine uptake and clearance) were used on 2 sets of patient data to fit time-activity measurements after administration of diagnostic and therapeutic activities of radioiodine. One set of data consisted of 633 records of routine measurements, and the second set consisted of 71 prospectively collected records with measurements performed more frequently and for a longer time. The time-activity curves derived from the 2 models were used to calculate residence times for diagnostic and therapeutic activities of (131)I, and the respective residence times were compared using the paired t test. Errors of fitting and prediction of therapeutic time-activity data were also calculated. RESULTS: With both models, a statistically significant difference (P < 0.01) was found between residence times after diagnostic administration of (131)I and residence times after therapeutic administration of (131)I. However, the effects of biphasic modeling and of improved sampling substantially reduced the difference (P < 0.01). Errors of fitting and prediction were smaller with the biphasic model than with the monoexponential model (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The biphasic model more accurately predicts (131)I kinetics when applied to measurements in the short interval after diagnostic administration of radioiodine. The minimum requirement for the biphasic model is measurement twice a day at intervals > 6 h for at least 3 d after administration.
Authors: Glenn D Flux; Masud Haq; Sarah J Chittenden; Susan Buckley; Cecilia Hindorf; Kate Newbold; Clive L Harmer Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2009-09-04 Impact factor: 9.236