BACKGROUND: Maximum injected activity in radioimmunotherapy (RIT) is limited by bone marrow toxicity. Many dosimetric approaches have been proposed, leading to high variability in the results and elusive absorbed dose-effect relations. This study presents the results of red marrow (RM) absorbed dose estimates performed with 3 methods. METHODS: Five patients received 2 co-infusions of (90)Y-labeled (370 MBq/m2) and (111)In- labeled (120 MBq) epratuzumab (1.5 mg/kg) 1 week apart. RM-absorbed dose was estimated by 3 methodologies. The first approach (M1) used L(2)-L(4) lumbar vertebrae imaging. M2 and M3 methods used different red marrow to blood ratios (RMBLR) to assess RM-absorbed dose. RMBLR was set to a fixed value of 0.36 in M2 or assessed according to each patient's hematocrit in M3. RESULTS: Median RM-absorbed doses were 4.1 (2.9-8.4), 2.3 (2.0-2.7), and 2.3 (1.6-2.5) mGy/MBq for M1, M2, and M3, respectively. No trend could be found between total RM-absorbed dose and toxicity for M2 and M3. Conversely, M1 seemed to provide the best absorbed dose-effect relation. The 4 patients with the highest RM-absorbed doses exhibited grade 4 toxicity. The fifth patient, with the lowest RB absorbed dose, exhibited only a mild (grade 2) toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Image-based methodology (M1) seems to better predict hematological toxicity as compared with blood-based methods. Only this method provides for bone marrow involvement. (c) 2010 American Cancer Society.
BACKGROUND: Maximum injected activity in radioimmunotherapy (RIT) is limited by bone marrow toxicity. Many dosimetric approaches have been proposed, leading to high variability in the results and elusive absorbed dose-effect relations. This study presents the results of red marrow (RM) absorbed dose estimates performed with 3 methods. METHODS: Five patients received 2 co-infusions of (90)Y-labeled (370 MBq/m2) and (111)In- labeled (120 MBq) epratuzumab (1.5 mg/kg) 1 week apart. RM-absorbed dose was estimated by 3 methodologies. The first approach (M1) used L(2)-L(4) lumbar vertebrae imaging. M2 and M3 methods used different red marrow to blood ratios (RMBLR) to assess RM-absorbed dose. RMBLR was set to a fixed value of 0.36 in M2 or assessed according to each patient's hematocrit in M3. RESULTS: Median RM-absorbed doses were 4.1 (2.9-8.4), 2.3 (2.0-2.7), and 2.3 (1.6-2.5) mGy/MBq for M1, M2, and M3, respectively. No trend could be found between total RM-absorbed dose and toxicity for M2 and M3. Conversely, M1 seemed to provide the best absorbed dose-effect relation. The 4 patients with the highest RM-absorbed doses exhibited grade 4 toxicity. The fifth patient, with the lowest RB absorbed dose, exhibited only a mild (grade 2) toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Image-based methodology (M1) seems to better predict hematological toxicity as compared with blood-based methods. Only this method provides for bone marrow involvement. (c) 2010 American Cancer Society.
Authors: Caroline Rousseau; Ludovic Ferrer; Stéphane Supiot; Manuel Bardiès; François Davodeau; Alain Faivre-Chauvet; Pierre Baumgartner; John Wijdenes; Marie Lacombe; Jacques Barbet; Thierry Guillaume; Philippe Moreau; Jean Luc Harousseau; Françoise Kraeber-Bodéré; Michel Cherel Journal: Tumour Biol Date: 2012-03-03
Authors: Ken Herrmann; Christina Bluemel; Martina Weineisen; Margret Schottelius; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Johannes Czernin; Uta Eberlein; Seval Beykan; Constantin Lapa; Hubertus Riedmiller; Markus Krebs; Saskia Kropf; Andreas Schirbel; Andreas K Buck; Michael Lassmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-04-16 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Lidia Strigari; Mark Konijnenberg; Carlo Chiesa; Manuel Bardies; Yong Du; Katarina Sjögreen Gleisner; Michael Lassmann; Glenn Flux Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-06-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Wietske Woliner-van der Weg; Rafke Schoffelen; Robert F Hobbs; Martin Gotthardt; David M Goldenberg; Robert M Sharkey; Cornelis H Slump; Winette Ta van der Graaf; Wim Jg Oyen; Otto C Boerman; George Sgouros; Eric P Visser Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2015-02-24
Authors: Caroline Bodet-Milin; Ludovic Ferrer; Aurore Rauscher; Damien Masson; Latifa Rbah-Vidal; Alain Faivre-Chauvet; Evelyne Cerato; Caroline Rousseau; José Hureaux; Olivier Couturier; Pierre-Yves Salaün; David M Goldenberg; Robert M Sharkey; Françoise Kraeber-Bodéré; Jacques Barbet Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2015-11-27
Authors: Hendrik Bergsma; Mark W Konijnenberg; Boen L R Kam; Jaap J M Teunissen; Peter P Kooij; Wouter W de Herder; Gaston J H Franssen; Casper H J van Eijck; Eric P Krenning; Dik J Kwekkeboom Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-09-30 Impact factor: 9.236