UNLABELLED: PET/CT imaging allows for image-based estimates of organ and red marrow (RM) residence times. The aim of this study was to derive PET/CT-based radiation dosimetry for (89)Zr-cetuximab, with special emphasis on determining RM-absorbed dose. METHODS: Seven patients with colorectal cancer received 36.9 ± 0.8 MBq of (89)Zr-cetuximab within 2 h after administration of a therapeutic dose of 500 mg·m(-2) of cetuximab. Whole-body PET/CT scans and blood samples were obtained at 1, 24, 48, 94, and 144 h after injection. RM activity concentrations were calculated from manual delineation of the lumbar vertebrae and blood samples, assuming a fixed RM-to-plasma activity concentration ratio (RMPR) of 0.19. The cumulated activity was calculated as the area under the curve of the organ time-activity data (liver, lungs, kidneys, spleen, and RM), assuming physical decay after the last scan. The residence time for each organ was derived by dividing the cumulated activity with the total injected activity. The residence time in the remainder of the body was calculated as the maximum possible residence time minus the sum of residence time of source organs, assuming no excretion during the time course of the scans. The (self and total) RM- and organ-absorbed doses and effective whole-body radiation dose were obtained using dose conversion factors from OLINDA/EXM 1.1. Several simplified 3-time-point dosimetry approaches were also evaluated. RESULTS: The first approach yielded self and total RM doses of 0.17 ± 0.04 and 0.51 ± 0.06 mGy·MBq(-1), respectively. The second approach deviated by -21% in self-dose and -6% in total dose. RMPR increased over time in 5 of 7 patients. The highest (89)Zr-absorbed dose was observed in the liver with 2.60 ± 0.78 mGy·MBq(-1), followed by the kidneys, spleen, and lungs, whereas the effective whole-body dose was 0.61 ± 0.09 mSv·MBq(-1). The simplified 3-time-point (1, 48, and 144 h) dosimetry approach deviated by at most 4% in both organ-absorbed doses and effective dose. CONCLUSION: Although the total RM dose estimates obtained with the 2 approaches differed only by at most 6%, the image-based approach is preferred because it accounts for nonconstant RMPR. The number of successive scans can be reduced to 3 without affecting effective dose estimates.
UNLABELLED: PET/CT imaging allows for image-based estimates of organ and red marrow (RM) residence times. The aim of this study was to derive PET/CT-based radiation dosimetry for (89)Zr-cetuximab, with special emphasis on determining RM-absorbed dose. METHODS: Seven patients with colorectal cancer received 36.9 ± 0.8 MBq of (89)Zr-cetuximab within 2 h after administration of a therapeutic dose of 500 mg·m(-2) of cetuximab. Whole-body PET/CT scans and blood samples were obtained at 1, 24, 48, 94, and 144 h after injection. RM activity concentrations were calculated from manual delineation of the lumbar vertebrae and blood samples, assuming a fixed RM-to-plasma activity concentration ratio (RMPR) of 0.19. The cumulated activity was calculated as the area under the curve of the organ time-activity data (liver, lungs, kidneys, spleen, and RM), assuming physical decay after the last scan. The residence time for each organ was derived by dividing the cumulated activity with the total injected activity. The residence time in the remainder of the body was calculated as the maximum possible residence time minus the sum of residence time of source organs, assuming no excretion during the time course of the scans. The (self and total) RM- and organ-absorbed doses and effective whole-body radiation dose were obtained using dose conversion factors from OLINDA/EXM 1.1. Several simplified 3-time-point dosimetry approaches were also evaluated. RESULTS: The first approach yielded self and total RM doses of 0.17 ± 0.04 and 0.51 ± 0.06 mGy·MBq(-1), respectively. The second approach deviated by -21% in self-dose and -6% in total dose. RMPR increased over time in 5 of 7 patients. The highest (89)Zr-absorbed dose was observed in the liver with 2.60 ± 0.78 mGy·MBq(-1), followed by the kidneys, spleen, and lungs, whereas the effective whole-body dose was 0.61 ± 0.09 mSv·MBq(-1). The simplified 3-time-point (1, 48, and 144 h) dosimetry approach deviated by at most 4% in both organ-absorbed doses and effective dose. CONCLUSION: Although the total RM dose estimates obtained with the 2 approaches differed only by at most 6%, the image-based approach is preferred because it accounts for nonconstant RMPR. The number of successive scans can be reduced to 3 without affecting effective dose estimates.
Authors: Joseph A O'Donoghue; Jason S Lewis; Neeta Pandit-Taskar; Stephen E Fleming; Heiko Schöder; Steven M Larson; Volkan Beylergil; Shutian Ruan; Serge K Lyashchenko; Pat B Zanzonico; Wolfgang A Weber; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Yelena Y Janjigian Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: S V Hartimath; O Draghiciu; S van de Wall; V Manuelli; R A J O Dierckx; H W Nijman; T Daemen; E F J de Vries Journal: Oncoimmunology Date: 2016-11-18 Impact factor: 8.110
Authors: Donika Plyku; Robert F Hobbs; Kevin Huang; Frank Atkins; Carlos Garcia; George Sgouros; Douglas Van Nostrand Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Annie Ogasawara; James R Kiefer; Herman Gill; Eugene Chiang; Shravan Sriraman; Gregory Z Ferl; James Ziai; Sandra Sanabria Bohorquez; Sebastian Guelman; Xiangdan Wang; Jihong Yang; Minh Michael Phan; Van Nguyen; Shan Chung; Christine Yu; Jeff Tinianow; Stijn Jan Hein Waaijer; Alex De Crespigny; Jan Marik; C Andrew Boswell; Tanja Zabka; Karin Staflin; Simon-Peter Williams Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-10-22 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mehdi Azizi; Hassan Dianat-Moghadam; Roya Salehi; Masoud Farshbaf; Disha Iyengar; Samaresh Sau; Arun K Iyer; Hadi Valizadeh; Mohammad Mehrmohammadi; Michael R Hamblin Journal: Adv Funct Mater Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 18.808
Authors: Eric Van Cutsem; Henk M W Verheul; Patrik Flamen; Philippe Rougier; Regina Beets-Tan; Rob Glynne-Jones; Thomas Seufferlein Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Dhanusha Sabanathan; Douglas H Campbell; Vicki M Velonas; Sandra Wissmueller; Hubert Mazure; Marko Trifunovic; Pirooz Poursoltan; Kevin Ho Shon; Tiffany R Mackay; Maria E Lund; Yanling Lu; Paul J Roach; Dale L Bailey; Bradley J Walsh; David Gillatt; Howard Gurney Journal: Asia Ocean J Nucl Med Biol Date: 2021