Pradeep Thapa1, Dilip Nikam2, Tapas Das3, Geeta Sonawane1, Jai Prakash Agarwal4, Sandip Basu5. 1. Radiation Medicine Centre, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Tata Memorial Hospital Annexe, Mumbai, India. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Cama and Albless Hospital, Mumbai, India. 3. Radiopharmaceuticals Chemistry Section, Radiochemistry and Isotope Group, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Mumbai, India; and. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India. 5. Radiation Medicine Centre, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Tata Memorial Hospital Annexe, Mumbai, India drsanb@yahoo.com.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: This prospective study compared 177Lu-ethylene diamine tetramethylene phosphonate (EDTMP) with 153Sm-EDTMP for painful skeletal metastases. METHODS: Half of the 32 patients were treated with 177Lu-EDTMP and half with 153Sm-EDTMP, at 37 MBq/kg of body weight. Analgesic, pain, and quality-of-life scores (EORTC, Karnofsky, ECOG) and bone proliferation marker were used to examine efficacy. Hematologic toxicity was evaluated using NCI-CTCAE and compared between groups at baseline and each month till 3 mo after therapy. Pain relief was categorized as complete, partial, minimal, or none. RESULTS:Pain relief with 177Lu-EDTMP was 80%: 50% complete, 41.67% partial, and 8.33% minimal. Pain relief with 153Sm-EDTMP was 75%: 33.33% complete, 58.33% partial, and 8.33% minimal. The difference was not significant (P=1.000). Quality of life at 3 mo after therapy improved significantly in both groups as per ECOG score (P=0.014 and 0.005 for 177Lu-EDTMP and 153Sm-EDTMP, respectively), Karnofsky index (P=0.007 and 0.023 for 177Lu-EDTMP and 153Sm-EDTMP, respectively), and EORTC score (P=0.004 and <0.001 for 177Lu-EDTMP and 153Sm-EDTMP, respectively). Bone proliferation marker in responders of both groups dropped significantly (P=0.008 for 177Lu-EDTMP and P=0.019 for 153Sm-EDTMP), parallel to clinical response. For 177Lu-EDTMP, anemia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia were nonserious (grade I/II) in 46.67%, 46.67%, and 20%, respectively, and serious (grade III/IV) in 20%, 6.67%, and 0%, respectively. For 153Sm-EDTMP, anemia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia were nonserious (grade I/II) in 62.5%, 31.25%, and 18.75%, respectively, and serious (grade III/IV) in 18.75%, 0%, and 6.25%, respectively. One patient treated with 153Sm-EDTMP had grade IV thrombocytopenia but required no blood transfusion. Differences between groups were not significant for either nonserious or serious toxicity. For 177Lu-EDTMP, 3 of 12 responders experienced the flare phenomenon on the third day after therapy and one on the fifth day, showing no response to therapy. For 153Sm-EDTMP, 2 of 12 responders experienced the flare phenomenon, both on the third day after therapy. CONCLUSION: 177Lu-EDTMP has pain response efficacy similar to that of 153Sm-EDTMP and is a feasible and safe alternative, especially in centers with no nearby access to 153Sm-EDTMP.
RCT Entities:
UNLABELLED: This prospective study compared 177Lu-ethylene diamine tetramethylene phosphonate (EDTMP) with 153Sm-EDTMP for painful skeletal metastases. METHODS: Half of the 32 patients were treated with 177Lu-EDTMP and half with 153Sm-EDTMP, at 37 MBq/kg of body weight. Analgesic, pain, and quality-of-life scores (EORTC, Karnofsky, ECOG) and bone proliferation marker were used to examine efficacy. Hematologic toxicity was evaluated using NCI-CTCAE and compared between groups at baseline and each month till 3 mo after therapy. Pain relief was categorized as complete, partial, minimal, or none. RESULTS:Pain relief with 177Lu-EDTMP was 80%: 50% complete, 41.67% partial, and 8.33% minimal. Pain relief with 153Sm-EDTMP was 75%: 33.33% complete, 58.33% partial, and 8.33% minimal. The difference was not significant (P=1.000). Quality of life at 3 mo after therapy improved significantly in both groups as per ECOG score (P=0.014 and 0.005 for 177Lu-EDTMP and 153Sm-EDTMP, respectively), Karnofsky index (P=0.007 and 0.023 for 177Lu-EDTMP and 153Sm-EDTMP, respectively), and EORTC score (P=0.004 and <0.001 for 177Lu-EDTMP and 153Sm-EDTMP, respectively). Bone proliferation marker in responders of both groups dropped significantly (P=0.008 for 177Lu-EDTMP and P=0.019 for 153Sm-EDTMP), parallel to clinical response. For 177Lu-EDTMP, anemia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia were nonserious (grade I/II) in 46.67%, 46.67%, and 20%, respectively, and serious (grade III/IV) in 20%, 6.67%, and 0%, respectively. For 153Sm-EDTMP, anemia, leukopenia, and thrombocytopenia were nonserious (grade I/II) in 62.5%, 31.25%, and 18.75%, respectively, and serious (grade III/IV) in 18.75%, 0%, and 6.25%, respectively. One patient treated with 153Sm-EDTMP had grade IV thrombocytopenia but required no blood transfusion. Differences between groups were not significant for either nonserious or serious toxicity. For 177Lu-EDTMP, 3 of 12 responders experienced the flare phenomenon on the third day after therapy and one on the fifth day, showing no response to therapy. For 153Sm-EDTMP, 2 of 12 responders experienced the flare phenomenon, both on the third day after therapy. CONCLUSION:177Lu-EDTMP has pain response efficacy similar to that of 153Sm-EDTMP and is a feasible and safe alternative, especially in centers with no nearby access to 153Sm-EDTMP.
Authors: Francesco Fiz; Samine Sahbai; Cristina Campi; Matthias Weissinger; Helmut Dittmann; Cecilia Marini; Michele Piana; Gianmario Sambuceti; Christian la Fougère Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2017-12-25 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Ana M Denis-Bacelar; Sarah J Chittenden; V Ralph McCready; Antigoni Divoli; David P Dearnaley; Joe M O'Sullivan; Bernadette Johnson; Glenn D Flux Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Ambreen Khawar; Elisabeth Eppard; Frank Roesch; Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar; Stefan Kürpig; Michael Meisenheimer; Florian C Gaertner; Markus Essler; Ralph A Bundschuh Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: René Fernández; Elisabeth Eppard; Wencke Lehnert; Luis David Jiménez-Franco; Cristian Soza-Ried; Matías Ceballos; Jessica Ribbeck; Andreas Kluge; Frank Rösch; Marian Meckel; Konstantin Zhernosekov; Vasko Kramer; Horacio Amaral Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 10.057