PURPOSE: To evaluate detailed organ-based radiation-absorbed dose for planning double high-dose treatment with I-MIBG. METHODS: In a prospective study, 33 patients with high-risk refractory or recurrent neuroblastoma were treated with high-dose I-MIBG. Organ dosimetry was estimated from the first I-MIBG posttherapy imaging and from subsequent I-MIBG imaging prior to the planned second administration. Three serial whole-body scans were performed per patient 2 to 6 days after I-MIBG therapy (666 MBq/kg or 18 mCi/kg) and approximately 0.5, 24, and 48 hours after the diagnostic I-MIBG dose (370 MBq/kg or 10 mCi/1.73 m). Organ radiation doses were calculated using OLINDA. I-MIBG scan dosimetry estimations were used to predict doses for the second I-MIBG therapy and compared with I-MIBG posttherapy estimates. RESULTS: Mean ± SD whole-body doses from I-MIBG and I-MIBG scans were 0.162 ± 112 and 0.141 ± 0.068 mGy/MBq, respectively. I-MIBG and I-MIBG organ doses were variable-generally higher for I-MIBG-projected doses than those projected using posttherapy I-MIBG scans. Mean ± SD doses to liver, heart wall, and lungs were 0.487 ± 0.28, 0.225 ± 0.20, and 0.40 ± 0.26, respectively, for I-MIBG and 0.885 ± 0.56, 0.618 ± 0.37, and 0.458 ± 0.56, respectively, for I-MIBG. Mean ratio of I-MIBG to I-MIBG estimated radiation dose was 1.81 ± 1.95 for the liver, 2.75 ± 1.84 for the heart, and 1.13 ± 0.93 for the lungs. No unexpected toxicities were noted based on I-MIBG-projected doses and cumulative dose limits of 30, 20, and 15 Gy to liver, kidneys, and lungs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For repeat I-MIBG treatment planning, both I-MIBG and I-MIBG imaging yielded variable organ doses. However, I-MIBG-based dosimetry yielded a more conservative estimate of maximum allowable activity and would be suitable for planning and limiting organ toxicity with repeat high-dose therapies.
PURPOSE: To evaluate detailed organ-based radiation-absorbed dose for planning double high-dose treatment with I-MIBG. METHODS: In a prospective study, 33 patients with high-risk refractory or recurrent neuroblastoma were treated with high-dose I-MIBG. Organ dosimetry was estimated from the first I-MIBG posttherapy imaging and from subsequent I-MIBG imaging prior to the planned second administration. Three serial whole-body scans were performed per patient 2 to 6 days after I-MIBG therapy (666 MBq/kg or 18 mCi/kg) and approximately 0.5, 24, and 48 hours after the diagnostic I-MIBG dose (370 MBq/kg or 10 mCi/1.73 m). Organ radiation doses were calculated using OLINDA. I-MIBG scan dosimetry estimations were used to predict doses for the second I-MIBG therapy and compared with I-MIBG posttherapy estimates. RESULTS: Mean ± SD whole-body doses from I-MIBG and I-MIBG scans were 0.162 ± 112 and 0.141 ± 0.068 mGy/MBq, respectively. I-MIBG and I-MIBG organ doses were variable-generally higher for I-MIBG-projected doses than those projected using posttherapy I-MIBG scans. Mean ± SD doses to liver, heart wall, and lungs were 0.487 ± 0.28, 0.225 ± 0.20, and 0.40 ± 0.26, respectively, for I-MIBG and 0.885 ± 0.56, 0.618 ± 0.37, and 0.458 ± 0.56, respectively, for I-MIBG. Mean ratio of I-MIBG to I-MIBG estimated radiation dose was 1.81 ± 1.95 for the liver, 2.75 ± 1.84 for the heart, and 1.13 ± 0.93 for the lungs. No unexpected toxicities were noted based on I-MIBG-projected doses and cumulative dose limits of 30, 20, and 15 Gy to liver, kidneys, and lungs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For repeat I-MIBG treatment planning, both I-MIBG and I-MIBG imaging yielded variable organ doses. However, I-MIBG-based dosimetry yielded a more conservative estimate of maximum allowable activity and would be suitable for planning and limiting organ toxicity with repeat high-dose therapies.
Authors: Katherine K Matthay; Jessica C Tan; Judith G Villablanca; Gregory A Yanik; Janet Veatch; Benjamin Franc; Eilish Twomey; Biljana Horn; C Patrick Reynolds; Susan Groshen; Robert C Seeger; John M Maris Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-01-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K K Matthay; B Shulkin; R Ladenstein; J Michon; F Giammarile; V Lewington; A D J Pearson; S L Cohn Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-04-27 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Susan L Cohn; Andrew D J Pearson; Wendy B London; Tom Monclair; Peter F Ambros; Garrett M Brodeur; Andreas Faldum; Barbara Hero; Tomoko Iehara; David Machin; Veronique Mosseri; Thorsten Simon; Alberto Garaventa; Victoria Castel; Katherine K Matthay Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-12-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: G M Brodeur; J Pritchard; F Berthold; N L Carlsen; V Castel; R P Castelberry; B De Bernardi; A E Evans; M Favrot; F Hedborg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1993-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Shakeel Modak; Pat Zanzonico; Jorge A Carrasquillo; Brian H Kushner; Kim Kramer; Nai-Kong V Cheung; Steven M Larson; Neeta Pandit-Taskar Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 10.057