PURPOSE: Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) with 90Y-labelled and 177Lu-labelled peptides is an effective strategy for the treatment of metastatic/nonresectable neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). Dosimetry provides important information useful for optimizing PRRT with individualized regimens to reduce toxicity and increase tumour responses. However, this strategy is not applied in routine clinical practice, despite the fact that several dosimetric studies have demonstrated significant dose-effect correlations for normal organ toxicity and tumour response that can better guide therapy planning. The present study reviews the key relationships and the radiobiological models available in the literature with the aim of providing evidence that optimization of PRRT is feasible through the implementation of dosimetry. METHODS: The MEDLINE database was searched combining specific keywords. Original studies published in the English language reporting dose-effect outcomes in patients treated with PRRT were chosen. RESULTS: Nine of 126 studies were selected from PubMed, and a further five were added manually, reporting on 590 patients. The studies were analysed and are discussed in terms of weak and strong elements of correlations. CONCLUSION: Several studies provided evidence of clinical benefit from the implementation of dosimetry in PRRT, indicating the potential contribution of this approach to reducing severe toxicity and/or reducing undertreatment that commonly occurs. Prospective trials, possibly multicentre, with larger numbers of patients undergoing quantitative dosimetry and with standardized methodologies should be carried out to definitively provide robust predictive paradigms to establish effective tailored PRRT.
PURPOSE: Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) with 90Y-labelled and 177Lu-labelled peptides is an effective strategy for the treatment of metastatic/nonresectable neuroendocrine tumours (NETs). Dosimetry provides important information useful for optimizing PRRT with individualized regimens to reduce toxicity and increase tumour responses. However, this strategy is not applied in routine clinical practice, despite the fact that several dosimetric studies have demonstrated significant dose-effect correlations for normal organ toxicity and tumour response that can better guide therapy planning. The present study reviews the key relationships and the radiobiological models available in the literature with the aim of providing evidence that optimization of PRRT is feasible through the implementation of dosimetry. METHODS: The MEDLINE database was searched combining specific keywords. Original studies published in the English language reporting dose-effect outcomes in patients treated with PRRT were chosen. RESULTS: Nine of 126 studies were selected from PubMed, and a further five were added manually, reporting on 590 patients. The studies were analysed and are discussed in terms of weak and strong elements of correlations. CONCLUSION: Several studies provided evidence of clinical benefit from the implementation of dosimetry in PRRT, indicating the potential contribution of this approach to reducing severe toxicity and/or reducing undertreatment that commonly occurs. Prospective trials, possibly multicentre, with larger numbers of patients undergoing quantitative dosimetry and with standardized methodologies should be carried out to definitively provide robust predictive paradigms to establish effective tailored PRRT.
Authors: Roelf Valkema; Stanislas A Pauwels; Larry K Kvols; Dik J Kwekkeboom; Francois Jamar; Marion de Jong; Raffaella Barone; Stephan Walrand; Peter P M Kooij; Willem H Bakker; Janet Lasher; Eric P Krenning Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Christian Waldherr; Miklos Pless; Helmut R Maecke; Tilmann Schumacher; Armin Crazzolara; Egbert U Nitzsche; Andreas Haldemann; Jan Mueller-Brand Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Andreas Helisch; Gregor J Förster; Helmut Reber; Hans-Georg Buchholz; Rudolf Arnold; Burkhard Göke; Matthias M Weber; Bertram Wiedenmann; Stanislas Pauwels; Ulrike Haus; Hakim Bouterfa; Peter Bartenstein Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2004-06-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christina Swärd; Peter Bernhardt; Håkan Ahlman; Bo Wängberg; Eva Forssell-Aronsson; Maria Larsson; Johanna Svensson; Rauni Rossi-Norrlund; Lars Kölby Journal: World J Surg Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Maria Larsson; Peter Bernhardt; Johanna B Svensson; Bo Wängberg; Håkan Ahlman; Eva Forssell-Aronsson Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2012-09-24 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Clemens Kratochwil; Wolfgang Peter Fendler; Matthias Eiber; Richard Baum; Murat Fani Bozkurt; Johannes Czernin; Roberto C Delgado Bolton; Samer Ezziddin; Flavio Forrer; Rodney J Hicks; Thomas A Hope; Levant Kabasakal; Mark Konijnenberg; Klaus Kopka; Michael Lassmann; Felix M Mottaghy; Wim Oyen; Kambiz Rahbar; Heiko Schöder; Irene Virgolini; Hans-Jürgen Wester; Lisa Bodei; Stefano Fanti; Uwe Haberkorn; Ken Herrmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sara St James; Bryan Bednarz; Stanley Benedict; Jeffrey C Buchsbaum; Yuni Dewaraja; Eric Frey; Robert Hobbs; Joseph Grudzinski; Emilie Roncali; George Sgouros; Jacek Capala; Ying Xiao Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2020-08-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Daniel Roth; Johan Gustafsson; Carl Fredrik Warfvinge; Anna Sundlöv; Anna Åkesson; Jan Tennvall; Katarina Sjögreen Gleisner Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 10.057