John Violet1, Price Jackson2,3, Justin Ferdinandus3, Shahneen Sandhu4, Tim Akhurst3, Amir Iravani3, Grace Kong3, Aravind Ravi Kumar3, Sue Ping Thang3, Peter Eu3, Mark Scalzo3, Declan Murphy5,6, Scott Williams2,6, Rodney J Hicks3,6, Michael S Hofman3,6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia john.violet@petermac.org. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Department of Molecular Imaging, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 5. Department of Uro-Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia; and. 6. Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
177Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-617 enables targeted delivery of β-particle radiation to prostate cancer. We determined its radiation dosimetry and relationships to pretherapeutic imaging and outcomes. Methods: Thirty patients with prostate cancer receiving 177Lu-PSMA-617 within a prospective clinical trial (ACTRN12615000912583) were studied. Screening 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT demonstrated high PSMA expression in all patients. After therapy, patients underwent quantitative SPECT/CT at 4, 24, and 96 h. Pharmacokinetic uptake and clearance at a voxel level were calculated and translated into absorbed dose using voxel S values. Volumes of interest were drawn on normal tissues and tumor to assess radiation dose, and a whole-body tumor dose was defined. Correlations between PSMA PET/CT parameters, dosimetry, and biochemical and therapeutic response were analyzed to identify relationships between absorbed dose, tumor burden, and patient physiology. Results: Mean absorbed dose to kidneys, submandibular and parotid glands, liver, spleen, and bone marrow was 0.39, 0.44, 0.58, 0.1, 0.06, and 0.11 Gy/MBq, respectively. Median whole-body tumor-absorbed dose was 11.55 Gy and correlated with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response at 12 wk. A median dose of 14.1 Gy was observed in patients achieving a PSA decline of at least 50%, versus 9.6 Gy for those achieving a PSA decline of less than 50% (P < 0.01). Of 11 patients receiving a tumor dose of less than 10 Gy, only one achieved a PSA response of at least 50%. On screening PSMA PET, whole-body tumor SUVmean correlated with mean absorbed dose (r = 0.62), and SUVmax of the parotids correlated with absorbed dose (r = 0.67). There was an inverse correlation between tumor volume and mean dose to the parotids (r = -0.41) and kidneys (r = -0.43). The mean parotid dose was also reduced with increasing body mass (r = -0.41) and body surface area (r = -0.37). Conclusion: 177Lu-PSMA-617 delivers high absorbed doses to tumor, with a significant correlation between whole-body tumor dose and PSA response. Patients receiving less than 10 Gy were unlikely to achieve a fall in PSA of at least 50%. Significant correlations between aspects of screening 68Ga-PET/CT and tumor and normal tissue dose were observed, providing a rationale for patient-specific dosing. Reduced salivary and kidney doses were observed in patients with a higher tumor burden. The parotid dose also reduced with increasing body mass and body surface area.
177Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-617 enables targeted delivery of β-particle radiation to prostate cancer. We determined its radiation dosimetry and relationships to pretherapeutic imaging and outcomes. Methods: Thirty patients with prostate cancer receiving 177Lu-PSMA-617 within a prospective clinical trial (ACTRN12615000912583) were studied. Screening 68Ga-PSMA-11 PET/CT demonstrated high PSMA expression in all patients. After therapy, patients underwent quantitative SPECT/CT at 4, 24, and 96 h. Pharmacokinetic uptake and clearance at a voxel level were calculated and translated into absorbed dose using voxel S values. Volumes of interest were drawn on normal tissues and tumor to assess radiation dose, and a whole-body tumor dose was defined. Correlations between PSMA PET/CT parameters, dosimetry, and biochemical and therapeutic response were analyzed to identify relationships between absorbed dose, tumor burden, and patient physiology. Results: Mean absorbed dose to kidneys, submandibular and parotid glands, liver, spleen, and bone marrow was 0.39, 0.44, 0.58, 0.1, 0.06, and 0.11 Gy/MBq, respectively. Median whole-body tumor-absorbed dose was 11.55 Gy and correlated with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response at 12 wk. A median dose of 14.1 Gy was observed in patients achieving a PSA decline of at least 50%, versus 9.6 Gy for those achieving a PSA decline of less than 50% (P < 0.01). Of 11 patients receiving a tumor dose of less than 10 Gy, only one achieved a PSA response of at least 50%. On screening PSMA PET, whole-body tumor SUVmean correlated with mean absorbed dose (r = 0.62), and SUVmax of the parotids correlated with absorbed dose (r = 0.67). There was an inverse correlation between tumor volume and mean dose to the parotids (r = -0.41) and kidneys (r = -0.43). The mean parotid dose was also reduced with increasing body mass (r = -0.41) and body surface area (r = -0.37). Conclusion:177Lu-PSMA-617 delivers high absorbed doses to tumor, with a significant correlation between whole-body tumor dose and PSA response. Patients receiving less than 10 Gy were unlikely to achieve a fall in PSA of at least 50%. Significant correlations between aspects of screening 68Ga-PET/CT and tumor and normal tissue dose were observed, providing a rationale for patient-specific dosing. Reduced salivary and kidney doses were observed in patients with a higher tumor burden. The parotid dose also reduced with increasing body mass and body surface area.
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: Kyle Current; Catherine Meyer; Clara E Magyar; Christine E Mona; Joel Almajano; Roger Slavik; Andreea D Stuparu; Chloe Cheng; David W Dawson; Caius G Radu; Johannes Czernin; Katharina Lueckerath Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 12.531
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: Bastiaan M Privé; Peter H J Slootbeek; Babette I Laarhuis; Samhita Pamidimarri Naga; Maarten J van der Doelen; Ludwike W M van Kalmthout; Bart de Keizer; Samer Ezziddin; Clemens Kratochwil; Alfred Morgenstern; Frank Bruchertseifer; Marjolijn J L Ligtenberg; J Alfred Witjes; Inge M van Oort; Martin Gotthardt; Sandra Heskamp; Marcel J R Janssen; Winald R Gerritsen; James Nagarajah; Niven Mehra Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Oliver Sartor; Johann de Bono; Kim N Chi; Karim Fizazi; Ken Herrmann; Kambiz Rahbar; Scott T Tagawa; Luke T Nordquist; Nitin Vaishampayan; Ghassan El-Haddad; Chandler H Park; Tomasz M Beer; Alison Armour; Wendy J Pérez-Contreras; Michelle DeSilvio; Euloge Kpamegan; Germo Gericke; Richard A Messmann; Michael J Morris; Bernd J Krause Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2021-06-23 Impact factor: 91.245