Michela Del Prete1,2,3,4, François-Alexandre Buteau1,2, Frédéric Arsenault1,2,3,4, Nassim Saighi1,2,3,4, Louis-Olivier Bouchard1,5, Alexis Beaulieu1,2, Jean-Mathieu Beauregard6,7,8,9. 1. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada. 2. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medical Imaging, CHU de Québec - Université Laval, 11 côte du Palais, Quebec City, G1R 2J6, Canada. 3. Cancer Research Center, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada. 4. Oncology Branch, CHU de Québec - Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, Canada. 5. Division of Radiology, Department of Medical Imaging, CHU de Québec - Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada. 6. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada. jean-mathieu.beauregard@chudequebec.ca. 7. Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Medical Imaging, CHU de Québec - Université Laval, 11 côte du Palais, Quebec City, G1R 2J6, Canada. jean-mathieu.beauregard@chudequebec.ca. 8. Cancer Research Center, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada. jean-mathieu.beauregard@chudequebec.ca. 9. Oncology Branch, CHU de Québec - Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, Canada. jean-mathieu.beauregard@chudequebec.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is mostly administered using a fixed injected activity (IA) per cycle. This empiric regime results in highly variable absorbed doses to the critical organs and undertreatment of the majority of patients. We conceived a personalized PRRT protocol in which the IA is adjusted to deliver a prescribed absorbed dose to the kidney, with the aim to safely increase tumour irradiation. We herein report on the initial results of our prospective study of personalized PRRT, the P-PRRT Trial (NCT02754297). METHODS: PRRT-naïve patients with progressive and/or symptomatic neuroendocrine tumour (NET) were scheduled to receive a four-cycle induction course of 177Lu-octreotate with quantitative SPECT/CT-based dosimetry. The IA was personalized according to the glomerular filtration rate and the body surface area for the first cycle, and according to the prior renal Gy/GBq for the subsequent cycles. The prescribed renal absorbed dose of 23 Gy was reduced by 25-50% in case of significant renal or haematological impairment. Responders were allowed to receive consolidation or maintenance cycles, for each of which 6 Gy to the kidney were prescribed. We simulated the empiric PRRT regime by fixing the IA at 7.4 GBq per cycle, with the same percentage reductions as above. Radiological, molecular imaging, biochemical, and quality of life responses, as well as safety, were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients underwent 171 cycles. In 34 patients who completed the induction course, a median cumulative IA of 36.1 (range, 6.3-78.6) GBq was administered, and the median cumulative kidney and maximum tumour absorbed doses were 22.1 (range, 8.3-24.3) Gy and 185.7 (range: 15.2-443.1) Gy respectively. Compared with the simulated fixed-IA induction regime, there was a median 1.26-fold increase (range, 0.47-2.12 fold) in the cumulative maximum tumour absorbed dose, which was higher in 85.3% of patients. In 39 assessable patients, the best objective response was partial response in nine (23.1%), minor response in 14 (35.9%), stable disease in 13 (33.3%) and progressive disease in three patients (7.7%). In particular, 11 of 13 patients (84.6%) with pancreatic NET had partial or minor response. The global health status/quality of life score significantly increased in 50% of patients. Acute and subacute side-effects were all of grade 1 or 2, and the most common were nausea (in 32.7% of patients) and fatigue (in 30.8% of patients) respectively. Subacute grade 3 or 4 toxicities occurred in less than 10% of patients, with the exception of lymphocytopenia in 51.9% of patients, without any clinical consequences however. No patient experienced severe renal toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized PRRT makes it possible to safely increase tumour irradiation in the majority of patients. Our first results indicate a favourable tolerance profile, which appears similar to that of the empiric regime. The response rates are promising, in particular in patients with NET of pancreatic origin.
PURPOSE: Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is mostly administered using a fixed injected activity (IA) per cycle. This empiric regime results in highly variable absorbed doses to the critical organs and undertreatment of the majority of patients. We conceived a personalized PRRT protocol in which the IA is adjusted to deliver a prescribed absorbed dose to the kidney, with the aim to safely increase tumour irradiation. We herein report on the initial results of our prospective study of personalized PRRT, the P-PRRT Trial (NCT02754297). METHODS: PRRT-naïve patients with progressive and/or symptomatic neuroendocrine tumour (NET) were scheduled to receive a four-cycle induction course of 177Lu-octreotate with quantitative SPECT/CT-based dosimetry. The IA was personalized according to the glomerular filtration rate and the body surface area for the first cycle, and according to the prior renal Gy/GBq for the subsequent cycles. The prescribed renal absorbed dose of 23 Gy was reduced by 25-50% in case of significant renal or haematological impairment. Responders were allowed to receive consolidation or maintenance cycles, for each of which 6 Gy to the kidney were prescribed. We simulated the empiric PRRT regime by fixing the IA at 7.4 GBq per cycle, with the same percentage reductions as above. Radiological, molecular imaging, biochemical, and quality of life responses, as well as safety, were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients underwent 171 cycles. In 34 patients who completed the induction course, a median cumulative IA of 36.1 (range, 6.3-78.6) GBq was administered, and the median cumulative kidney and maximum tumour absorbed doses were 22.1 (range, 8.3-24.3) Gy and 185.7 (range: 15.2-443.1) Gy respectively. Compared with the simulated fixed-IA induction regime, there was a median 1.26-fold increase (range, 0.47-2.12 fold) in the cumulative maximum tumour absorbed dose, which was higher in 85.3% of patients. In 39 assessable patients, the best objective response was partial response in nine (23.1%), minor response in 14 (35.9%), stable disease in 13 (33.3%) and progressive disease in three patients (7.7%). In particular, 11 of 13 patients (84.6%) with pancreatic NET had partial or minor response. The global health status/quality of life score significantly increased in 50% of patients. Acute and subacute side-effects were all of grade 1 or 2, and the most common were nausea (in 32.7% of patients) and fatigue (in 30.8% of patients) respectively. Subacute grade 3 or 4 toxicities occurred in less than 10% of patients, with the exception of lymphocytopenia in 51.9% of patients, without any clinical consequences however. No patient experienced severe renal toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Personalized PRRT makes it possible to safely increase tumour irradiation in the majority of patients. Our first results indicate a favourable tolerance profile, which appears similar to that of the empiric regime. The response rates are promising, in particular in patients with NET of pancreatic origin.
Authors: Saima Khan; Eric P Krenning; Martijn van Essen; Boen L Kam; Jaap J Teunissen; Dik J Kwekkeboom Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Lisa Bodei; Marta Cremonesi; Chiara M Grana; Nicola Fazio; Simona Iodice; Silvia M Baio; Mirco Bartolomei; Dario Lombardo; Mahila E Ferrari; Maddalena Sansovini; Marco Chinol; Giovanni Paganelli Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2011-09-03 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: M Cremonesi; F Botta; A Di Dia; M Ferrari; L Bodei; C De Cicco; A Rossi; M Bartolomei; R Mei; S Severi; M Salvatori; G Pedroli; G Paganelli Journal: Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 2.346
Authors: Dik J Kwekkeboom; Wouter W de Herder; Boen L Kam; Casper H van Eijck; Martijn van Essen; Peter P Kooij; Richard A Feelders; Maarten O van Aken; Eric P Krenning Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-05-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Esther I van Vliet; Eric P Krenning; Jaap J Teunissen; Hendrik Bergsma; Boen L Kam; Dik J Kwekkeboom Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Anna Sundlöv; Katarina Sjögreen-Gleisner; Johanna Svensson; Michael Ljungberg; Tomas Olsson; Peter Bernhardt; Jan Tennvall Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-03-22 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Samantha Y A Terry; Julie Nonnekens; An Aerts; Sarah Baatout; Marion de Jong; Bart Cornelissen; Jean-Pierre Pouget Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Lisa Bodei; Emily Bergsland; Wouter W de Herder; Diego Ferone; Rodney J Hicks; Thomas A Hope; Jolanta Kunikowska; Marianne Pavel; Diane Reidy-Lagunes; Jens Siveke; Jonathan Strosberg; Ulf Dittmer; Ken Herrmann Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Golmehr Sistani; Duncan E K Sutherland; Amol Mujoomdar; Daniele P Wiseman; Alireza Khatami; Elena Tsvetkova; Robert H Reid; David T Laidley Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2020-12-21 Impact factor: 3.677
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
Authors: Edward O'Neill; Veerle Kersemans; P Danny Allen; Samantha Y A Terry; Julia Baguña Torres; Michael Mosley; Sean Smart; Boon Quan Lee; Nadia Falzone; Katherine A Vallis; Mark W Konijnenberg; Marion de Jong; Julie Nonnekens; Bart Cornelissen Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2019-11-22 Impact factor: 11.082