Dosimetric Variability Across a Library of Computational Tumor Phantoms

Visual Abstract In radiopharmaceutical therapy, dosimetry-based treatment planning and response evaluation require accurate estimates of tumor-absorbed dose. Tumor dose estimates are routinely derived using simplistic spherical models, despite the well-established influence of tumor geometry on the dosimetry. Moreover, the degree of disease invasiveness correlates with departure from ideal geometry; malignant lesions often possess lobular, spiculated, or otherwise irregular margins in contrast to the commonly regular or smooth contours characteristic of benign lesions. To assess the effects of tumor shape, size, and margin contour on absorbed dose, an array of tumor geometries was modeled using computer-aided design software, and the models were used to calculate absorbed dose per unit of time-integrated activity (i.e., S values) for several clinically applied therapeutic radionuclides (90Y, 131I, 177Lu, 211At, 225Ac, 213Bi, and 223Ra). Methods: Three-dimensional tumor models of several different shape classifications were generated using Blender software. Ovoid shapes were generated using axial scaling. Lobulated, spiculated, and irregular contours were generated using noise-based mesh deformation. The meshes were rigidly scaled to different volumes, and S values were then computed using PARaDIM software. Radiomic features were extracted for each shape, and the impact on S values was examined. Finally, the systematic error present in dose calculations that model complex tumor shapes versus equivalent-mass spheres was estimated. Results: The dependence of tumor S values on shape was largest for extreme departures from spherical geometry and for long-range emissions (e.g., 90Y β-emissions). S values for spheres agreed reasonably well with lobulated, spiculated, or irregular contours if the surface perturbation was small. For marked deviations from spherical shape and small volumes, the systematic error of the equivalent-sphere approximation increased to 30%–75% depending on radionuclide. The errors were largest for shapes with many long spicules and for spherical shells with a thickness less than or comparable to the particle range in tissue. Conclusion: Variability in tumor S values as a function of tumor shape and margin contour was observed, suggesting use of contour-matched phantoms to improve the accuracy of tumor dosimetry in organ-level dosimetry paradigms. Implementing a library of tumor phantoms in organ-level dosimetry software may facilitate optimization strategies for personalized radionuclide therapies.

[1]  D. Visvikis,et al.  Application of artificial intelligence in nuclear medicine and molecular imaging: a review of current status and future perspectives for clinical translation , 2022, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[2]  F. Akhtar,et al.  Breast lesions classifications of mammographic images using a deep convolutional neural network-based approach , 2022, PloS one.

[3]  Tao Xu,et al.  The Current State of Radiomics for Meningiomas: Promises and Challenges , 2020, Frontiers in Oncology.

[4]  E. Frey,et al.  Specific absorbed fractions and radionuclide S-values for tumors of varying size and composition , 2020, Physics in medicine and biology.

[5]  V. Krishnaswamy,et al.  The shape of breast cancer , 2020, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[6]  H. Zaidi,et al.  Voxel-based dosimetry is superior to mean-absorbed dose approach for establishing dose-effect relationship in targeted radionuclide therapy. , 2019, Medical physics.

[7]  Chan Hyeong Kim,et al.  PARaDIM: A PHITS-Based Monte Carlo Tool for Internal Dosimetry with Tetrahedral Mesh Computational Phantoms , 2019, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[8]  S. Reuzé,et al.  The complexity of tumor shape, spiculatedness, correlates with tumor radiomic shape features , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[9]  M. Meziane,et al.  The Eighth Edition of TNM Staging of Lung Cancer: Reference Chart and Diagrams. , 2018, The oncologist.

[10]  A. Kesner,et al.  MIRDCalc V 1.0 - A community spreadsheet tool for organ-level radiopharmaceutical absorbed dose calculations. , 2018 .

[11]  Takuya Furuta,et al.  Features of Particle and Heavy Ion Transport code System (PHITS) version 3.02 , 2018 .

[12]  Sören Mattsson,et al.  IDAC-Dose 2.1, an internal dosimetry program for diagnostic nuclear medicine based on the ICRP adult reference voxel phantoms , 2017, EJNMMI Research.

[13]  Andriy Fedorov,et al.  Computational Radiomics System to Decode the Radiographic Phenotype. , 2017, Cancer research.

[14]  P. Lambin,et al.  Radiomics: the bridge between medical imaging and personalized medicine , 2017, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[15]  F. Mottaghy,et al.  225Ac-PSMA-617 for PSMA-Targeted α-Radiation Therapy of Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer , 2016, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[16]  P. Lambin,et al.  CT-based radiomic signature predicts distant metastasis in lung adenocarcinoma. , 2015, Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology.

[17]  Hang Si,et al.  TetGen, a Delaunay-Based Quality Tetrahedral Mesh Generator , 2015, ACM Trans. Math. Softw..

[18]  K. Macura,et al.  Evaluation of solitary pulmonary nodule detected during computed tomography examination , 2012, Polish journal of radiology.

[19]  H. Menzel International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements , 2011, Journal of the ICRU.

[20]  Wesley E. Bolch,et al.  MIRD Pamphlet No. 21: A Generalized Schema for Radiopharmaceutical Dosimetry—Standardization of Nomenclature , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[21]  R. Coleman,et al.  Clinical Experience with α-Particle–Emitting 211At: Treatment of Recurrent Brain Tumor Patients with 211At-Labeled Chimeric Antitenascin Monoclonal Antibody 81C6 , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[22]  Michael G Stabin,et al.  OLINDA/EXM: the second-generation personal computer software for internal dose assessment in nuclear medicine. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[23]  Y. Erdi,et al.  Pharmacokinetics and dosimetry of an alpha-particle emitter labeled antibody: 213Bi-HuM195 (anti-CD33) in patients with leukemia. , 1999, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[24]  Steven Worley,et al.  A cellular texture basis function , 1996, SIGGRAPH.

[25]  Frank C. Detterbeck,et al.  The Eighth Edition Lung Cancer Stage Classification , 2017, Chest.

[26]  D Lizio,et al.  Absorbed fractions for electrons in ellipsoidal volumes , 2011, Physics in medicine and biology.

[27]  K Eckerman,et al.  ICRP Publication 107. Nuclear decay data for dosimetric calculations. , 2008, Annals of the ICRP.