Comparison of commercial dosimetric software platforms in patients treated with 177Lu‐DOTATATE for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy

Purpose The aim of this study was to quantitatively compare five commercial dosimetric software platforms based on the analysis of clinical datasets of patients who benefited from peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) with 177Lu‐DOTATATE (LUTATHERA®). Methods The dosimetric analysis was performed on two patients during two cycles of PRRT with 177Lu. Single photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography images were acquired at 4, 24, 72, and 192 h post injection. Reconstructed images were generated using Dosimetry Toolkit® (DTK) from Xeleris™ and HybridRecon‐Oncology version_1.3_Dicom (HROD) from HERMES. Reconstructed images using DTK were analyzed using the same software to calculate time‐integrated activity coefficients (TIAC), and mean absorbed doses were estimated using OLINDA/EXM V1.0 with mass correction. Reconstructed images from HROD were uploaded into PLANET® OncoDose from DOSIsoft, STRATOS from Phillips, Hybrid Dosimetry Module™ from HERMES, and SurePlan™ MRT from MIM. Organ masses, TIACs, and mean absorbed doses were calculated from each application using their recommendations. Results The majority of organ mass estimates varied by <9.5% between all platforms. The highest variability for TIAC results between platforms was seen for the kidneys (28.2%) for the two patients and the two treatment cycles. Relative standard deviations in mean absorbed doses were slightly higher compared with those observed for TIAC, but remained of the same order of magnitude between all platforms. Conclusions When applying a similar processing approach, results obtained were of the same order of magnitude regardless of the platforms used. However, the comparison of the performances of currently available platforms is still difficult as they do not all address the same parts of the dosimetric analysis workflow. In addition, the way in which data are handled in each part of the chain from data acquisition to absorbed doses may be different, which complicates the comparison exercise. Therefore, the dissemination of commercial solutions for absorbed dose calculation calls for the development of tools and standards allowing for the comparison of the performances between dosimetric software platforms.

[1]  Michael Ljungberg,et al.  177Lu‐[DOTA0,Tyr3] octreotate therapy in patients with disseminated neuroendocrine tumors: Analysis of dosimetry with impact on future therapeutic strategy , 2010, Cancer.

[2]  Marion de Jong,et al.  Long-term follow-up of renal function after peptide receptor radiation therapy with (90)Y-DOTA(0),Tyr(3)-octreotide and (177)Lu-DOTA(0), Tyr(3)-octreotate. , 2005, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[3]  G. Glatting,et al.  Choosing the optimal fit function: comparison of the Akaike information criterion and the F-test. , 2007, Medical physics.

[4]  Yan Rolland,et al.  Clinical Feasibility of Fast 3-Dimensional Dosimetry of the Liver for Treatment Planning of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with 90Y-Microspheres , 2011, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[5]  Thomas Kull,et al.  Comparing time activity curves using the Akaike information criterion , 2009, Physics in medicine and biology.

[6]  Anders Sundin,et al.  Dose Response of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors Treated with Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy Using 177Lu-DOTATATE , 2015, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[7]  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.

[8]  A. Buck,et al.  Dose Mapping After Endoradiotherapy with 177Lu-DOTATATE/DOTATOC by a Single Measurement After 4 Days , 2018, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[9]  D. Bailey,et al.  A Comparison of 2D and 3D Kidney Absorbed Dose Measures in Patients Receiving 177Lu-DOTATATE , 2018, Asia Oceania journal of nuclear medicine & biology.

[10]  J. Sempau,et al.  PENELOPE-2006: A Code System for Monte Carlo Simulation of Electron and Photon Transport , 2009 .

[11]  George Loudos,et al.  A review of the use and potential of the GATE Monte Carlo simulation code for radiation therapy and dosimetry applications. , 2014, Medical physics.

[12]  D. Bailey,et al.  In vivo quantification of 177Lu with planar whole-body and SPECT/CT gamma camera imaging , 2015, EJNMMI Physics.

[13]  David Sarrut,et al.  Voxel‐based multimodel fitting method for modeling time activity curves in SPECT images , 2017, Medical physics.

[14]  M. Tenhunen,et al.  Effect of calculation method on kidney dosimetry in 177Lu-octreotate treatment , 2016, Acta oncologica.

[15]  Michael S. Hofman,et al.  Quantitative 177Lu SPECT (QSPECT) imaging using a commercially available SPECT/CT system , 2011, Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society.

[16]  Jesse Tanguay,et al.  Accuracy of 177Lu activity quantification in SPECT imaging: a phantom study , 2017, EJNMMI Physics.

[17]  V. Vlachoudis,et al.  The FLUKA Code: Developments and Challenges for High Energy and Medical Applications , 2014 .

[18]  P. Kotzki,et al.  Implementation of patient dosimetry in the clinical practice after targeted radiotherapy using [177Lu-[DOTA0, Tyr3]-octreotate , 2018, EJNMMI Research.

[19]  A. Sohlberg,et al.  Quantitative accuracy of 177Lu SPECT reconstruction using different compensation methods: phantom and patient studies , 2016, EJNMMI Research.

[20]  M. Ljungberg,et al.  Pharmacokinetic digital phantoms for accuracy assessment of image-based dosimetry in 177Lu-DOTATATE peptide receptor radionuclide therapy , 2015, Physics in medicine and biology.

[21]  I. Gardin,et al.  Fine-Resolution Voxel S Values for Constructing Absorbed Dose Distributions at Variable Voxel Size , 2010, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[22]  J. Hornegger,et al.  Quantitative SPECT/CT Imaging of 177Lu with In Vivo Validation in Patients Undergoing Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy , 2015, Molecular Imaging and Biology.

[23]  I. Apostolova,et al.  Software-assisted dosimetry in peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with 177Lutetium-DOTATATE for various imaging scenarios , 2017, PloS one.

[24]  John S. Hendricks,et al.  The MCNPX Monte Carlo Radiation Transport Code , 2007 .

[25]  P. Bernhardt,et al.  A novel planar image-based method for bone marrow dosimetry in 177Lu-DOTATATE treatment correlates with haematological toxicity , 2016, EJNMMI Physics.

[26]  E. Krenning,et al.  Subacute haematotoxicity after PRRT with 177Lu-DOTA-octreotate: prognostic factors, incidence and course , 2015, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[27]  Ezgi Ilan,et al.  Method dependence, observer variability and kidney volumes in radiation dosimetry of 177Lu-DOTATATE therapy in patients with neuroendocrine tumours , 2015, EJNMMI Physics.

[28]  C. Bal,et al.  Dosimetric Analyses of Kidneys, Liver, Spleen, Pituitary Gland, and Neuroendocrine Tumors of Patients Treated With 177Lu-DOTATATE , 2013, Clinical nuclear medicine.

[29]  Giampiero Tosi,et al.  Dosimetry in Peptide radionuclide receptor therapy: a review. , 2006, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[30]  I Clairand,et al.  DOSE3D: EGS4 Monte Carlo code-based software for internal radionuclide dosimetry. , 1999, Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine.

[31]  Giovanni Paganelli,et al.  Long-term evaluation of renal toxicity after peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with 90Y-DOTATOC and 177Lu-DOTATATE: the role of associated risk factors , 2008, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[32]  Markus Luster,et al.  The NUKDOS software for treatment planning in molecular radiotherapy. , 2015, Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik.

[33]  Anders Sundin,et al.  Individualized dosimetry in patients undergoing therapy with 177Lu-DOTA-D-Phe1-Tyr3-octreotate , 2010, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[34]  Andrew Nisbet,et al.  Development of a calibration protocol for quantitative imaging for molecular radiotherapy dosimetry , 2017 .

[35]  Rachida Lebtahi,et al.  Study of the Impact of Tissue Density Heterogeneities on 3-Dimensional Abdominal Dosimetry: Comparison Between Dose Kernel Convolution and Direct Monte Carlo Methods , 2013, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[36]  M Bardiès,et al.  Model-based versus specific dosimetry in diagnostic context: comparison of three dosimetric approaches. , 2015, Medical physics.

[37]  H. Kestler,et al.  Molecular radiotherapy: the NUKFIT software for calculating the time-integrated activity coefficient. , 2013, Medical physics.

[38]  A. Celler,et al.  Determination of gamma camera calibration factors for quantitation of therapeutic radioisotopes , 2018, EJNMMI Physics.

[39]  R. Wahl,et al.  Three-Dimensional Radiobiologic Dosimetry: Application of Radiobiologic Modeling to Patient-Specific 3-Dimensional Imaging–Based Internal Dosimetry , 2007, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[40]  R. Baum,et al.  Dosimetry in Targeted Radionuclide Therapy: The Bad Berka Dose Protocol—Practical Experience , 2013 .

[41]  H Watabe,et al.  Acceleration of Monte Carlo-based scatter compensation for cardiac SPECT. , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[42]  P. Bernhardt,et al.  Radiation exposure of the spleen during 177Lu-DOTATATE treatment and its correlation with haematological toxicity and spleen volume , 2016, EJNMMI Physics.

[43]  Chris Constable,et al.  Multicenter evaluation of single-photon emission computed tomography quantification with third-party reconstruction software , 2016, Nuclear medicine communications.

[44]  M Ljungberg,et al.  A Monte-Carlo program converting activity distributions to absorbed dose distributions in a radionuclide treatment planning system. , 1996, Acta oncologica.

[45]  Iain Murray,et al.  EANM practical guidance on uncertainty analysis for molecular radiotherapy absorbed dose calculations , 2018, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[46]  M. Lubberink,et al.  Individualized Dosimetry of Kidney and Bone Marrow in Patients Undergoing 177Lu-DOTA-Octreotate Treatment , 2013, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[47]  M Bardiès,et al.  Validation of a personalized dosimetric evaluation tool (Oedipe) for targeted radiotherapy based on the Monte Carlo MCNPX code , 2006, Physics in medicine and biology.

[48]  Franklin C. Wong,et al.  MIRD: Radionuclide Data and Decay Schemes , 2009, Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[49]  I. Kawrakow,et al.  The EGSnrc Code System: Monte Carlo Simulation of Electron and Photon Transport , 2016 .

[50]  Stefaan Vandenberghe,et al.  Accuracy and precision assessment for activity quantification in individualized dosimetry of 177Lu-DOTATATE therapy , 2017, EJNMMI Physics.

[51]  Erin McKay,et al.  A software tool for specifying voxel models for dosimetry estimation. , 2003, Cancer biotherapy & radiopharmaceuticals.

[52]  Yuni K. Dewaraja,et al.  MIRD Pamphlet No. 23: Quantitative SPECT for Patient-Specific 3-Dimensional Dosimetry in Internal Radionuclide Therapy , 2012, The Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

[53]  Maggie A Flower,et al.  RMDP: a dedicated package for 131I SPECT quantification, registration and patient-specific dosimetry. , 2003, Cancer biotherapy & radiopharmaceuticals.

[54]  S. Ziegler,et al.  Patient-specific image-based bone marrow dosimetry in Lu-177-[DOTA0,Tyr3]-Octreotate and Lu-177-DKFZ-PSMA-617 therapy: investigation of a new hybrid image approach , 2018, EJNMMI Research.

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

[56]  A. Sohlberg,et al.  Easy-to-Use Online Software Package for Internal Dose Assessment After Radionuclide Treatment in Clinical Routine , 2013, Clinical nuclear medicine.

[57]  Michael Ljungberg,et al.  Individualised 177Lu-DOTATATE treatment of neuroendocrine tumours based on kidney dosimetry , 2017, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[58]  G Malandain,et al.  A phantom study of the accuracy of CT, MR and PET image registrations with a block matching-based algorithm. , 2008, Cancer radiotherapie : journal de la Societe francaise de radiotherapie oncologique.

[59]  A. Pasciak,et al.  A Comparison of Techniques for 90Y PET/CT Image-Based Dosimetry Following Radioembolization with Resin Microspheres , 2014, Front. Oncol..

[60]  S Marcatili,et al.  Development and validation of RAYDOSE: a Geant4-based application for molecular radiotherapy , 2013, Physics in medicine and biology.

[61]  M. Stabin,et al.  OLINDA/EXM 2.0: The new generation dosimetry modeling code , 2012 .

[62]  T K Johnson,et al.  MABDOSE. I: Characterization of a general purpose dose estimation code. , 1999, Medical physics.

[63]  H. Lundqvist,et al.  Prospective observational study of 177Lu-DOTA-octreotate therapy in 200 patients with advanced metastasized neuroendocrine tumours (NETs): feasibility and impact of a dosimetry-guided study protocol on outcome and toxicity , 2018, European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

[64]  A. Dell'Acqua,et al.  Geant4 - A simulation toolkit , 2003 .

[65]  M. Iori,et al.  Kidney Dosimetry in 177Lu and 90Y Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy: Influence of Image Timing, Time-Activity Integration Method, and Risk Factors , 2013, BioMed research international.

[66]  C Lartizien,et al.  GATE: a simulation toolkit for PET and SPECT. , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.

[67]  Pierre Vera,et al.  Voxeldoes: a computer program for 3-D dose calculation in therapeutic nuclear medicine. , 2003, Cancer biotherapy & radiopharmaceuticals.

[68]  G. Glatting,et al.  Model selection for time-activity curves: the corrected Akaike information criterion and the F-test. , 2009, Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik.

[69]  D. E. Wessol,et al.  Monte Carlo treatment planning for molecular targeted radiotherapy within the MINERVA system , 2004, Physics in medicine and biology.