- January 4, 2021
- Category: Nuclear Medicine, Scientific Publications
Clinical implementation of PLANET® Dose for dosimetric assessment after [177Lu] Lu‑DOTA‑TATE: comparison with DosimetryToolkit® and OLINDA/EXM® V1.0
Lore Santoro1* , L. Pitalot1, D. Trauchessec1, E. Mora‑Ramirez2,3,4, P. O. Kotzki1,5, M. Bardiès2,3 and E. Deshayes1,5
1 Nuclear Medicine Department, Montpellier Cancer Institute (ICM), Univ. Montpellier, 208 Avenue des Apothicaires, 34298 Montpellier Cedex 5, France.
2 Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Toulouse, Toulouse, France.
3 INSERM, UMR 1037, Toulouse III Paul Sabatier University, Toulouse, France.
4 University of Costa Rica, Physics School, CICANUM, San José, Costa Rica.
5 Montpellier Cancer Research Institute, UMR 1194, Univ. Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
* Correspondence: firstname.lastname@example.org
Background: The aim of this study was to compare a commercial dosimetry workstation (PLANET® Dose) and the dosimetry approach (GE Dosimetry Toolkit® and OLINDA/EXM® V1.0) currently used in our department for quantification of the absorbed dose (AD) to organs at risk after peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE.
Methods: An evaluation on phantom was performed to determine the SPECT calibration factor variations over time and to compare the Time Integrated Activity Coefficients (TIACs) obtained with the two approaches. Then, dosimetry was carried out with the two tools in 21 patients with neuroendocrine tumours after the first and second injection of 7.2 ± 0.2 GBq of [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE (40 dosimetry analyses with each software). SPECT/CT images were acquired at 4 h, 24 h, 72 h and 192 h post-injection and were reconstructed using the Xeleris software (General Electric). The liver, spleen and kidneys masses and TIACs were determined using Dosimetry Toolkit® (DTK) and PLANET® Dose. The ADs were calculated using OLINDA/EXM® V1.0 and the Local Deposition Method (LDM) or Dose voxel-Kernel convolution (DK) on PLANET® Dose.
Results: With the phantom, the 3D calibration factors showed a slight variation (0.8% and 3.3%) over time, and TIACs of 225.19 h and 217.52 h were obtained with DTK and PLANET® Dose, respectively. In patients, the root mean square deviation value was 8.9% for the organ masses, 8.1% for the TIACs, and 9.1% and 7.8% for the ADs calculated with LDM and DK, respectively. The Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient was 0.99 and the Bland–Altman plot analysis estimated that the AD value difference between methods ranged from − 0.75 to 0.49 Gy, from − 0.20 to 0.64 Gy, and from − 0.43 to 1.03 Gy for 95% of the 40 liver, kidneys and spleen dosimetry analyses. The dosimetry method had a minor influence on AD differences compared with the image registration and organ segmentation steps.
Conclusion: The ADs to organs at risk obtained with the new workstation PLANET® Dose are concordant with those calculated with the currently used software and in agreement with the literature. These results validate the use of PLANET® Dose in clinical routine for patient dosimetry after targeted radiotherapy with [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE.