No abstract

Purpose The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic reshaped the usual risk: benefit equilibrium that became a tradeoff between the infection exposure risk for the patient (and for staff) and the risk associated with delaying or cancelling the nuclear medicine examination. This study aimed at quantifying the impact of the first COVID-19 lockdown in France on nuclear medicine examination volume together with volume of examination cancellation and non-attendance. Methods We retrospectively assessed the volume of planned examinations from 1 month before to 1 month after the first lockdown in French high-volume nuclear medicine departments (NMD) sharing the same information management system including both university hospitals, UH (n = 7), and cancer centres, CC (n = 2). Results The study enrolled 31,628 consecutive patients referred for a nuclear medicine examination performed or not (NMEP or NMEnP). The total volume of NMEP significantly dropped by 43.4% between the 4 weeks before and after the starting of the lockdown. The comparison of the percentage of NMEP and NMEnP between UH and CC is significantly different (p < 0.001). The percentage of NMEP during the study was 67.9% in UH vs 84.7% in CC. Percentages of NMEnP in UH and CC were due respectively to cancellation by the patient (14.9 vs 7.4%), cancellation by the NMD (9.5 vs 3.4%), cancellation by the referring physician (5.1 vs 4.4%) and non-attender patients (2.7 vs 0.2%). ConclusionThe study underlines the public health issue caused by COVID-19 above the pandemic itself and should be useful in preparing for potential resource utilisation and staffing requirements.This article is part of the Topical Collection on Miscellanea

No abstract

Background: The co-infusion of amino acid solutions during peptide receptor radionuclide therapy reduces the tubular reabsorption of 177Lu-oxodotreotide, thus minimizing nephrotoxicity. In our nuclear medicine department, the patients received two different types of amino acid perfusion over time: a commercial solution (CS) containing 10% amino acids, and a 2.5% lysine–arginine (LysArg) hospital preparation, produced by a referral laboratory. The aim of the present study was to analyze the tolerance of the two amino acid solutions. Methods: The patient files were analyzed and double-checked. The study parameters comprised the gender, age, primary tumor site, type of amino acid perfusion, adverse events (AE) and WHO AE grades, antiemetic premedication, creatinine, and serum potassium level. Results: From February 2016 to February 2019, 76 patients were treated, for a total 235 cycles. AEs occurred in 71% of the CS cycles (n = 82/116), versus 18% (n = 21/119) in the LysArg group (p < 0.0001). In the CS group, the AEs were mostly WHO grade 4 (n = 24/82), and mostly grade 1 in the LysArg group (n = 13/21). Poisson regression showed a higher risk of AE overall and of grades 3 and 4 in the females and with CS. The mean creatinine clearance was identical before and after the PRRT cycles, whichever amino acid perfusion was used. Conclusion: The lysine–arginine preparation showed better tolerance than the commercial solution. The change to LysArg reduced the antiemetic premedication from four molecules to one.

No abstract