BIGDOSE: software for 3D personalized targeted radionuclide therapy dosimetry

et al. 2020

Preprint

Background: Recently, commercial software tools have become available for dosimetry evaluations in clinical settings. The aim of this study was to compare a commercial dosimetry workstation (PLANETâDose) and the dosimetry approach (GE Dosimetry Toolkit® and OLINDA/EXM® V1.0) currently used in our department for quantification of the absorbed dose in organs at risk after peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with 177Lu-DOTATATE.Methods: First, an evaluation on phantom, with data acquisition at 5 time points, was performed to determine the SPECT calibration factor variations over time and to compare the Time Integrated Activity Coefficients (TIACs) and absorbed doses obtained with the two tools. Then, the two tools were used for dosimetry evaluation in 21 patients with neuroendocrine tumours after the first and second injection of 7.2 ± 0.2 GBq of 177Lu-DOTATATE (40 dosimetry analyses with each software). SPECT/CT images were acquired at 4h, 24h, 72h and 192h after 177Lu-DOTATATE injection and were reconstructed using the Xeleris software (General Electric). The liver, spleen and kidney masses, TIACs and absorbed doses were calculated using i) GE Dosimetry Toolkit® (DTK) and OLINDA/EXM® V1.0 and ii) the Local Deposition Method (LDM) or Dose voxel-Kernel convolution (DK) on PLANETâDose. Results: With the phantom, the 3D calibration factors showed a slight variation (0.8% and 3.3%) over time and TIACs of 225.19h and 217.52h were obtained with DTK and PLANETâDose, respectively. In patients, the mean of the relative standard deviations was -1% for the organ masses, 5.6%, for the TIACs, and 4.4% for the absorbed doses. The Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient was 0.99 and the Bland-Altman plot analysis estimated that the difference of absorbed dose values between methods ranged from -0.58 Gy to 0.84 Gy for approximately 95% of the 40 dosimetry analyses. A difference of 2.2% was obtained between the absorbed doses to organs at risk calculated with LDM and DK (PLANETâDose). Conclusions: The absorbed doses to organs at risk obtained with the new workstation are concordant with those calculated with the currently used software and in agreement with the literature. These results validate the use of PLANETâDose in clinical routine for patient dosimetry after targeted radiotherapy with 177Lu-DOTATATE.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Implementation of PLANET®Dose for Dosimetric Assessment after 177Lu-DOTATATE: Comparison with Dosimetry Toolkit® and OLINDA/EXM® V1.0

Santoro¹,

et al. 2020

Preprint

“…In fact, voxel-based dosimetry is still a matter of debate (14)(15)(16)33,(54)(55)(56)(57), as it relies not only on radiation transport and absorbed dose calculation (which can be addressed voxel-wise with current algorithms), but also on activity (and cumulated activity) determination at the voxel level, which is much more challenging. Yet software exist that propose voxel-based absorbed dose determination (27,57).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the clinic, many medical teams have developed their own methodology using the tools available in their department and according to their own organizational possibilities (20)(21)(22), and speci c dosimetry software and programs have been developed and implemented locally (23)(24)(25)(26)(27). However, the legislation on Medical Devices restricts their use to clinical studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical implementation of PLANET®Dose for dosimetric assessment after [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE : comparison with Dosimetry Toolkit® and OLINDA/EXM® V1.0

Santoro

et al. 2020

Preprint

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 in 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) and absorbed doses obtained with the two tools. Then, the two tools were used for dosimetry evaluation 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 4h, 24h, 72h and 192h after [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE injection and were reconstructed using the Xeleris software (General Electric). The liver, spleen and kidney masses, TIACs and absorbed doses were calculated using i) GE Dosimetry Toolkit® (DTK) and OLINDA/EXM® V1.0 and ii) 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 225.19h and 217.52h 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 absorbed doses with LDM and DK, respectively. The Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient was 0.99 and the Bland-Altman plot analysis estimated that the difference of absorbed dose values between methods ranged from -0.75 Gy to 0.49 Gy, from -0.20 Gy to 0.64 Gy and from -0.43 to 1.03 Gy for approximately 95% of the 40 liver, kidneys and spleen dosimetry analyses. A difference of 2.2% was obtained between the absorbed doses to organs at risk calculated with LDM and DK. Conclusions: The absorbed doses to organs at risk obtained with the new workstation 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.

“…In the clinic, many medical teams have developed their own methodology using the tools available in their department and according to their own organizational possibilities (3)(4)(5). This has led to the local implementation of in-house developed dosimetry software and programs (6)(7)(8)(9)(10). However, the legislation on Medical Devices restricts their use to clinical trials.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical implementation of PLANET®Dose for dosimetric assessment after [177Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE: comparison with Dosimetry Toolkit® and OLINDA/EXM® V1.0

Santoro

et al. 2020

Preprint

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 4h, 24h, 72h and 192h post-injection and were reconstructed using the Xeleris software (General Electric). The liver, spleen and kidneys masses and TIACs were calculated 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 225.19h and 217.52h 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 Gy to 0.49 Gy, from -0.20 Gy 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. Conclusions: 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.