For this purpose, recommendations have been formulated based on recent literature and expert opinion regarding the rationale, indications and contraindications for these procedures, as well as the radioiodine activities and the administration and patient preparation techniques to be used. Recommendations also are provided on pre-RAIT history and examinations, patient counselling and precautions that should be associated with (131)I iodine ablation and treatment. Furthermore, potential side effects of radioiodine therapy and alternate or additional treatments to this modality are reviewed. Appendices furnish information on dosimetry and post-therapy scintigraphy.

No abstract

No abstract

Primary liver cancers (i.e. hepatocellular carcinoma or cholangiocarcinoma) are worldwide some of the most frequent cancers, with rapidly fatal liver failure in a large majority of patients. Curative therapy consists of surgery (i.e. resection or liver transplantation), but only 10-20% of patients are candidates for this. In other patients, a variety of palliative treatments can be given, such as chemoembolization, radiofrequency ablation or recently introduced tyrosine kinase inhibitors, e.g. sorafenib. Colorectal cancer is the second most lethal cancer in Europe and liver metastases are prevalent either at diagnosis or in follow-up. These patients are usually treated by a sequence of surgery, chemotherapy and antibody therapy [Okuda et al. (Cancer 56:918-928, 1985); Schafer and Sorrell (Lancet 353:1253-1257, 1999); Leong et al. (Arnold, London, 1999)]. Radioembolization is an innovative therapeutic approach defined as the injection of micron-sized embolic particles loaded with a radioisotope by use of percutaneous intra-arterial techniques. Advantages of the use of these intra-arterial radioactive compounds are the ability to deliver high doses of radiation to small target volumes, the relatively low toxicity profile, the possibility to treat the whole liver including microscopic disease and the feasibility of combination with other therapy modalities. Disadvantages are mainly due to radioprotection constraints mainly for (131)I-labelled agents, logistics and the possibility of inadvertent delivery or shunting [Novell et al. (Br J Surg 78:901-906, 1991)]. The Therapy, Oncology and Dosimetry Committees have worked together in order to revise the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) guidelines on the use of the radiopharmaceutical (131)I-Lipiodol (Lipiocis®, IBA, Brussels, Belgium) and include the newer medical devices with (90)Y-microspheres. (90)Y is either bound to resin (SIR-Spheres®, Sirtex Medical, Lane Cove, Australia) or embedded in a glass matrix (TheraSphere®, MDS Nordion, Kanata, ON, Canada). Since (90)Y-microspheres are not metabolized, they are not registered as unsealed sources. However, the microspheres are delivered in aqueous solution: radioactive contamination is a concern and microspheres should be handled, like other radiopharmaceuticals, as open sources. The purpose of this guideline is to assist the nuclear medicine physician in treating and managing patients undergoing such treatment.

Patients with anaplastic thyroid carcinoma can rarely be cured, but every effort should be made to prevent death due to suffocation. Between 1984 and 1999, 55 consecutive patients with anaplastic thyroid carcinoma were prospectively treated according to a combined regimen consisting of hyperfractionated radiotherapy, doxorubicin, and when feasible surgery. Radiotherapy was carried out for 5 days a week. The daily fraction until 1988 was 1.0 Gy×2 (A) and 1989–92 1.3 Gy×2 (B) . Thereafter 1.6 Gy×2 (C) was administered. Radiotherapy was administered to a total target dose of 46 Gy; of which 30 Gy was administered preoperatively in the first two protocols (A and B), while the whole dose was given preoperatively in the third protocol (C). The therapy was otherwise identical. Twenty mg doxorubicin was administered intravenously weekly. Surgery was possible in 40 patients. No patient failed to complete the protocol due to toxicity. In only 13 cases (24%) was death attributed to local failure. Five patients (9%) ‘had a survival’ exceeding 2 years. No signs of local recurrence were seen in 33 patients (60%); 5 out of 16 patients in Protocol A, 11 out of 17 patients in Protocol B, 17 out of 22 patients in Protocol C ( P =0.017). In the 40 patients undergoing additional surgery, no signs of local recurrence were seen in 5 out of 9 patients, 11 out of 14 patients and 17 out of 17 patients, respectively ( P =0.005). British Journal of Cancer (2002) 86 , 1848–1853. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600361 www.bjcancer.com © 2002 Cancer Research UK

BACKGROUND: 177 Lu-(DOTA0,Tyr3) octreotate is a new treatment modality for disseminated neuroendocrine tumors. According to a consensus protocol, the calculated maximally tolerated absorbed dose to the kidney should not exceed 27 Gy. In commonly used dosimetry methods, planar imaging is used for determination of the residence time, whereas the kidney mass is determined from a computed tomography (CT) scan. METHODS: Three different quantification methods were used to evaluate the absorbed dose to the kidneys. The first method involved common planar activity imaging, and the absorbed dose was calculated using the medical internal radiation dose (MIRD) formalism, using CT scan-based kidney masses. For this method, 2 region of interest locations for the background correction were investigated. The second method also included single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) data, which were used to scale the amplitude of the time-activity curve obtained from planar images. The absorbed dose was calculated as in the planar method. The third method used quantitative SPECT images converted to absorbed dose rate images, where the median absorbed dose rate in the kidneys was calculated in a volume of interest defined over the renal cortex. RESULTS: For some patients, the results showed a large difference in calculated kidneyabsorbed doses, depending on the dosimetry method. The 2 SPECT-based methods generally gave consistent values, although the calculations were based on different assumptions. Dosimetry using the baseline planar method gave higher absorbed doses in all patients. The values obtained from planar imaging with a background region of interest placed adjacent to the kidneys were more consistent with dosimetry also including SPECT. For the accumulated tumor absorbed dose, the first 2 of the 4 planned therapy cycles made the major contribution. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggested that patients evaluated according to the conventional planar-based dosimetry method may have been undertreated compared with the other methods. Hematology and creatinine did not indicate any restriction for a more aggressive approach, which would be especially useful in patients with more aggressive tumors where there is not time for more protracted therapy. Cancer 2010;116(4 suppl):1084-92.

PurposeTo present data from an interim analysis of a Phase II trial designed to determine the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of individualising treatment based on renal dosimetry, by giving as many cycles as possible within a maximum renal biologically effective dose (BED).MethodTreatment was given with repeated cycles of 7.4 GBq 177Lu-DOTATATE at 8-12-week intervals. Detailed dosimetry was performed in all patients after each cycle using a hybrid method (SPECT + planar imaging). All patients received treatment up to a renal BED of 27 ± 2 Gy (α/β = 2.6 Gy) (Step 1). Selected patients were offered further treatment up to a renal BED of 40 ± 2 Gy (Step 2). Renal function was followed by estimation and measurement of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR).ResultsFifty-one patients were included in the present analysis. Among the patients who received treatment as planned, the median number of cycles in Step 1 was 5 (range 3-7), and for those who completed Step 2 it was 7 (range 5-8); 73% were able to receive >4 cycles. Although GFR decreased in most patients after the completion of treatment, no grade 3-4 toxicity was observed. Patients with a reduced baseline GFR seemed to have an increased risk of GFR decline. Five patients received treatment in Step 2, none of whom exhibited a significant reduction in renal function.ConclusionsIndividualising PRRT using renal dosimetry seems feasible and safe and leads to an increased number of cycles in the majority of patients. The trial will continue as planned.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00259-017-3678-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract