Understanding time–activity curve and time-integrated activity variations in radiopharmaceutical therapy challenge: Experience and results

IF 3.2 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Medical physics Pub Date : 2025-09-26 DOI:10.1002/mp.70043
Oleksandra V. Ivashchenko, Jim O'Doherty, Deni Hardiansyah, Elisa Grassi, Johannes Tran-Gia, Johannes W. T. Heemskerk, Eero Hippeläinen, Mattias Sandström, Marta Cremonesi, Gerhard Glatting
{"title":"Understanding time–activity curve and time-integrated activity variations in radiopharmaceutical therapy challenge: Experience and results","authors":"Oleksandra V. Ivashchenko,&nbsp;Jim O'Doherty,&nbsp;Deni Hardiansyah,&nbsp;Elisa Grassi,&nbsp;Johannes Tran-Gia,&nbsp;Johannes W. T. Heemskerk,&nbsp;Eero Hippeläinen,&nbsp;Mattias Sandström,&nbsp;Marta Cremonesi,&nbsp;Gerhard Glatting","doi":"10.1002/mp.70043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The process of determining/calculating the time–activity curve (TAC) for radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) is generally heavily dependent on user- and site-dependent steps (e.g., the number and schedule of measurement points to be used, selection of the fit function), each having a notable effect on the determination of the time-integrated activity coefficient (TIAC) and thus on the calculated absorbed dose. Despite the high clinical importance of absorbed doses, there is no consensus on the methodology for processing time–activity data or even a clear understanding of the influence of various uncertainties and user-dependent variations in personalized RPT dosimetry on the accuracy of TAC calculations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>To address this critical unmet need, the <b>t</b>ime–<b>a</b>ctivity <b>c</b>urve and <b>t</b>ime-<b>i</b>ntegrated activity variations (TACTIC) AAPM Grand Challenge was designed to explore the variations in TAC modeling for RPT applications.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Launched in January 2023, the TACTIC challenge consisted of three phases: i) warm-up phase (phase 0, to gain familiarity with the logistics and the modalities of the challenge), ii) TAC fitting based on data from individual patients (phase 1, rated to determine winner 1), and iii) TAC fitting using population-based data (phase 2, rated to determine winner 2). Based on the distributed synthetic biokinetic data of [<sup>177</sup>Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 RPT (kidney, blood, and tumor), participants were asked to model the TAC and calculate the TIAC values for each of these tissues to the best of their ability. In addition, participants were requested to submit information about the fit function and fit optimization parameters. The best-performing team in each phase was determined on the basis of total root-mean-square error (RMSE) value across all three tissues.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 132 teams from over 30 countries registered for this data-driven challenge, of which 95 individual groups submitted their results throughout the challenge. By presenting participants with an identical set of measurement points previously generated from measured biokinetic data and providing additional a priori information about the procedure at different stages of the challenge, we could assess the degree of variation within the TIAC estimation. We investigated which of the commonly used TIAC estimation methods performs best and could therefore be used to harmonize TAC modeling in RPT dosimetry.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>The results of the TACTIC challenge demonstrate the large variability in TAC fitting despite the participants receiving identical input data. This highlights the fundamental role of TAC fitting methodology selection in the calculation of absorbed doses in RPT and successfully raises awareness of the need for greater harmonization in dosimetric approaches.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18384,"journal":{"name":"Medical physics","volume":"52 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/mp.70043","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://aapm.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mp.70043","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The process of determining/calculating the time–activity curve (TAC) for radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) is generally heavily dependent on user- and site-dependent steps (e.g., the number and schedule of measurement points to be used, selection of the fit function), each having a notable effect on the determination of the time-integrated activity coefficient (TIAC) and thus on the calculated absorbed dose. Despite the high clinical importance of absorbed doses, there is no consensus on the methodology for processing time–activity data or even a clear understanding of the influence of various uncertainties and user-dependent variations in personalized RPT dosimetry on the accuracy of TAC calculations.

Purpose

To address this critical unmet need, the time–activity curve and time-integrated activity variations (TACTIC) AAPM Grand Challenge was designed to explore the variations in TAC modeling for RPT applications.

Methods

Launched in January 2023, the TACTIC challenge consisted of three phases: i) warm-up phase (phase 0, to gain familiarity with the logistics and the modalities of the challenge), ii) TAC fitting based on data from individual patients (phase 1, rated to determine winner 1), and iii) TAC fitting using population-based data (phase 2, rated to determine winner 2). Based on the distributed synthetic biokinetic data of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 RPT (kidney, blood, and tumor), participants were asked to model the TAC and calculate the TIAC values for each of these tissues to the best of their ability. In addition, participants were requested to submit information about the fit function and fit optimization parameters. The best-performing team in each phase was determined on the basis of total root-mean-square error (RMSE) value across all three tissues.

Results

A total of 132 teams from over 30 countries registered for this data-driven challenge, of which 95 individual groups submitted their results throughout the challenge. By presenting participants with an identical set of measurement points previously generated from measured biokinetic data and providing additional a priori information about the procedure at different stages of the challenge, we could assess the degree of variation within the TIAC estimation. We investigated which of the commonly used TIAC estimation methods performs best and could therefore be used to harmonize TAC modeling in RPT dosimetry.

Conclusion

The results of the TACTIC challenge demonstrate the large variability in TAC fitting despite the participants receiving identical input data. This highlights the fundamental role of TAC fitting methodology selection in the calculation of absorbed doses in RPT and successfully raises awareness of the need for greater harmonization in dosimetric approaches.

Abstract Image

了解放射药物治疗挑战中的时间-活性曲线和时间积分活性变化:经验和结果
确定/计算放射药物治疗(RPT)的时间-活性曲线(TAC)的过程通常严重依赖于用户和位点依赖的步骤(例如,要使用的测量点的数量和时间表,拟合函数的选择),每个步骤都对时间积分活度系数(TIAC)的确定产生显着影响,从而对计算的吸收剂量产生显着影响。尽管吸收剂量具有很高的临床重要性,但在处理时间-活动数据的方法上没有达成共识,甚至对个性化RPT剂量法中各种不确定性和用户依赖的变化对TAC计算准确性的影响也没有明确的认识。为了解决这一关键的未满足需求,设计了时间-活动曲线和时间集成活动变化(战术)AAPM大挑战,以探索RPT应用中TAC建模的变化。战术挑战于2023年1月启动,包括三个阶段:i)热身阶段(第0阶段,以熟悉挑战的后勤和模式),ii)基于个体患者数据的TAC拟合(第1阶段,评估以确定获胜者1),以及iii)使用基于人群的数据的TAC拟合(第2阶段,评估以确定获胜者2)。根据[177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 RPT(肾脏、血液和肿瘤)的分布式合成生物动力学数据,参与者被要求建立TAC模型,并尽其所能计算这些组织的TIAC值。此外,还要求参与者提交拟合函数和拟合优化参数的信息。每个阶段中表现最好的团队是根据所有三个组织的总均方根误差(RMSE)值确定的。来自30多个国家的132个团队报名参加了这项数据驱动的挑战,其中95个团队在整个挑战过程中提交了他们的结果。通过向参与者展示先前由测量的生物动力学数据生成的一组相同的测量点,并提供有关挑战不同阶段过程的额外先验信息,我们可以评估TIAC估计内的变化程度。我们研究了哪种常用的TIAC估计方法表现最好,因此可以用来协调RPT剂量学中的TAC建模。结论战术挑战的结果表明,尽管参与者接受相同的输入数据,但TAC拟合的差异很大。这突出了TAC拟合方法选择在RPT吸收剂量计算中的基本作用,并成功地提高了对剂量学方法需要更加协调的认识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical physics
Medical physics 医学-核医学
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
15.80%
发文量
660
审稿时长
1.7 months
期刊介绍: Medical Physics publishes original, high impact physics, imaging science, and engineering research that advances patient diagnosis and therapy through contributions in 1) Basic science developments with high potential for clinical translation 2) Clinical applications of cutting edge engineering and physics innovations 3) Broadly applicable and innovative clinical physics developments Medical Physics is a journal of global scope and reach. By publishing in Medical Physics your research will reach an international, multidisciplinary audience including practicing medical physicists as well as physics- and engineering based translational scientists. We work closely with authors of promising articles to improve their quality.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信