Amit Nautiyal, Gemma Lewis, Jonathan I Gear, Kim Orchard, Matthew J Guy, Sofia Michopoulou
{"title":"Uncertainty analysis of single-time-point organ dosimetry compared with the multi-time-point method in radioimmunotherapy.","authors":"Amit Nautiyal, Gemma Lewis, Jonathan I Gear, Kim Orchard, Matthew J Guy, Sofia Michopoulou","doi":"10.1186/s40658-026-00883-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A position paper released by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine emphasised the need for multidisciplinary engagement to establish dosimetry-based personalised treatment in Radionuclide therapy (RNT). The uncertainty analysis results often ignored in routine clinical practice should be incorporated into the dose calculations to improve the efficacy and accuracy of treatment. In this study, patients with haematological malignancies undergoing radioimmunotherapy were evaluated. Our study aimed to calculate the uncertainties associated with each parameter of the single time point (STP) dosimetry chain and compare the with multiple time points (MTP) in the bone marrow and liver results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>28 patients received an intravenous injection of <sup>111</sup>In-besilesomab (0.17 ± 0.01GBq) for pre-therapeutic dosimetry and were subsequently treated with <sup>90</sup>Y-besilesomab(2.43 ± 0.53GBq). A dosimetry analysis was performed on bone marrow (BM) and liver with MTP and STP. We investigated the uncertainty in population mean effective half-life, volume, recovery coefficient, counts, measured activity, fitting parameters, time-integrated-activity, S-factors, and absorbed dose (AD) for a group of patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean absorbed dose per unit administered activity (DpA) to BM was 5.8 ± 1.7 mGy/MBq with MTP and 5.8 ± 1.6 mGy/MBq with STP, and to the liver was 2.9 ± 1.9 mGy/MBq with MTP and 3.1 ± 2.4 mGy/MBq with STP. The mean fractional uncertainty associated with total absorbed dose to BM was 13.18 ± 3.46% with MTP and 18.75 ± 3.22% with STP, and to liver was 5.77 ± 3.13% with MTP and 49.78 ± 25.36% with STP. A moderate positive relationship (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.7) was noted between post-injection acquisition time and AD uncertainty with STP for BM, whereas a strong positive relationship (R<sup>2</sup> = 1) was noted for the liver.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The absorbed dose uncertainty in STP was significantly higher compared to the MTP. Incorporating the uncertainty analysis for STP dosimetry parameters in routine clinical practice is strongly recommended. The accuracy in the acquisition time, population-based half-life and fitting function for time activity curve is vital for minimising uncertainty in STP dosimetry, which is less time-consuming and easier to implement in clinical practice than MTP.</p>","PeriodicalId":11559,"journal":{"name":"EJNMMI Physics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EJNMMI Physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-026-00883-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: A position paper released by the European Association of Nuclear Medicine emphasised the need for multidisciplinary engagement to establish dosimetry-based personalised treatment in Radionuclide therapy (RNT). The uncertainty analysis results often ignored in routine clinical practice should be incorporated into the dose calculations to improve the efficacy and accuracy of treatment. In this study, patients with haematological malignancies undergoing radioimmunotherapy were evaluated. Our study aimed to calculate the uncertainties associated with each parameter of the single time point (STP) dosimetry chain and compare the with multiple time points (MTP) in the bone marrow and liver results.
Methods: 28 patients received an intravenous injection of 111In-besilesomab (0.17 ± 0.01GBq) for pre-therapeutic dosimetry and were subsequently treated with 90Y-besilesomab(2.43 ± 0.53GBq). A dosimetry analysis was performed on bone marrow (BM) and liver with MTP and STP. We investigated the uncertainty in population mean effective half-life, volume, recovery coefficient, counts, measured activity, fitting parameters, time-integrated-activity, S-factors, and absorbed dose (AD) for a group of patients.
Results: The mean absorbed dose per unit administered activity (DpA) to BM was 5.8 ± 1.7 mGy/MBq with MTP and 5.8 ± 1.6 mGy/MBq with STP, and to the liver was 2.9 ± 1.9 mGy/MBq with MTP and 3.1 ± 2.4 mGy/MBq with STP. The mean fractional uncertainty associated with total absorbed dose to BM was 13.18 ± 3.46% with MTP and 18.75 ± 3.22% with STP, and to liver was 5.77 ± 3.13% with MTP and 49.78 ± 25.36% with STP. A moderate positive relationship (R2 = 0.7) was noted between post-injection acquisition time and AD uncertainty with STP for BM, whereas a strong positive relationship (R2 = 1) was noted for the liver.
Conclusion: The absorbed dose uncertainty in STP was significantly higher compared to the MTP. Incorporating the uncertainty analysis for STP dosimetry parameters in routine clinical practice is strongly recommended. The accuracy in the acquisition time, population-based half-life and fitting function for time activity curve is vital for minimising uncertainty in STP dosimetry, which is less time-consuming and easier to implement in clinical practice than MTP.
期刊介绍:
EJNMMI Physics is an international platform for scientists, users and adopters of nuclear medicine with a particular interest in physics matters. As a companion journal to the European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, this journal has a multi-disciplinary approach and welcomes original materials and studies with a focus on applied physics and mathematics as well as imaging systems engineering and prototyping in nuclear medicine. This includes physics-driven approaches or algorithms supported by physics that foster early clinical adoption of nuclear medicine imaging and therapy.