重新思考剂量学:欧洲视角

Johannes Tran-Gia, Francesco Cicone, Michel Koole, Francesco Giammarile, Jonathan Gear, Emmanuel Deshayes, Pablo Minguez Gabiña, Marta Cremonesi, Jonathan Wadsley, Peter Bernhardt, Manuel Bardiès, Silvano Gnesin, Mattias Sandström, Ulrike Garske-Román, Mona-Elisabeth R. Revheim, Frederik A. Verburg, Mark Konijnenberg, Bernd Joachim Krause, Michael Lassmann, Caroline Stokke
{"title":"重新思考剂量学:欧洲视角","authors":"Johannes Tran-Gia, Francesco Cicone, Michel Koole, Francesco Giammarile, Jonathan Gear, Emmanuel Deshayes, Pablo Minguez Gabiña, Marta Cremonesi, Jonathan Wadsley, Peter Bernhardt, Manuel Bardiès, Silvano Gnesin, Mattias Sandström, Ulrike Garske-Román, Mona-Elisabeth R. Revheim, Frederik A. Verburg, Mark Konijnenberg, Bernd Joachim Krause, Michael Lassmann, Caroline Stokke","doi":"10.2967/jnumed.124.269378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) is entering a new era of personalization, driven by advances in molecular imaging, radiopharmaceutical development, and a growing body of clinical evidence linking absorbed dose to treatment outcomes. Although external-beam radiotherapy has long integrated dosimetry into standard practice, RPT historically relied on fixed radiopharmaceutical activities and absorbed dose–effect relationships adapted from external-beam radiotherapy, often without accounting for the unique pharmacokinetics, absorbed dose rate dynamics, and biologic responses of systemically administered radiopharmaceuticals. As RPT expands into earlier disease stages, at which patients have longer life expectancies and better performance status, the role of dosimetry in optimizing treatment is becoming increasingly evident. However, despite growing recognition of its benefits, the implementation of dosimetry in clinical practice remains limited, partly because of a self-reinforcing cycle in which the lack of routine dosimetry limits clinical evidence, which in turn hinders its broader adoption. Breaking this cycle is essential to advancing RPT and ensuring that evaluation of dosimetry is based on clinical merit rather than logistic constraints. This article examines the current landscape of RPT dosimetry, highlighting key challenges and opportunities from a European perspective and aiming to foster a more factual and constructive discussion on the topic. We discuss the fundamental differences between dosimetry-driven treatment planning and posttherapy absorbed dose verification, emphasizing the latter as a practical entry point for clinical adoption. We underscore the need for harmonized standards, improved imaging resolution, and tailored absorbed dose–effect relationships that reflect the heterogeneity of RPT delivery and the complexity of tumor and organ responses. The paper also addresses regulatory, infrastructural, and resource barriers to RPT dosimetry implementation and highlights ongoing European initiatives to strengthen frameworks, enhance stakeholder collaboration, and integrate absorbed dose biomarkers into authorization processes and clinical decision-making. By rethinking dosimetry and promoting standardized, evidence-based approaches, the field can advance beyond fixed-activity protocols toward truly individualized RPT. However, achieving clinically feasible integration of dosimetry into routine practice requires structured efforts to generate high-quality clinical evidence and improve accessibility. Ultimately, reliable, patient-centered dosimetry has the potential to enhance therapeutic efficacy, manage toxicity more effectively, and support the long-term evolution of RPT as a cornerstone of precision oncology.</p>","PeriodicalId":22820,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Nuclear Medicine","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking Dosimetry: A European Perspective\",\"authors\":\"Johannes Tran-Gia, Francesco Cicone, Michel Koole, Francesco Giammarile, Jonathan Gear, Emmanuel Deshayes, Pablo Minguez Gabiña, Marta Cremonesi, Jonathan Wadsley, Peter Bernhardt, Manuel Bardiès, Silvano Gnesin, Mattias Sandström, Ulrike Garske-Román, Mona-Elisabeth R. Revheim, Frederik A. Verburg, Mark Konijnenberg, Bernd Joachim Krause, Michael Lassmann, Caroline Stokke\",\"doi\":\"10.2967/jnumed.124.269378\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) is entering a new era of personalization, driven by advances in molecular imaging, radiopharmaceutical development, and a growing body of clinical evidence linking absorbed dose to treatment outcomes. Although external-beam radiotherapy has long integrated dosimetry into standard practice, RPT historically relied on fixed radiopharmaceutical activities and absorbed dose–effect relationships adapted from external-beam radiotherapy, often without accounting for the unique pharmacokinetics, absorbed dose rate dynamics, and biologic responses of systemically administered radiopharmaceuticals. As RPT expands into earlier disease stages, at which patients have longer life expectancies and better performance status, the role of dosimetry in optimizing treatment is becoming increasingly evident. However, despite growing recognition of its benefits, the implementation of dosimetry in clinical practice remains limited, partly because of a self-reinforcing cycle in which the lack of routine dosimetry limits clinical evidence, which in turn hinders its broader adoption. Breaking this cycle is essential to advancing RPT and ensuring that evaluation of dosimetry is based on clinical merit rather than logistic constraints. This article examines the current landscape of RPT dosimetry, highlighting key challenges and opportunities from a European perspective and aiming to foster a more factual and constructive discussion on the topic. We discuss the fundamental differences between dosimetry-driven treatment planning and posttherapy absorbed dose verification, emphasizing the latter as a practical entry point for clinical adoption. We underscore the need for harmonized standards, improved imaging resolution, and tailored absorbed dose–effect relationships that reflect the heterogeneity of RPT delivery and the complexity of tumor and organ responses. The paper also addresses regulatory, infrastructural, and resource barriers to RPT dosimetry implementation and highlights ongoing European initiatives to strengthen frameworks, enhance stakeholder collaboration, and integrate absorbed dose biomarkers into authorization processes and clinical decision-making. By rethinking dosimetry and promoting standardized, evidence-based approaches, the field can advance beyond fixed-activity protocols toward truly individualized RPT. However, achieving clinically feasible integration of dosimetry into routine practice requires structured efforts to generate high-quality clinical evidence and improve accessibility. Ultimately, reliable, patient-centered dosimetry has the potential to enhance therapeutic efficacy, manage toxicity more effectively, and support the long-term evolution of RPT as a cornerstone of precision oncology.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22820,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Nuclear Medicine\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Nuclear Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.124.269378\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Nuclear Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.124.269378","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

放射药物治疗(RPT)正在进入一个个性化的新时代,这是由于分子成像技术的进步、放射药物的发展以及越来越多的临床证据将吸收剂量与治疗结果联系起来所推动的。虽然外束放疗早已将剂量学纳入标准实践,但RPT历来依赖于固定的放射性药物活性和吸收剂量效应关系,通常没有考虑到系统给药的放射性药物的独特药代动力学、吸收剂量率动力学和生物反应。随着RPT扩展到早期疾病阶段,患者有更长的预期寿命和更好的表现状态,剂量学在优化治疗中的作用变得越来越明显。然而,尽管越来越多的人认识到剂量测定的好处,但在临床实践中实施剂量测定仍然有限,部分原因是缺乏常规剂量测定限制了临床证据,这反过来又阻碍了其更广泛的采用。打破这一循环对于推进RPT和确保剂量学评估基于临床价值而不是逻辑限制至关重要。本文考察了RPT剂量学的现状,从欧洲的角度强调了主要的挑战和机遇,旨在促进关于该主题的更实际和建设性的讨论。我们讨论剂量学驱动的治疗计划和治疗后吸收剂量验证之间的根本区别,强调后者是临床采用的实际切入点。我们强调需要统一标准、提高成像分辨率和量身定制的吸收剂量效应关系,以反映RPT给药的异质性以及肿瘤和器官反应的复杂性。该文件还讨论了实施RPT剂量学的监管、基础设施和资源障碍,并强调了欧洲正在加强框架、加强利益相关者合作和将吸收剂量生物标志物纳入授权流程和临床决策的举措。通过重新思考剂量学和促进标准化、基于证据的方法,该领域可以超越固定活动方案,走向真正个性化的RPT。然而,要实现临床可行的剂量学整合到常规实践中,需要有组织的努力来产生高质量的临床证据并提高可及性。最终,可靠的、以患者为中心的剂量测定法有可能提高治疗效果,更有效地管理毒性,并支持RPT作为精确肿瘤学基石的长期发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rethinking Dosimetry: A European Perspective

Radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) is entering a new era of personalization, driven by advances in molecular imaging, radiopharmaceutical development, and a growing body of clinical evidence linking absorbed dose to treatment outcomes. Although external-beam radiotherapy has long integrated dosimetry into standard practice, RPT historically relied on fixed radiopharmaceutical activities and absorbed dose–effect relationships adapted from external-beam radiotherapy, often without accounting for the unique pharmacokinetics, absorbed dose rate dynamics, and biologic responses of systemically administered radiopharmaceuticals. As RPT expands into earlier disease stages, at which patients have longer life expectancies and better performance status, the role of dosimetry in optimizing treatment is becoming increasingly evident. However, despite growing recognition of its benefits, the implementation of dosimetry in clinical practice remains limited, partly because of a self-reinforcing cycle in which the lack of routine dosimetry limits clinical evidence, which in turn hinders its broader adoption. Breaking this cycle is essential to advancing RPT and ensuring that evaluation of dosimetry is based on clinical merit rather than logistic constraints. This article examines the current landscape of RPT dosimetry, highlighting key challenges and opportunities from a European perspective and aiming to foster a more factual and constructive discussion on the topic. We discuss the fundamental differences between dosimetry-driven treatment planning and posttherapy absorbed dose verification, emphasizing the latter as a practical entry point for clinical adoption. We underscore the need for harmonized standards, improved imaging resolution, and tailored absorbed dose–effect relationships that reflect the heterogeneity of RPT delivery and the complexity of tumor and organ responses. The paper also addresses regulatory, infrastructural, and resource barriers to RPT dosimetry implementation and highlights ongoing European initiatives to strengthen frameworks, enhance stakeholder collaboration, and integrate absorbed dose biomarkers into authorization processes and clinical decision-making. By rethinking dosimetry and promoting standardized, evidence-based approaches, the field can advance beyond fixed-activity protocols toward truly individualized RPT. However, achieving clinically feasible integration of dosimetry into routine practice requires structured efforts to generate high-quality clinical evidence and improve accessibility. Ultimately, reliable, patient-centered dosimetry has the potential to enhance therapeutic efficacy, manage toxicity more effectively, and support the long-term evolution of RPT as a cornerstone of precision oncology.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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