Logo Kérwá
 

Comparison of commercial dosimetric software platforms in patients treated with 177Lu-DOTATATE for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy

dc.creatorMora Ramírez, Erick
dc.creatorSantoro, Lore
dc.creatorCassol, Emmanuelle
dc.creatorOcampo Ramos, Juan Camilo
dc.creatorClayton, Naomi
dc.creatorKayal, Gunjan
dc.creatorChouaf, Soufiane
dc.creatorTrauchessec, Dorian
dc.creatorPouget, Jean-Pierre
dc.creatorKotzki, Pierre-Olivier
dc.creatorDeshayes, Emmanuel
dc.creatorBardiès, Manuel
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-13T20:05:17Z
dc.date.available2023-01-13T20:05:17Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.description.abstractPurpose The aim of this study was to quantitatively compare five commercial dosimetric software platforms based on the analysis of clinical datasets of patients who benefited from peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) with 177Lu-DOTATATE (LUTATHERA®). Methods The dosimetric analysis was performed on two patients during two cycles of PRRT with 177Lu. Single photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography images were acquired at 4, 24, 72, and 192 h post injection. Reconstructed images were generated using Dosimetry Toolkit® (DTK) from Xeleris™ and HybridRecon-Oncology version_1.3_Dicom (HROD) from HERMES. Reconstructed images using DTK were analyzed using the same software to calculate time-integrated activity coefficients (TIAC), and mean absorbed doses were estimated using OLINDA/EXM V1.0 with mass correction. Reconstructed images from HROD were uploaded into PLANET® OncoDose from DOSIsoft, STRATOS from Phillips, Hybrid Dosimetry Module™ from HERMES, and SurePlan™ MRT from MIM. Organ masses, TIACs, and mean absorbed doses were calculated from each application using their recommendations. Results The majority of organ mass estimates varied by <9.5% between all platforms. The highest variability for TIAC results between platforms was seen for the kidneys (28.2%) for the two patients and the two treatment cycles. Relative standard deviations in mean absorbed doses were slightly higher compared with those observed for TIAC, but remained of the same order of magnitude between all platforms. Conclusions When applying a similar processing approach, results obtained were of the same order of magnitude regardless of the platforms used. However, the comparison of the performances of currently available platforms is still difficult as they do not all address the same parts of the dosimetric analysis workflow. In addition, the way in which data are handled in each part of the chain from data acquisition to absorbed doses may be different, which complicates the comparison exercise. Therefore, the dissemination of commercial solutions for absorbed dose calculation calls for the development of tools and standards allowing for the comparison of the performances between dosimetric software platforms.es_ES
dc.description.procedenceUCR::Vicerrectoría de Investigación::Unidades de Investigación::Ciencias Básicas::Centro de Investigación en Ciencias Atómicas Nucleares y Moleculares (CICANUM)es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/mp.14375
dc.identifier.issn2473-4209
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10669/88071
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.rightsacceso abierto
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/*
dc.sourceMedical Physics, 2020; 47(9): 4602 - 4615es_ES
dc.subjectdosimetryes_ES
dc.subjectdosimetry software platformses_ES
dc.titleComparison of commercial dosimetric software platforms in patients treated with 177Lu-DOTATATE for peptide receptor radionuclide therapyes_ES
dc.typeartículo originales_ES

Files

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
3.5 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:

Collections