Advertisement

Prospective dosimetry with 99mTc-MDP in metabolic radiotherapy of bone metastases with 153Sm-EDTMP

  • L. Bianchi
  • A. Baroli
  • L. Marzoli
  • C. Verusio
  • C. Chiesa
  • L. Pozzi
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

On the basis of the encouraging results achieved in several clinical trials and its proven therapeutic efficacy, 153Sm-ethylene diamine tetramethylene phosphonic acid (EDTMP) has become widely used to palliate pain from bone metastases. The results reported in the literature have led the product suppliers (QUADRAMET®, Schering) to suggest administering a fixed activity per kilogram (37 MBq/kg). However, considering the observed extreme inter-patient variability of skeletal uptake of 153Sm-EDTMP, a real therapy optimization would require the individualization of the activity to be administered on a dosimetric basis. This should be planned taking into account the generally accepted 2-Gy dose constraint to the haematopoietic red marrow, the critical organ in palliative treatments with beta-emitting, bone-seeking radiopharmaceuticals.

Methods

Seven to 14 days before treatment with 153Sm-EDTMP, 44 patients underwent 99mTc-methylene diphosphonate (MDP) total-body bone scan with two scans (the first within 10 min of injection, the second after 6 h). The percentage bone uptake (Tc%) was evaluated as the ratio between total counts at 6 h, adjusted for decay, and total counts at the first scan. Tc% was then compared to Sm% similarly derived from 10-min and 24-h whole-body scans. Tc% and Sm% were compared both with and without Brenner’s method for soft tissue uptake.

Results

The correlation between Tc% and Sm% was R 2 = 0.81 and R 2 = 0.88 with and without soft tissue correction, respectively. The difference between their average values was statistically significant (Sm% = 64.3 ± 15.2, Tc% = 56.2 ± 16.0; p = 0.017) with soft tissue correction, while was not statistically significant (Sm% = 68.2 ± 15.5, Tc% = 66.9 ± 14.0; p = 0.670) without soft tissue correction.

Conclusions

The rate of retention of 99mTc-MDP in bone provides a reliable estimate of the 153Sm-EDTMP rate of retention. The proposed method can be usefully adopted for prospective dosimetry seeing its extreme simplicity, and it requires no special investment in terms of human or instrumental resources. This allows an optimization of administered 153Sm-EDTMP activity.

Keywords

Bone metastases Radionuclide therapy Internal dosimetry 153Sm-EDTMP 99m Tc-MDP 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Rita Lorusso, Ph.D., Daniela Corletto, Ph.D., for their cooperation in data collection and analysis, and Luca Pedrazzini, M.D., Giuseppe Lomuscio, M.D., for the help in patient recruitment. We declare that the experiments comply with the current law of the country (Italy) where they were performed inclusive of ethical approvals.

References

  1. 1.
    Yau V, Chow E, Davis L, et al. Pain management in cancer pain with bone metastases remains a challenge. J Pain Symptom Manag 2004;27:1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lote K, Walloe A, Bjersand A. Bone metastases: prognosis, diagnosis, and treatment. Acta Radiol Oncol 1986;25:227.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Garret IR. Bone destruction in cancer. Semin Oncol 1993;20:4.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonica JJ. Treatment of cancer pain: current status and future needs. In: Fields HL, Dubner R, Cerbero F, editors. Advances in Pain Research and Therapy. vol 9. New York: Raven; 1985. p. 589–616.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maini CL, Bergomi S, Romano L, Sciuto R. 153 Sm-EDTMP for bone palliation in skeletal metastasis. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004;31(Suppl 1):S171–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bayouth JE, Macey DJ, Kasi LP, Fossella FV. Dosimetry ad toxicity of samarium-153-EDTMP administered for bone pain due to skeletal metastases. J Nucl Med 1994;35:63–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Turner JH, Martindale A, Sorby P, Heterhington EL, Fleay RF, Hoffmann RF, et al. Samarium 153-EDTMP therapy of disseminated skeletal metastases. Eur J Nucl Med 1989;15:784–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bauman G, Charette M, Reid R, Sathya J. Radiopharmaceutical for the palliation of painful bone metastases-a systematic review. Radiother Oncol 2005;75:258–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Darfemou A, Colamussi P, Giganti M, et al. A multicenter observational study of radionuclide therapy in patients with painful bone metastases of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2001;28:788–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Malmberg I, Persson U, Ask A, et al. Painful bone metastases in hormone-refractory prostate cancer: economic cost of 89Sr and/or external radiotherapy. Urology 1997;50:747–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bayouth JE, Macey DJ, Kasi PL, Fossella FV. Dosimetry and toxicity of samarium-153-EDTMP administered for bone pain due to skeletal metastases. J Nucl Med 1994;35:63–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Butti I, Nicolini G. Dosimetria nella terapia del dolore osseo. In: Atti del VII Congresso Nazionale AIMN, Palermo; 2004.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anderson P, Wiseman G, Dispenzieri A, et al. High-dose samarium-153 ethylene diamine tetramethylene phosphonate: low toxicity of skeletal irradiation in patients with osteosarcoma and bone metastases. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:189–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Macklis R, Lasher J. Palliative radiotherapy for skeletal metastases: cost-substitution analyses and economic impact. J Oncol Manag 1999;8:17–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Damerla V, Packianahan S, Boerner P, et al. Recent developments in nuclear medicine in the management of bone metastases. Am J Clin Oncol 2005;28:513–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Loevinger R, Berman M. A revised schema for calculating the absorbed dose from biologically distributed radionuclides. MIRD Pamphlet no. 1. New York: Society of Nuclear Medicine; 1975.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stabin MG. MIRDOSE: personal computer software for internal dose assessment in nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med 1996;37:538–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Early JF, Collins C, Stabin M, Vernon C, Petersdorf S, Baker M, et al. Samarium-153-EDTMP biodistribution and dosimetry estimation. J Nucl Med 1993;34:1031–6.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bartlett ML, Webb M, Durrant S, et al. Dosimetry and toxicity of Quadramet for bone marrow ablation in multiple myeloma and other haematological malignancies. Eur J Nucl Med 2002;29:1470–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brenner W, Kampen WU, Kampen AM, Henze E. Skeletal uptake and soft-tissue retention of 186Re-HEDP and 153Sm-EDTMP in patients with metastatic bone disease. J Nucl Med 2001;42:230–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chiesa C, Alberini F, Villaggi E, Elisei F, Maccauro M, Bombardieri E. 153Sm-EDTMP red marrow dosimetry based on urine collection only. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2006;33(Suppl 2):S173.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Albert S, Ben JS, Werner KA, et al. Dose response relationship and multiple dose efficacy and toxicity of Samarium-153-EDTMP in metastatic cancer to bone. Rad Oncol 1997;43:175–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brenner W, BohuslavizkiK H, Sieweke N, Tinnemeyer S, Clausen M, Henze E. Quantification of diphosphonate uptake based on conventional bone scanning. Eur J Nucl Med 1997;24:1284–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Farhanghi M, Holmes RA, Volkert WA, Logan KW, Singh A. Samarium-153-EDTMP pharmacokinetic, toxicity and pain response using an escalating dose schedule in treatment of metastatic bone cancer. J Nucl Med 1992;33:1451–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. Bianchi
    • 1
  • A. Baroli
    • 2
  • L. Marzoli
    • 1
  • C. Verusio
    • 3
  • C. Chiesa
    • 4
  • L. Pozzi
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Struttura Complessa di Fisica SanitariaAzienda Ospedaliera “Ospedale di Circolo di Busto Arsizio”Busto ArsizioItaly
  2. 2.Struttura Complessa di Medicina NucleareA.O. “Ospedale di Circolo di Busto Arsizio”Busto ArsizioItaly
  3. 3.Struttura Complessa di Oncologia MedicaA.O. “Ospedale di Circolo di Busto Arsizio”SaronnoItaly
  4. 4.Struttura Complessa di Medicina NucleareFondazione Istituto Nazionale Tumori MilanoMilanItaly
  5. 5.Scuola di Specializzazione di Fisica SanitariaUniversità degli Studi di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations