Advertisement

Molecular Imaging and Biology

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 585–593 | Cite as

Quantitative SPECT/CT Imaging of 177Lu with In Vivo Validation in Patients Undergoing Peptide Receptor Radionuclide Therapy

  • J. C. Sanders
  • T. Kuwert
  • J. Hornegger
  • P. Ritt
Research Article

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to extend an established SPECT/CT quantitation protocol to 177Lu and validate it in vivo using urine samples, thus providing a basis for 3D dosimetry of 177Lu radiotherapy and improvement over current planar methods which improperly account for anatomical variations, attenuation, and overlapping organs.

Procedures

In our quantitation protocol, counts in images reconstructed using an ordered subset-expectation maximization algorithm are converted to kilobecquerels per milliliter using a calibration factor derived from a phantom experiment. While varying reconstruction parameters, we tracked the ratio of image to true activity concentration (recovery coefficient, RC) in hot spheres and a noise measure in a homogeneous region. The optimal parameter set was selected as the point where recovery in the largest three spheres (16, 8, and 4 ml) stagnated, while the noise continued to increase.

Urine samples were collected following 12 SPECT/CT acquisitions of patients undergoing [177Lu]DOTATATE therapy, and activity concentrations were measured in a well counter. Data was reconstructed using parameters chosen in the phantom experiment, and estimated activity concentration from the images was compared to the urine values to derive RCs.

Results

In phantom data, our chosen parameter set yielded RCs in 16, 8, and 4 ml spheres of 80.0, 74.1, and 64.5 %, respectively. For patients, the mean bladder RC was 96.1 ± 13.2 % (range, 80.6–122.4 %), with a 95 % confidence interval between 88.6 and 103.6 %. The mean error of SPECT/CT concentrations was 10.1 ± 8.3 % (range, −19.4–22.4 %).

Conclusions

Our results show that quantitative 177Lu SPECT/CT in vivo is feasible but could benefit from improved reconstruction methods. Quantifying bladder activity is analogous to determining the amount of activity in the kidneys, an important task in dosimetry, and our results provide a useful benchmark for future efforts.

Key words

Quantitative SPECT [177Lu]DOTATATE Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy Dosimetry 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like thank our clinic’s technologists and members of the nursing staff, each of whom greatly aided our patient data collection. We also extend our thanks to Michal Cachovan for his thoughtful discussion and technical contributions.

Conflict of Interest

James Sanders, Joachim Hornegger, and Torsten Kuwert have an ongoing research collaboration with Siemens Molecular Imaging in the field of SPECT/CT. Professor Kuwert receives honoraria from Siemens Molecular Imaging for occasional lectures pertaining to SPECT/CT research. Philipp Ritt has no conflict of interest.

Statement of Human Rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethics standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Stillebroer AB, Boerman OC, Desar IME et al (2013) Phase 1 radioimmunotherapy study with lutetium 177-labeled anti-carbonic anhydrase IX monoclonal antibody girentuximab in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 64:478–485PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tagawa ST, Milowsky MI, Morris M et al (2013) Pase II study of lutetium-177-labeled anti-prostate-specific membrane antigen monoclonal antibody J591 for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 19:5182–5191PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chakraborty S, Das T, Banerjee S et al (2006) Preparation and preliminary biological evaluation of 177Lu-labelled hydroxyapatite as a promising agent for radiation synovectomy of small joints. Nucl Med Commun 27:661–668PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Krenning EP, Kooij PPM, Bakker WH et al (1994) Radiotherapy with a radiolabeled somatostatin analogue, [111In-DTPA-D-Phe1]-octreotide. Ann N Y Acad Sci 733:496–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Jong M, Bakker WH, Breeman WAP et al (1998) Pre-clinical comparison of [DPTA0] octreotide, [DTPA0, Tyr3] octreotide and [DOTA0, Tyr3] octreotide as carriers for somatostatin receptor-targeted scintigraphy and radionuclide therapy. Int J Cancer 75:406–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Valkema R, Pauwels S, Kvols LK et al (2006) Survival and response after peptide receptor radionuclide therapy with [90Y-DOTA0, Tyr3]octreotide in patients with advanced gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Semin Nucl Med 36:147–156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Forrer F, Valkema R, Kwekkeboom DJ et al (2007) Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab 21:111–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Teunissen JJM, Kwekkeboom DJ, Valkema R et al (2011) Nuclear medicine techniques for the imaging and treatment of neuroendocrine tumours. Endocr Relat Cancer 18:S27–S51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kwekkeboom DJ, Bakker WH, Kooij PP et al (2001) [177Lu-DOTA0, Tyr3]octreotate: comparison with [111In-DTPA0]octreotide in patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 28:1319–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Jong M, Valkema R, Jamar F et al (2002) Somatostatin receptor-targeted radionuclide therapy of tumors: preclinical and clinical findings. Semin Nucl Med 32:133–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kwekkeboom DJ, de Herder WW, Kam BL et al (2008) Treatment with the radiolabeled somatostatin analog [177Lu-DOTA0, Tyr3]octreotate: toxicity, efficacy, and survival. J Clin Oncol 28:2124–2130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khan S, Krenning EP, van Essen M et al (2011) Quality of life in 265 patients with gastroenteropancreatic or bronchial neuroendocrine tumors treated with [177Lu-DOTA0, Tyr3]octreotate. J Nucl Med 52:1361–1368PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Watson EE, Stabin MG, Siegel JA (1993) MIRD formulation. Med Phys 20:511–514PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Forrer F, Uusijärvi H, Waldherr C et al (2004) A comparison of 177In-DOTATOC and 111In-DOTATATE: biodistribution and dosimetry in the same patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumours. Eur J Nucl Med 31(9):1257–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ritt P, Vija H, Hornegger J, Kuwert T (2011) Absolute quantification in SPECT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38:S69–S77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Willowson K, Bailey DL, Baldock C (2008) Quantitative SPECT reconstruction using CT-derived corrections. Phys Med Biol 53:3099–3112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bailey DL, Willowson KP (2014) Quantitative SPECT/CT: SPECT joins PET as a quantitative imaging modality. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41:S17–S25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sandström M, Garske U, Granberg D et al (2010) Individualized dosimetry in patients undergoing therapy with 177Lu-DOTA-D-Phe1-Tyr3-octreotate. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37:212–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ichihara T, Ogawa K, Motomura N et al (1993) Compton scatter compensation using the triple-energy window method for single- and dual-isotope SPECT. J Nucl Med 34:2216–2221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Nijs R, Lagerburg V, Klausen TL, Holm S (2014) Improving quantitative dosimetry in 177Lu-DOTATATE SPECT by energy window-based scatter corrections. Nucl Med Commun 35:522–533PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vija AH, Hawman EG, Engdahl JC (2003) Analysis of a SPECT OSEM reconstruction method with 3D beam modeling and optional attenuation correction: phantom studies. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Med Imaging Conf Rec 4:2662–2666Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zeintl J, Vija AH, Yahil A et al (2010) Quantitative accuracy of clinical 99mTc SPECT/CT using ordered-subset expectation maximization with 3-dimensional resolution recovery, attenuation, and scatter correction. J Nucl Med 51:921–928PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Beauregard J-M, Hofman MS, Pereira JM et al (2011) Quantitative 177Lu SPECT (QSPECT) imaging using a commercially available SPECT/CT system. Cancer Imaging 11:56–66PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hudson HM, Larkin RS (1994) Accelerated image reconstruction using ordered subsets of projection data. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 13:601–609PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dewaraja YK, Frey EC, Sgouros G et al (2012) MIRD Pamphlet no. 23: quantitative SPECT for patient-specific 3-dimensional dosimetry in internal radionuclide therapy. J Nucl Med 53:1310–1325PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chun SY, Fessler JA, Dewaraja YK (2013) Post-reconstruction non-local means filtering methods using CT side information for quantitative SPECT. Phys Med Biol 58:6225–6240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tsui BMW, Zhao XD, Frey EC (1991) Comparison between ML-EM and WLS-CG algorithms for SPECT image reconstruction. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 38:1766–1772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Schötzig U, Schrader H, Schönfeld E et al (2001) Standardisation and decay data of 177Lu and 188Re. Appl Radiat Isot 55:89–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hutton BF, Hudson HM, Beekman FJ (1997) A clinical perspective of accelerated statistical reconstruction. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 24:797–808Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shcherbinin S, Piwowarska-Bilska H, Celler A, Birkenfeld B (2012) Quantitative SPECT/CT reconstruction for 177Lu and 177Lu/90Y targeted radionuclide therapies. Phys Med Biol 57:5733–5747PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sorenson JA (1975) Deadtime characteristics of Anger cameras. J Nucl Med 16:284–288PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Frey EC, Tsui BMW (1996) A new method for modeling the spatially-variant, object-dependent scatter response function in SPECT. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Med Imaging Conf Rec 2:1082–1086Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fessler JA, Rogers WL (1996) Spatial resolution properties of penalized-likelihood image reconstruction: space-invariant tomographs. IEEE Trans Image Proc 5:1346–1358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Liow JS, Strother SC (1993) The convergence of object dependent resolution in maximum likelihood based tomographic image reconstruction. Phys Med Biol 38:55–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Maus J, Hofheinz F, Schramm G et al (2014) Evaluation of PET quantification accuracy in vivo. Nuklearmedizin 53:67–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Molecular Imaging Society 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. C. Sanders
    • 1
    • 2
  • T. Kuwert
    • 2
  • J. Hornegger
    • 1
  • P. Ritt
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Pattern Recognition Lab, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany
  2. 2.Clinic of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital ErlangenUniversity of Erlangen-NurembergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations