Abstract
Many recent publications in nuclear medicine contain data on dosimetric findings for existing and new diagnostic and therapeutic agents. In many of these articles, however, a description of the methodology applied for dosimetry is lacking or important details are omitted. The intention of the EANM Dosimetry Committee is to guide the reader through a series of suggestions for reporting dosimetric approaches. The authors are aware of the large amount of data required to report the way a given clinical dosimetry procedure was implemented. Another aim of this guidance document is to provide comprehensive information for preparing and submitting publications and reports containing data on internal dosimetry. This guidance document also contains a checklist which could be useful for reviewers of manuscripts submitted to scientific journals or for grant applications. In addition, this document could be used to decide which data are useful for a documentation of dosimetry results in individual patient records. This may be of importance when the approval of a new radiopharmaceutical by official bodies such as EMA or FDA is envisaged.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In some journals it is also possible to submit additional material that also offers an opportunity to keep the manuscript short but provides enough detail for a proper evaluation of the methodology and the results.
Traditionally called “MIRD scheme“ or “MIRD method“
References
Wahl RL. Tositumomab and 131I therapy in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. J Nucl Med 2005;46 Suppl 1:128S–40S.
Gaze MN, Chang YC, Flux GD, Mairs RJ, Saran FH, Meller ST. Feasibility of dosimetry-based high-dose 131I-meta-iodobenzylguanidine with topotecan as a radiosensitizer in children with metastatic neuroblastoma. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2005;20:195–9.
Noseda M, McLean GR. Where did the scientific method go? Nat Biotechnol 2008;26:28–9.
Busemann Sokole E, Plachcinska A, Britten A, Lyra Georgosopoulou M, Tindale W, Klett R. Routine quality control recommendations for nuclear medicine instrumentation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:662–71.
Lassmann M, Luster M, Hanscheid H, Reiners C. Impact of 131I diagnostic activities on the biokinetics of thyroid remnants. J Nucl Med 2004;45:619–25.
Jonsson L, Ljungberg M, Strand SE. Evaluation of accuracy in activity calculations for the conjugate view method from Monte Carlo simulated scintillation camera images using experimental data in an anthropomorphic phantom. J Nucl Med 2005;46:1679–86.
He B, Du Y, Segars WP, Wahl RL, Sgouros G, Jacene H, et al. Evaluation of quantitative imaging methods for organ activity and residence time estimation using a population of phantoms having realistic variations in anatomy and uptake. Med Phys 2009;36:612–9.
Assié K, Dieudonne A, Gardin I, Buvat I, Tilly H, Vera P. Comparison between 2D and 3D dosimetry protocols in 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan radioimmunotherapy of patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2008;23:53–64.
Vriens D, Visser EP, de Geus-Oei LF, Oyen WJ. Methodological considerations in quantification of oncological FDG PET studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:1408–25.
Jaszczak RJ, Floyd CE, Coleman RE. Scatter compensation techniques for SPECT. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1985;32:786–93.
Ichihara T, Ogawa K, Motomura N, Kubo A, Hashimoto S. Compton scatter compensation using the triple-energy window method for single- and dual-isotope SPECT. J Nucl Med 1993;34:2216–21.
Jentzen W. Experimental investigation of factors affecting the absolute recovery coefficients in iodine-124 PET lesion imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:2365–98.
Jentzen W, Weise R, Kupferschlager J, Freudenberg L, Brandau W, Bares R, et al. Iodine-124 PET dosimetry in differentiated thyroid cancer: recovery coefficient in 2D and 3D modes for PET(/CT) systems. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35:611–23.
Hobbs RF, Baechler S, van Senthamizhchel S, Prideaux AR, Esaias CE, Reinhardt M, et al. A gamma camera count rate saturation correction method for whole-body planar imaging. Phys Med Biol 2010;55:817–31.
Chiesa C, Negri A, Albertini C, Azzeroni R, Setti E, Mainardi L, et al. (2009) A practical dead time correction method in planar activity quantification for dosimetry during radionuclide therapy. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;53:658–70
Gregory RA, Hooker CA, Partridge M, Flux GD. Optimization and assessment of quantitative 124I imaging on a Philips Gemini dual GS PET/CT system. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009;36:1037–48.
Walrand S, Jamar F, Mathieu I, De Camps J, Lonneux M, Sibomana M, et al. Quantitation in PET using isotopes emitting prompt single gammas: application to yttrium-86. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2003;30:354–61.
Lassmann M, Hänscheid H, Chiesa C, Hindorf C, Flux G, Luster M. EANM Dosimetry Committee series on standard operational procedures for pre-therapeutic dosimetry I: blood and bone marrow dosimetry in differentiated thyroid cancer therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2008;35:1405–12.
Flux GD, Guy MJ, Beddows R, Pryor M, Flower MA. Estimation and implications of random errors in whole-body dosimetry for targeted radionuclide therapy. Phys Med Biol 2002;47:3211–23.
Divoli A, Spinelli A, Chittenden S, Dearnaley D, Flux G. Whole-body dosimetry for targeted radionuclide therapy using spectral analysis. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2005;20:66–71.
Glatting G, Kletting P, Reske SN, Hohl K, Ring C. Choosing the optimal fit function: comparison of the Akaike information criterion and the F-test. Med Phys 2007;34:4285–92.
Bolch WE, Eckerman KF, Sgouros G, Thomas SR. MIRD pamphlet No. 21: a generalized schema for radiopharmaceutical dosimetry – standardization of nomenclature. J Nucl Med 2009;50:477–84.
Divoli A, Chiavassa S, Ferrer L, Barbet J, Flux GD, Bardies M. Effect of patient morphology on dosimetric calculations for internal irradiation as assessed by comparisons of Monte Carlo versus conventional methodologies. J Nucl Med 2009;50:316–23.
International Commission on Radiation Units. Absorbed-dose specifications in nuclear medicine. J ICRU. 2002;2:5–110.
Stabin MG, Sparks RB, Crowe E. OLINDA/EXM: the second-generation personal computer software for internal dose assessment in nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med 2005;46:1023–7.
Grosev D, Loncaric S, Huic D, Dodig D. Geometric models in dosimetry of thyroid remnant mass. Nuklearmedizin 2008;47:120–6.
Dale RG. Dose-rate effects in targeted radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 1996;41:1871–84.
O'Donoghue JA. Implications of nonuniform tumor doses for radioimmunotherapy. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1337–41.
Acknowledgment
This work was developed under the close supervision of the Dosimetry Committee of the EANM (K. Bacher, M. Bardiès, C. Chiesa, G. Flux, M. Konijnenberg, M. Lassmann, S. Palm [observer from the IAEA], S.-E. Strand, and L. Strigari).
We would like to thank S. Baechler, A. Chiti, M. Guy, C. Greaves, and the national societies of nuclear medicine for their helpful comments and suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
These guidelines summarize the views of the Dosimetry Committee of the EANM and reflect recommendations for which the EANM cannot be held responsible. The recommendations should be taken in the context of good practice of nuclear medicine and do not substitute for national and international legal or regulatory provisions. The guidelines have been reviewed by the EANM Oncology Committee and the EANM Paediatrics Committee and have been brought to the attention of the National Societies of Nuclear Medicine.
ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
ESM
(PDF 16.7 KB)
Appendix: Documentation checklist
Appendix: Documentation checklist
Procedure | Yes | No |
---|---|---|
Probe Measurements | ||
Is the probe used as a simple counter? | ||
In conjunction with gamma spectroscopy? | ||
Is the probe shielded and/or collimated? | ||
Are the geometric properties of the shielding/collimation given? | ||
Is the geometry of the patient measurement given? | ||
Are the background counts without any sources present given? | ||
Are the sensitivity and the window settings documented? | ||
Is the sensitivity range of the device provided? | ||
Are the dead time characteristics of the system known? | ||
Well Counter Measurements | ||
Are the geometry of the sample, the background, sensitivity and the window settings of the device documented? | ||
Dose Calibrators | ||
Are the QC procedures implemented and documented? | ||
Are measurements performed with traceable calibrated sources? | ||
Are the appropriate corrections for geometry dependencies done? | ||
Gamma-Cameras | ||
Gamma camera make (name of the manufacturer) and model (+ year) | ||
Crystal thickness | ||
Energy window(s) (number + range of each) | ||
Pixel size / Matrix size | ||
Number of heads used for the acquisition | ||
Software version | ||
Collimator | ||
Stopping conditions | ||
ROI location and size | ||
Corrections for overlapping organs | ||
Background correction | ||
Method of scatter correction | ||
Method of attenuation correction | ||
Dead time correction | ||
SPECT | ||
Number of projections | ||
Orbit type | ||
Rotation parameters | ||
Reconstruction parameters | ||
Software used | ||
Partial volume effect correction | ||
PET | ||
Correction for “dirty” nuclides | ||
Phantom and Calibration Measurements | ||
Method of calibration | ||
Phantom type | ||
Activities used | ||
Biokinetics | ||
Number of data points for each patient | ||
Fitting procedures incl. error of fit parameters | ||
Treatment of the AUC before the first and after the last data point | ||
Residence Time | ||
Given for each patient individually? | ||
Dosimetry Calculation | ||
Computer and software | ||
Source of S-Values | ||
Mass determination – described how? | ||
Tumour dosimetry performed and described how? | ||
Is geometric or cross-talk corrections to tumour dosimetry applied? | ||
Propagation of error calculation performed | ||
Miscellaneous | ||
Is the choice of nuclides justified? | ||
Is there an external audit? | ||
Are the units used appropriate for the purpose? | ||
Are the confounding factors included? |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lassmann, M., Chiesa, C., Flux, G. et al. EANM Dosimetry Committee guidance document: good practice of clinical dosimetry reporting. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38, 192–200 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1549-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1549-3