Skip to main content
Top
Published in: EJNMMI Research 1/2020

01-12-2020 | Computed Tomography | Original research

Accuracy in dosimetry of diagnostic agents: impact of the number of source tissues used in whole organ S value-based calculations

Authors: Anders Josefsson, Klaikangwol Siritantikorn, Sagar Ranka, Jose Willegaignon de Amorim de Carvalho, Carlos Alberto Buchpiguel, Marcelo Tatit Sapienza, Wesley E. Bolch, George Sgouros

Published in: EJNMMI Research | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Dosimetry for diagnostic agents is performed to assess the risk of radiation detriment (e.g., cancer) associated with the imaging agent and the risk is assessed by computing the effective dose coefficient, e. Stylized phantoms created by the MIRD Committee and updated by work performed by Cristy-Eckerman (CE) have been the standard in diagnostic dosimetry. Recently, the ICRP developed voxelized phantoms, which are described in ICRP Publication 110. These voxelized phantoms are more realistic and detailed in describing human anatomy compared with the CE stylized phantoms. Ideally, all tissues should be represented and their pharmacokinetics collected for an as accurate a dosimetric calculation as possible. As the number of source tissues included increases, the calculated e becomes more accurate. There is, however, a trade-off between the number of source tissues considered, and the time and effort required to measure the time-activity curve for each tissue needed for the calculations. In this study, we used a previously published 68Ga-DOTA-TATE data set to examine how the number of source tissues included for both the ICRP voxelized and CE stylized phantoms affected e.

Results

Depending upon the number of source tissues included e varied between 14.0–23.5 μSv/MBq for the ICRP voxelized and 12.4–27.7 μSv/MBq for the CE stylized phantoms. Furthermore, stability in e, defined as a < 10% difference between e obtained using all source tissues compared to one using fewer source tissues, was obtained after including 5 (36%) of the 14 source tissues for the ICRP voxelized, and after including 3 (25%) of the 12 source tissues for the CE stylized phantoms. In addition, a 2-fold increase in e was obtained when all source tissues where included in the calculation compared to when the TIAC distribution was lumped into a single reminder-of-body source term.

Conclusions

This study shows the importance of including the larger tissues like the muscles and remainder-of-body in the dosimetric calculations. The range of e based on the included tissues were less for the ICRP voxelized phantoms using tissue weighting factors from ICRP Publication 103 compared to CE stylized phantoms using tissue weighting factors from ICRP Publication 60.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Loevinger R, Budinger T, Watson E. MIRD primer for absorbed dose calculations The society of nuclear medicine, New York, NY, USA. 1991:1-128. Loevinger R, Budinger T, Watson E. MIRD primer for absorbed dose calculations The society of nuclear medicine, New York, NY, USA. 1991:1-128.
3.
go back to reference Cristy M, Eckerman K. Specific absorbed fractions of energy at various ages from internal photon sources. III. Five-year-old. ORNL/TM-8381/V3. 1987;3:1–42. Cristy M, Eckerman K. Specific absorbed fractions of energy at various ages from internal photon sources. III. Five-year-old. ORNL/TM-8381/V3. 1987;3:1–42.
4.
go back to reference ICRP. ICRP publication 60. Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Ann ICRP. 1990;21(1-3):1–227. ICRP. ICRP publication 60. Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Ann ICRP. 1990;21(1-3):1–227.
6.
go back to reference ICRP. ICRP Publication 133. The ICRP computational framework for internal dose assessment for reference adults: specific absorbed fractions. Ann ICRP. 2016;45(2):1–74. ICRP. ICRP Publication 133. The ICRP computational framework for internal dose assessment for reference adults: specific absorbed fractions. Ann ICRP. 2016;45(2):1–74.
7.
go back to reference ICRP. ICRP publication 103. Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2-4):1–332.CrossRef ICRP. ICRP publication 103. Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2-4):1–332.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference ICRP. ICRP publication 107. Nuclear decay data for dosimetric calculations. Ann ICRP. 2008;38(3):1–96.CrossRef ICRP. ICRP publication 107. Nuclear decay data for dosimetric calculations. Ann ICRP. 2008;38(3):1–96.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference 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(6):1023–7.PubMed 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(6):1023–7.PubMed
12.
go back to reference ICRP. ICRP publication 89. Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection: reference values. Ann ICRP. 2002;32(3):1–277. ICRP. ICRP publication 89. Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection: reference values. Ann ICRP. 2002;32(3):1–277.
13.
go back to reference Walker RC, Smith GT, Liu E, Moore B, Clanton J, Stabin M. Measured human dosimetry of 68Ga-DOTATATE. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(6):855–60.CrossRef Walker RC, Smith GT, Liu E, Moore B, Clanton J, Stabin M. Measured human dosimetry of 68Ga-DOTATATE. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(6):855–60.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Sandström M, Velikyan I, Garske-Román U, Sörensen J, Eriksson B, Granberg D, et al. Comparative biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of 68Ga-DOTATOC and 68Ga-DOTATATE in patients with neuroendocrine tumors. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(10):1755–9.CrossRef Sandström M, Velikyan I, Garske-Román U, Sörensen J, Eriksson B, Granberg D, et al. Comparative biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of 68Ga-DOTATOC and 68Ga-DOTATATE in patients with neuroendocrine tumors. J Nucl Med. 2013;54(10):1755–9.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Accuracy in dosimetry of diagnostic agents: impact of the number of source tissues used in whole organ S value-based calculations
Authors
Anders Josefsson
Klaikangwol Siritantikorn
Sagar Ranka
Jose Willegaignon de Amorim de Carvalho
Carlos Alberto Buchpiguel
Marcelo Tatit Sapienza
Wesley E. Bolch
George Sgouros
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
EJNMMI Research / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 2191-219X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-020-0614-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

EJNMMI Research 1/2020 Go to the issue