Radioimmunotherapy confers long-term survival to lymphoma patients with acceptable toxicity: registry analysis by the International Radioimmunotherapy Network.

UNLABELLED: The Radioimmunotherapy Network (RIT-N) is a Web-based, international registry collecting long-term observational data about radioimmunotherapy-treated patients with malignant lymphoma outside randomized clinical studies. The RIT-N collects unbiased data on treatment indications, disease stages, patients' conditions, lymphoma subtypes, and hematologic side effects of radioimmunotherapy treatment. METHODS: RIT-N is located at the University of Göttingen, Germany, and collected data from 14 countries. Data were entered by investigators into a Web-based central database managed by an independent clinical research organization. RESULTS: Patients (1,075) were enrolled from December 2006 until November 2009, and 467 patients with an observation time of at least 12 mo were included in the following analysis. Diagnoses were as follows: 58% follicular lymphoma and 42% other B-cell lymphomas. The mean overall survival was 28 mo for follicular lymphoma and 26 mo for other lymphoma subtypes. Hematotoxicity was mild for hemoglobin (World Health Organization grade II), with a median nadir of 10 g/dL, but severe (World Health Organization grade III) for platelets and leukocytes, with a median nadir of 7,000/µL and 2.2/µL, respectively. CONCLUSION: Clinical usage of radioimmunotherapy differs from the labeled indications and can be assessed by this registry, enabling analyses of outcome and toxicity data beyond clinical trials. This analysis proves that radioimmunotherapy in follicular lymphoma and other lymphoma subtypes is a safe and efficient treatment option.

Radioimmunotherapy in non-Hodgkin lymphoma: opinions of nuclear medicine physicians and radiation oncologists.

UNLABELLED: Despite approval by the Food and Drug Administration and consistent reports of the efficacy and safety of (90)Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan and (131)I-tositumomab, these therapies are infrequently used. This study investigates the opinions and patterns of the use of radioimmunotherapy by nuclear physicians, affiliated researchers, nuclear medicine technologists, and radiation oncologists and aims to identify possible barriers to the use of this promising therapy. METHODS: An e-mail-based survey with 13 broad questions related to radioimmunotherapy was sent electronically to 13,221 Society of Nuclear Medicine members and radiation oncologists throughout the United States. RESULTS: Six hundred thirteen individuals (4.6%) responded to the electronic survey. Two hundred fifty-one responders (40.9%) had treated patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) with radioimmunotherapy in the last 24 mo. Of the responders, 29.5% used only (90)Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan, 7.6% used only (131)I-tositumomab, and 24.9% used both radiopharmaceuticals; 37.9% did not treat NHL with radioimmunotherapy. Most responders said their patients came from university hospitals (33.9%) or private offices (25.6%), and they mainly treated in a second-line (42.9%), third-line (35.6%), or consolidation (23.5%) setting. Major concerns were that referring oncologists and hematologists wanted to treat by themselves with nonradioactive compounds (mean ± SD, 3.418 ± 1.49) and that (90)Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan and (131)I-tositumomab were expensive (mean ± SD, 3.413 ± 1.35). Of the responders and involved physicians, 40.4% and 35.2%, respectively, did not know if their institution accepted Medicare patients for radioimmunotherapy. Almost 30% (29.6%) of the responders thought radioimmunotherapy would probably grow and 38.0% thought it would grow in importance in the future. Responders who did not administer radioimmunotherapy for NHL thought it took too much time to administer radioimmunotherapy (P < 0.01) and had concerns about the dosimetry procedure (P < 0.01) and radiation safety (P < 0.01). Individuals who perceived a negative future for radioimmunotherapy had significantly more concerns about the time-consuming administration process (P < 0.05) and the high cost of radioimmunotherapy (P < 0.05). Responders from academic centers had significantly fewer concerns about payment (P < 0.01), dosimetry (P < 0.01), and radiation safety (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Radioimmunotherapy was generally viewed positively by the surveyed population. However, limited referrals due to alternative nonradioactive therapies and logistic, educational, and economic concerns played an important role for subgroups in the perception of radioimmunotherapy for NHL.

Radioimmunotherapy in non-Hodgkin lymphoma: opinions of U.S. medical oncologists and hematologists.

UNLABELLED: Radioimmunotherapy is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for CD20 antigen-positive follicular and transformed non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The goal of this study was to obtain the opinion of hematologists and medical oncologists about CD20-directed radioimmunotherapy in the United States. METHODS: An e-mail-based survey with 8 questions was sent to 4,239 oncologists and hematologists throughout the United States. RESULTS: Two hundred sixteen (5.0%) oncologists and hematologists responded to our survey. One hundred fifty-seven (72.7%) said they had referred patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma for radioimmunotherapy in the last 24 mo. Different types of practices had significantly different concerns regarding this treatment. Compared with referring physicians from academic centers, those from nonacademic centers reported significantly higher concerns about the lack of a site to which to refer patients for treatment (P < 0.01), the lack of interest by nuclear physicians in this type of treatment (P < 0.01), and a referral process that they felt was too complicated (P < 0.01). They were also more concerned about an economically adverse effect on their own practices if they referred patients for radioimmunotherapy (P < 0.01). Referring physicians who perceived consolidation as a possible indication for radioimmunotherapy had significantly fewer concerns about an adverse effect on their own practice (P < 0.01) and about nonradioactive alternatives (P < 0.01). Seventy-nine (36.6%) responders thought radioimmunotherapy would probably grow in importance, and 52 (24.1%) responders thought it would definitely grow in importance. However, the group with a positive outlook about the future of radioimmunotherapy predicted a higher growth of radioimmunotherapy if they could administer it in their own offices (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Radioimmunotherapy was generally viewed positively by referring physicians. However, in addition to scientific concerns, barriers to the use of radioimmunotherapy included difficulty in referral, perceptions of a high cost of the treatment, concerns about negative financial outcomes related to referral, and an opinion that the treatment would be used more if given by medical oncologists in their own offices. For the growth of radioimmunotherapy, it appears crucial not only to demonstrate the treatment's safety and efficacy but also to streamline the referral process, to enhance collaboration between specialists, and-it appears-to develop economic incentives for the referring physician.

Dosimetric model for intraperitoneal targeted liposomal radioimmunotherapy of ovarian cancer micrometastases.

A simple model has been developed to investigate the dosimetry of micrometastases in the peritoneal cavity during intraperitoneal targeted liposomal radioimmunotherapy. The model is applied to free-floating tumours with radii between 0.005 cm and 0.1 cm. Tumour dose is assumed to come from two sources: free liposomes in solution in the peritoneal cavity and liposomes bound to the surface of the micrometastases. It is assumed that liposomes do not penetrate beyond the surface of the tumours and that the total amount of surface antigen does not change over the course of treatment. Integrated tumour doses are expressed as a function of biological parameters that describe the rates at which liposomes bind to and unbind from the tumour surface, the rate at which liposomes escape from the peritoneal cavity and the tumour surface antigen density. Integrated doses are translated into time-dependent tumour control probabilities (TCPs). The results of the work are illustrated in the context of a therapy in which liposomes labelled with Re-188 are targeted at ovarian cancer cells that express the surface antigen CA-125. The time required to produce a TCP of 95% is used to investigate the importance of the various parameters. The relative contributions of surface-bound radioactivity and unbound radioactivity are used to assess the conditions required for a targeted approach to provide an improvement over a non-targeted approach during intraperitoneal radiation therapy. Using Re-188 as the radionuclide, the model suggests that, for microscopic tumours, the relative importance of the surface-bound radioactivity increases with tumour size. This is evidenced by the requirement for larger antigen densities on smaller tumours to affect an improvement in the time required to produce a TCP of 95%. This is because for the smallest tumours considered, the unbound radioactivity is often capable of exerting a tumouricidal effect before the targeting agent has time to accumulate significantly on the tumour surface.

Theoretical estimation of absorbed dose to organs in radioimmunotherapy using radionuclides with multiple unstable daughters.

The toxicity and clinical utility of long-lived alpha emitters such as Ac-225 and Ra-223 will depend upon the fate of alpha-particle emitting unstable intermediates generated after decay of the conjugated parent. For example, decay of Ac-225 to a stable element yields four alpha particles and seven radionuclides. Each of these progeny has its own free-state biodistribution and characteristic half-life. Therefore, their inclusion for a more accurate prediction of absorbed dose and potential toxicity requires a formalism that takes these factors into consideration as well. To facilitate the incorporation of such intermediates into the dose calculation, a previously developed methodology (model 1) has been extended. Two new models (models 2 and 3) for allocation of daughter products are introduced and are compared with the previously developed model. Model 1 restricts the transport to a function that yields either the place of origin or the place(s) of biodistribution depending on the half-life of the parent radionuclide. Model 2 includes the transient time within the bloodstream and model 3 incorporates additional binding at or within the tumor. This means that model 2 also allows for radionuclide decay and further daughter production while moving from one location to the next and that model 3 relaxes the constraint that the residence time within the tumor is solely based on the half-life of the parent. The models are used to estimate normal organ absorbed doses for the following parent radionuclides: Ac-225, Pb-212, At-211, Ra-223, and Bi-213. Model simulations are for a 0.1 g rapidly accessible tumor and a 10 g solid tumor. Additionally, the effects of varying radiolabled carrier molecule purity and amount of carrier molecules, as well as tumor cell antigen saturation are examined. The results indicate that there is a distinct advantage in using parent radionuclides such as Ac-225 or Ra-223, each having a half-life of more than 10 days and yielding four alpha particles per parent decay, in that lower doses to normal organs result for a given tumor dose in comparison to those radionuclides yielding fewer alpha particles. In model 2, which accounts for transit time through the blood, a dose of 20 Gy to a rapidly accessible 0.1 g tumor will result in a liver and kidney dose of 1.7 and 0.9 Gy, respectively from Ac-225. An equivalent dose to tumor from Ra-223 would yield a maximum normal organ dose of 0.4 and 0.3 Gy to bone and small intestines, respectively; the corresponding absorbed dose to small intestines from Pb-212 and Bi-213 is 2.2 and 3.0 Gy, respectively.