MIRD Pamphlet No. 29: MIRDy90-A 90Y Research Microsphere Dosimetry Tool.

90Y-microsphere radioembolization has become a well-established treatment option for liver malignancies and is one of the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved unsealed radionuclide brachytherapy devices to incorporate dosimetry-based treatment planning. Several different mathematical models are used to calculate the patient-specific prescribed activity of 90Y, namely, body surface area (SIR-Spheres only), MIRD single compartment, and MIRD dual compartment (partition). Under the auspices of the MIRDsoft initiative to develop community dosimetry software and tools, the body surface area, MIRD single-compartment, MIRD dual-compartment, and MIRD multicompartment models have been integrated into a MIRDy90 software worksheet. The worksheet was built in MS Excel to estimate and compare prescribed activities calculated via these respective models. The MIRDy90 software was validated against available tools for calculating 90Y prescribed activity. The results of MIRDy90 calculations were compared with those obtained from vendor and community-developed tools, and the calculations agreed well. The MIRDy90 worksheet was developed to provide a vetted tool to better evaluate patient-specific prescribed activities calculated via different models, as well as model influences with respect to varying input parameters. MIRDy90 allows users to interact and visualize the results of various parameter combinations. Variables, equations, and calculations are described in the MIRDy90 documentation and articulated in the MIRDy90 worksheet. The worksheet is distributed as a free tool to build expertise within the medical physics community and create a vetted standard for model and variable management.

The risk index as a basis for risk/benefit analyses and protocol optimization in diagnostic nuclear imaging.

BACKGROUND: Potential risk associated with low-dose radiation exposures is often expressed using the effective dose (E) quantity. Other risk-related quantities have been proposed as alternatives. The recently introduced risk index (RI) shares similarities with E but expands the metric to incorporate medical imaging-appropriate risks factors including patient-specific size, age, and sex. PURPOSE: The aim of this work is to examine the RI metric for quantifying stochastic radiation risk and demonstrate its applications in nuclear imaging. The advantages in this improved metric may help the field progress toward stratified risk consideration in the course of patient management, improve efforts for procedure optimization, and support an evolution in the science of radiation risk assessment. METHODS: In this study we describe, implement, and calculate RI for various diagnostic nuclear imaging scenarios using reference biokinetics published in ICRP Publication 128 for commonly utilized radiopharmaceuticals. All absorbed dose, E and RI calculations were performed using the freely available MIRDcalc nuclear medicine dosimetry software; the organ specific risk parameters used in the software are also benchmarked in this text. The resulting RI and E values are compared and various trends in RI values identified. RESULTS: E and RI coefficients were calculated for 3016 use cases. Notably RI values vary depending on patient characteristics. Overall, across the population, global trends in RI values can be identified. In general, RI values were 2.15 times higher for females than males, due to higher risk coefficients and activities being distributed in smaller reference masses. The pediatric patients showed higher RIs than adults, as younger patients generally receive higher absorbed doses per administered activity, and are more radiosensitive, and have a longer projected lifespan at risk. A compendium of E and RI values is also provided in table format to serve as a reference for the community. CONCLUSIONS: RI is a rational quantity that could be used for justification, risk communication and protocol optimization in medical imaging. It has some advantages when compared to the long-utilized E value with respect to personalization, since accounts for patient size, age, sex, and natural incidence of cancer risk.

MIRD Pamphlet No. 28, Part 2: Comparative Evaluation of MIRDcalc Dosimetry Software Across a Compendium of Diagnostic Radiopharmaceuticals.

Radiopharmaceutical dosimetry is usually estimated via organ-level MIRD schema-style formalisms, which form the computational basis for commonly used clinical and research dosimetry software. Recently, MIRDcalc internal dosimetry software was developed to provide a freely available organ-level dosimetry solution that incorporates up-to-date models of human anatomy, addresses uncertainty in radiopharmaceutical biokinetics and patient organ masses, and offers a 1-screen user interface as well as quality assurance tools. The present work describes the validation of MIRDcalc and, secondarily, provides a compendium of radiopharmaceutical dose coefficients obtained with MIRDcalc. Biokinetic data for about 70 currently and historically used radiopharmaceuticals were obtained from the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) publication 128 radiopharmaceutical data compendium. Absorbed dose and effective dose coefficients were derived from the biokinetic datasets using MIRDcalc, IDAC-Dose, and OLINDA software. The dose coefficients obtained with MIRDcalc were systematically compared against the other software-derived dose coefficients and those originally presented in ICRP publication 128. Dose coefficients computed with MIRDcalc and IDAC-Dose showed excellent overall agreement. The dose coefficients derived from other software and the dose coefficients promulgated in ICRP publication 128 both were in reasonable agreement with the dose coefficients computed with MIRDcalc. Future work should expand the scope of the validation to include personalized dosimetry calculations.

Comparison of commercial dosimetric software platforms in patients treated with 177 Lu-DOTATATE for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to quantitatively compare five commercial dosimetric software platforms based on the analysis of clinical datasets of patients who benefited from peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) with 177 Lu-DOTATATE (LUTATHERA® ). METHODS: The dosimetric analysis was performed on two patients during two cycles of PRRT with 177 Lu. Single photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography images were acquired at 4, 24, 72, and 192 h post injection. Reconstructed images were generated using Dosimetry Toolkit® (DTK) from Xeleris™ and HybridRecon-Oncology version_1.3_Dicom (HROD) from HERMES. Reconstructed images using DTK were analyzed using the same software to calculate time-integrated activity coefficients (TIAC), and mean absorbed doses were estimated using OLINDA/EXM V1.0 with mass correction. Reconstructed images from HROD were uploaded into PLANET® OncoDose from DOSIsoft, STRATOS from Phillips, Hybrid Dosimetry Module™ from HERMES, and SurePlan™ MRT from MIM. Organ masses, TIACs, and mean absorbed doses were calculated from each application using their recommendations. RESULTS: The majority of organ mass estimates varied by <9.5% between all platforms. The highest variability for TIAC results between platforms was seen for the kidneys (28.2%) for the two patients and the two treatment cycles. Relative standard deviations in mean absorbed doses were slightly higher compared with those observed for TIAC, but remained of the same order of magnitude between all platforms. CONCLUSIONS: When applying a similar processing approach, results obtained were of the same order of magnitude regardless of the platforms used. However, the comparison of the performances of currently available platforms is still difficult as they do not all address the same parts of the dosimetric analysis workflow. In addition, the way in which data are handled in each part of the chain from data acquisition to absorbed doses may be different, which complicates the comparison exercise. Therefore, the dissemination of commercial solutions for absorbed dose calculation calls for the development of tools and standards allowing for the comparison of the performances between dosimetric software platforms.