# Dosimetry for targeted radionuclide therapy in routine clinical practice: experts advice vs. clinical evidence

Arnaud Dieudonné, Clément Bailly, Florent Cachin, Agathe Edet-Sanson, Françoise Kraeber-Bodéré, Sébastien Hapdey, Charles Merlin, Philippe Robin, Pierre-Yves Salaun, Paul Schwartz, et al.

► To cite this version:

Arnaud Dieudonné, Clément Bailly, Florent Cachin, Agathe Edet-Sanson, Françoise Kraeber-Bodéré, et al. Dosimetry for targeted radionuclide therapy in routine clinical practice: experts advice vs. clinical evidence. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, 2023, 51, pp.947-950. 10.1007/s00259-023-06568-8. hal-04355102

HAL Id: hal-04355102

https://hal.science/hal-04355102v1

Submitted on 15 Apr 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Dosimetry for targeted radionuclide therapy in routine clinical practice: experts advice vs. clinical evidence

Arnaud Dieudonné<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />,● · Clément Bailly<fnref n="3" /> · Florent Cachin<fnref n="4" /> · Agathe Edet-Sanson<fnref n="1" /> · Françoise Kraeber-Bodéré<fnref n="3" /> · Sébastien Hapdey<fnref n="1" /> · Charles Merlin<fnref n="4" /> · Philippe Robin<fnref n="5" /> · Pierre-Yves Salaun<fnref n="5" /> · Paul Schwartz<fnref n="6" /> · David Tonnelet<fnref n="1" /> · Pierre Vera<fnref n="1" /> · Frédéric Courbon<fnref n="7" /> · Thomas Carlier<fnref n="3" />

Published online: 19 December 2023

© The Author(s) 2023

The European Federation of Organisations for Medical Phys-
ics (EFOMP) has recently published a statement on the role
of dosimetry in radionuclide therapy (RNT) [1]. This state-
ment relies on article 56 of the European Council direc-
tive 2013/59/Euratom to advocate the need for personalized
dosimetry to plan and monitor RNT. As a reminder, this Eur-
atom article states that “For all medical exposure of patients
for radiotherapeutic purposes, exposures of target volumes
shall be individually planned and their delivery appropri-
ately verified taking into account that doses to non-target
volumes and tissues shall be as low as reasonably achievable
(ALARA) and consistent with the intended radiotherapeutic
purpose of the exposure.” It is important to bear in mind that
nuclear medicine physicians do not prescribe Gray to a target
but administer a ponderable dose in Bequerels of a human
medical product delivered by a radiopharmacist. Article 1
of Directive 2001/83/EC defines a “medicinal product” as
“Any substance or combination of substances presented as
having properties for treating or preventing disease in human

beings; Any substance or combination of substances which
may be used in, or administered to, human beings, either
with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiologi-
cal functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological
or metabolic action, or to making a medical diagnosis”. Con-
trary to what was claimed years ago by some of the authors
of the EFOMP statement [2], there is no conflict between
the registration of radiopharmaceuticals and the Euratom
Directive. There is no contraindication to dosimetry-based
posology in the European regulation relative to medicinal
products as long as it is supported by clinical data.

We therefore agree with the position of the European
Association of Nuclear Medicine, proposing different lev-
els of compliance with the directive depending on the treat-
ment modality [3]. There is indeed a difference in the level
of evidence for the 2 types of RNT, i.e., selective internal
radiation therapy (SIRT) and radiopharmaceutical therapy
(RPT), also referred to as targeted radionuclide therapy
(TRT). In contrast to SIRT, the clinical benefit of dosimetry
in RPT is not yet demonstrated despite some dose–effect
correlations highlighted. Without a proven clinical benefit,
a modification of the regimen of an approved drug outside
of a clinical trial, either based on dosimetry or not, is defined
as an off-label use. In the absence of safety and efficacy data,
the patients must be informed and give their consent, while
the prescription should clearly be mentioned as off-label.
While physicians are used to prescribing drugs off-label,
the practice is highly supervised, at least in France, and the
personal responsibility of physicians is involved if adverse
events occur. Off-label prescription should be exceptional
and used only if there is no other option.

SIRT with microspheres is currently the only RNT
modality where dosimetry has a proven benefit in terms of
clinical outcome, i.e., tumor control probability (TCP) [4–6],
non-tumor complication probability (NTCP) [7], and months
of progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS).

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Arnaud Dieudonné
arnaud.dieudonne@me.com

<footnote n="1">¹ Department of Nuclear Medicine, Henri Becquerel Cancer Center, Rouen, France</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Service de Médecine Nucléaire, Centre Henri Becquerel, 76000 Rouen, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Nantes, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Department of Nuclear Medicine, Jean Perrin Cancer Center, Clermont-Ferrand, France</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Brest, France</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital, Bordeaux, France</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷ Department of Medical Imaging, Institut Universitaire du Cancer Toulouse - Oncopole, Toulouse, France</footnote>
These results were obtained thanks to two clinical trials, one retrospective analysis [5] and one prospective with dosimetry as the primary objective [8]. In the 2000s, the body surface area (BSA) method and single-compartment dosimetry were recommended for resin and glass microspheres [9]. The turning point came in the early 2010s, when retrospective studies showing promising results were published [10, 11] and clinical investigation was promoted in a context where the respective resin and glass microsphere manufacturers competed for market share. International recommendations now propose treatment planning strategies based on dosimetry objectives depending on the treatment strategy and the clinical endpoint [12–14]. Scientific and clinical pieces of evidence, as well as patients interests, have prevailed in this context, demonstrating that the role of dosimetry cannot be reduced to a pros and cons debate.

Do we have clinical data to guide treatment planning for RPT? It appears that although dose–effect relationships are well documented, a clear clinically proven benefit in terms of TCP, NTCP, or months of survival is still pending [15].

For example, the correlation between bone marrow absorbed dose and platelets has been shown in radioiodine treatments [16], [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTATATE in neuroendocrine tumors (NET) [17, 18], and [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-PSMA in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) [19]. However, it has not yet been shown to improve treatment outcomes. Until proven otherwise, blood cell counts are an economically and clinically more efficient technique than dosimetry to monitor RPT bone marrow toxicity. Not to mention that grade 3 bone marrow toxicity remains rare [17, 20, 21] except in patients already heavily treated with chemotherapy in whom the capacities of hematopoietic regeneration seemed more limited and who presented more difficulties recovering from myelodysplastic disease [22, 23]. Furthermore, regardless of the bone marrow absorbed doses, the non-responding or even progressive disease itself seems to be one, if not the most important, factor for bone marrow impairment [24].

The kidney is another organ that has been investigated for dose–effect relationships with ¹⁷⁷Lu-DOTATATE and [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-PSMA. The results of the ILUMINET trial [25] suggested that the treatment of NET with [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTATATE could be monitored with renal dosimetry, but achieved similar PFS and OS than the NETTER-1 trial [21, 26] which was conducted with a standard regimen. Another study has implemented a treatment regimen based on renal dosimetry [27] by increasing the injected activity up to the presumed maximum tolerated renal absorbed dose, which did not improve the PFS compared to the aforementioned studies. In patients treated with [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-PSMA, a recent retrospective study reported 3 cases of radiation-induced nephropathy following extensive treatment with [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-PSMA [28]. While authors argued that individual dosimetry

might have helped prevent these events, it is important to note that those patients received from eight to ten cycles with substantially higher cumulative activity than patients in the VISION trial (maximum 6 treatment cycles) [20] or patients in real life data (median of three to four cycles) and that the incidence of this toxicity remains extremely low (<1%) and has not been found in the literature in similar populations [29]. In addition, this exceptionally high number of treatment cycles can only be seen in the absence of alternative treatment options, in a situation where the risk of chronic kidney disease is outweighed by the risk of tumor progression. These results illustrate well that although dose–effect relationships have been demonstrated, dosimetry is not the only parameter influencing the treatment outcome.

Regarding lesion dosimetry, it is associated with blood prostate–specific antigen (PSA) [30] for [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-PSMA and with radiological response [31] for [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTATATE, but not with PFS or OS. As suggested by Alipour et al. [31], there are other factors than tumor response and absorbed dose that influence PFS and OS in NET. This may explain the dichotomy between RPT and SIRT. Indeed, SIRT is a loco-regional treatment for locally advanced or early-stage disease; therefore, local disease control, which correlates well with dosimetry, is strongly correlated with survival.

Another explanation could be that standard RPT regimens have been validated in clinical trials with a positive risk–benefit balance. The search for a clinical benefit from dosimetry may upset this balance if the tolerance limit of an organ is sought, with no guarantee of improved efficacy.

Nuclear medicine centers are facing a systemic and global shortage of healthcare professionals [32], in a context of increasing RPT [33] and stable healthcare costs per gross domestic product, except in the COVID era [34]. RPT healthcare workers (nuclear medicine physicians, radiopharmacists, medical physicists, technologists, etc.) should focus on clinically relevant tasks that have a proven benefit to the patient, i.e., dosimetry for SIRT, implementation of new RPT techniques, improvement of treatment follow-up based on imaging biomarkers, etc.

We should harness our multidisciplinary energy and apply for more funding to conduct more clinical trials with ancillary research to optimize this therapeutic option and improve patient outcomes. Cancer is becoming a chronic disease, so we need to manage time by limiting toxicities by trying to de-escalate and optimize drug treatments and ionizing irradiation through multidisciplinary research in physics, pharmacokinetics, dosimetry, and radiobiology.

Clinical dosimetry is one tool among others (quantification, radiomics, dynamic imaging, etc.) in the field of theragnostics. There is a potential for dosimetry to contribute to the development of new therapeutic strategies, new radiopharmaceuticals, new indications, etc., but this needs to be
supported by clinical evidence [35] and should be done in a cost-effective manner. As recently stated by the Medical Physics Department of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, “If dosimetry is to become more than an academic exercise, we need to show that it makes a significant difference to clinical outcomes with RPT” [36]. A similar debate has been raging among oncologists and hematologists since the advent of chemotherapies and now targeted therapies, on the need for adaptive or individualized rather than fixed dosing. Only irrefutable clinical evidence of the crucial role of therapeutic drug monitoring and pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics analysis in the optimization of anti-neoplastic regimens could balance the economic and logistic complexity of this technique implementation in clinical routine [37–39]. This debate has marked the entire history of medicine. Although important in itself, expert opinion provides the weakest level of evidence; randomized prospective phase III trials with independent safety and efficacy data monitoring boards are the gold standard for assessing the clinical benefit of a new drug or new indication. It is then up to the regulatory authorities to carefully review the data and audit the trial sponsors and investigational sites for approval.

## Declarations

**Competing interests** The authors declare no competing interests.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

## References

1. Sjögreen-Gleisner K et al. EFOMP policy statement NO. 19: dosimetry in nuclear medicine therapy – molecular radiotherapy. Physica Medica 2023; 103166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2023.103166

2. Chiesa C, et al. The conflict between treatment optimization and registration of radiopharmaceuticals with fixed activity posology in oncological nuclear medicine therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(11):1783–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3707-3.

3. Konijnenberg M, et al. EANM position paper on article 56 of the Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom (basic safety standards) for nuclear medicine therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(1):67–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05038-9.

4. Kappadath SC, Mikell J, Balagopal A, Baladandayuthapani V, Kaseb A, Mahvash A. Hepatocellular carcinoma tumor dose response after 90Y-radioembolization with glass microspheres using 90Y-SPECT/CT-based voxel dosimetry. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;102(2):451–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.05.062.

5. Hermann A-L et al. Relationship of tumor radiation-absorbed dose to survival and response in hepatocellular carcinoma treated with transarterial radioembolization with 90 Y in the SARAH Study. Radiology 2020; 191606. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020191606

6. Dewaraja YK et al. Prediction of tumor control in 90Y radioembolization by logit models with PET/CT based dose metrics. J Nucl Med 2019; jnumed.119.226472. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.226472

7. Chiesa C et al. Radioembolization of hepatocarcinoma with 90Y glass microspheres: treatment optimization using the dose-toxicity relationship. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47(13):3018–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-04845-4.

8. Garin E et al. Personalised versus standard dosimetry approach of selective internal radiation therapy in patients with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (DOSISPHERE-01): a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 2 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;6(1):17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30290-9.

9. Salem R et al. Technical aspects of radioembolization with 90Y microspheres. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2007;10(1):12–29. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.tvir.2007.08.001.

10. Flamen P et al. Multimodality imaging can predict the metabolic response of unresectable colorectal liver metastases to radioembolization therapy with Yttrium-90 labeled resin microspheres. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53(22):6591–603. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/53/22/019.

11. Garin E et al. Dosimetry based on 99mTc-macroaggregated albumin SPECT/CT accurately predicts tumor response and survival in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with 90Y-loaded glass microspheres: preliminary results. J Nucl Med. 2012;53(2):255–63. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.111.094235.

12. Levillain H et al. International recommendations for personalised selective internal radiation therapy of primary and metastatic liver diseases with yttrium-90 resin microspheres. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(5):1570–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05163-5.

13. Salem R et al. Clinical, dosimetric, and reporting considerations for Y-90 glass microspheres in hepatocellular carcinoma: updated 2022 recommendations from an international multidisciplinary working group. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023;50(2):328–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-022-05956-w.

14. Weber M et al. EANM procedure guideline for the treatment of liver cancer and liver metastases with intra-arterial radioactive compounds. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49(5):1682–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05600-z.

15. Strigari L et al. The evidence base for the use of internal dosimetry in the clinical practice of molecular radiotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(10):1976–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2824-5.

16. Benua RS, Cicale NR, Sonenberg M, Rawson RW. The relation of radioiodine dosimetry to results and complications in the treatment of metastatic thyroid cancer. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med. 1962;87:171–82.

17. Bergsma H et al. ‘Subacute haematotoxicity after PRRT with 177Lu-DOTA-octreotate: prognostic factors, incidence and course’. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015; 43(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3193-4

18. Hagmarker L et al. Bone marrow absorbed doses and correlations with hematologic response during 177 Lu-DOTATATE treatments
are influenced by image-based dosimetry method and presence of skeletal metastases. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(10):1406–13. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.225235.

19. Goewisch A et al. 3D Monte Carlo bone marrow dosimetry for Lu-177-PSMA therapy with guidance of non-invasive 3D localization of active bone marrow via Tc-99m-anti-granulocyte antibody SPECT/CT. EJNMMI Res. 2019;9(1):76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-019-0548-z.

20. Sartor O et al. Lutetium-177-PSMA-617 for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(12):1091–103. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2107322.

21. Strosberg JR, et al. 177Lu-Dotatate plus long-acting octreotide versus high-dose long-acting octreotide in patients with midgut neuroendocrine tumours (NETTER-1): final overall survival and long-term safety results from an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(12):1752–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00572-6.

22. Groener D et al. Hematologic safety of 177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. EJNMMI Res. 2021;11(1):61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-021-00805-7.

23. Widjaja L, Werner RA, Ross TL, Bengel FM, Derlin T. Comparison of pretherapeutic osseous tumor volume and standard hematology for prediction of hematotoxicity after PSMA-targeted radioligand therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(12):4077–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05412-1.

24. Kind F, Michalski K, Yousefzadeh-Nowshahr E, Meyer PT, Mix M, Ruf J. Bone marrow impairment during early [177Lu] PSMA-617 radioligand therapy: haematotoxicity or tumour progression? EJNMMI Res. 2022;12:20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-022-00891-1.

25. Sundlöv A et al. Phase II trial demonstrates the efficacy and safety of individualized, dosimetry-based 177Lu-DOTATATE treatment of NET patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2022;49(11):3830–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-022-05786-w.

26. Strosberg J et al. Phase 3 trial of 177Lu-dotatate for midgut neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(2):125–35. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1607427.

27. Del Prete M et al. Personalized 177Lu-octreotate peptide receptor radionuclide therapy of neuroendocrine tumours: initial results from the P-PRRT trial. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(3):728–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-4209-7.

28. Schäfer H et al. Extensive 177Lu-PSMA radioligand therapy can lead to radiation nephropathy with a renal thrombotic microangiopathy–like picture. Eur Urol. 2023;83(5):385–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.05.025.

29. Gafita A et al. Early experience of rechallenge 177Lu-PSMA radioligand therapy after an initial good response in patients with

advanced prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(5):644–8. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.215715.

30. Violet J et al. Dosimetry of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: correlations between pretherapeutic imaging and whole-body tumor dosimetry with treatment outcomes. J Nucl Med. 2019;60(4):517–23. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.219352.

31. Alipour R et al. The relationship between tumour dosimetry, response, and overall survival in patients with unresectable Neuroendocrine Neoplasms (NEN) treated with 177Lu DOTATATE (LuTate). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2023;50(10):2997–3010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-023-06257-6.

32. Figueroa CA, Harrison R, Chauhan A, Meyer L. Priorities and challenges for health leadership and workforce management globally: a rapid review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):239. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4080-7.

33. Herrmann K, et al. Radiotheranostics: a roadmap for future development. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21(3):e146–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30821-6.

34. OECD and European Union, Health at a Glance: Europe 2022: State of Health in the EU Cycle. in Health at a Glance: Europe. OECD 2022. 131. https://doi.org/10.1787/507433b0-en

35. Giammarile F, Muylle K, Delgado Bolton R, Kunikowska J, Haberkorn U, Oyen W. Dosimetry in clinical radionuclide therapy: the devil is in the detail. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44(12):1–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3820-3.

36. O'Donoghue J, Zanzonico P, Humm J, Kesner A. Dosimetry in radiopharmaceutical therapy. J Nucl Med. 2022;63(10):1467–74. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.121.262305.

37. van Leuven J et al. Framework for implementing individualised dosing of anti-cancer drugs in routine care: overcoming the logistical challenges. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(13):3293. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15133293.

38. Groenland SL, Mathijssen RHJ, Beijnen JH, Huitema ADR, Steegh N. Individualized dosing of oral targeted therapies in oncology is crucial in the era of precision medicine. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2019;75(9):1309–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-019-02704-2.

39. Kim HY, Martin JH, Mclachlan AJ, Boddy AV. Precision dosing of targeted anticancer drugs—challenges in the real world. Translational Cancer Research. 2017;6(Suppl):10. https://doi.org/10.21037/tcr.2017.10.30.

**Publisher's Note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.