Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

EANM Dosimetry Committee guidance document: good practice of clinical dosimetry reporting

  • Guidelines
  • Published:
European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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.

  2. Traditionally called “MIRD scheme“ or “MIRD method“

References

  1. Wahl RL. Tositumomab and 131I therapy in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. J Nucl Med 2005;46 Suppl 1:128S–40S.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Noseda M, McLean GR. Where did the scientific method go? Nat Biotechnol 2008;26:28–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jaszczak RJ, Floyd CE, Coleman RE. Scatter compensation techniques for SPECT. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 1985;32:786–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jentzen W. Experimental investigation of factors affecting the absolute recovery coefficients in iodine-124 PET lesion imaging. Phys Med Biol. 2010;55:2365–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. International Commission on Radiation Units. Absorbed-dose specifications in nuclear medicine. J ICRU. 2002;2:5–110.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Grosev D, Loncaric S, Huic D, Dodig D. Geometric models in dosimetry of thyroid remnant mass. Nuklearmedizin 2008;47:120–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dale RG. Dose-rate effects in targeted radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 1996;41:1871–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. O'Donoghue JA. Implications of nonuniform tumor doses for radioimmunotherapy. J Nucl Med 1999;40:1337–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Lassmann.

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

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1549-3

Keywords

Navigation