4.7 Article

Individualised 177Lu-DOTATATE treatment of neuroendocrine tumours based on kidney dosimetry

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-017-3678-4

关键词

Lu-177-DOTATATE; Neuroendocrine; Dosimetry; PRRT; Renal function

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [621-2014-6187]
  2. Swedish Cancer Society
  3. Mrs. Berta Kamprad's Foundation
  4. Gunnar Nilsson's Foundation
  5. Swedish Radiation Safety Authority
  6. Jubilee Clinic Cancer Research Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose To present data from an interim analysis of a Phase II trial designed to determine the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of individualising treatment based on renal dosimetry, by giving as many cycles as possible within a maximum renal biologically effective dose (BED). Method Treatment was given with repeated cycles of 7.4 GBq 177Lu-DOTATATE at 8-12-week intervals. Detailed dosimetry was performed in all patients after each cycle using a hybrid method (SPECT + planar imaging). All patients received treatment up to a renal BED of 27 +/- 2 Gy (alpha/beta = 2.6 Gy) (Step 1). Selected patients were offered further treatment up to a renal BED of 40 +/- 2 Gy (Step 2). Renal function was followed by estimation and measurement of the glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Results Fifty-one patients were included in the present analysis. Among the patients who received treatment as planned, the median number of cycles in Step 1 was 5 (range 3-7), and for those who completed Step 2 it was 7 (range 5-8); 73% were able to receive >4 cycles. Although GFR decreased in most patients after the completion of treatment, no grade 3-4 toxicity was observed. Patients with a reduced baseline GFR seemed to have an increased risk of GFR decline. Five patients received treatment in Step 2, none of whom exhibited a significant reduction in renal function. Conclusions Individualising PRRT using renal dosimetry seems feasible and safe and leads to an increased number of cycles in the majority of patients. The trial will continue as planned.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据