Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of dosimetry between PET/CT and PET alone using 11C-ITMM

Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We used a new tracer, N-[4-[6-(isopropylamino) pyrimidin-4-yl]-1,3-thiazol-2-yl]-4-11C-methoxy-N-methylbenzamide (11C-ITMM), to compare radiation doses from positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) with previously published doses from PET alone. Twelve healthy volunteers [six males (mean age ± SD, 27.7 ± 6.7 years) and six females (31.8 ± 14.5 years)] in 12 examinations were recruited. Dose estimations from PET/CT were compared with those from PET alone. Regions of interest (ROIs) in PET/CT were delineated on the basis of low-dose CT (LD-CT) images acquired during PET/CT. Internal and external radiation doses were estimated using OLINDA/EXM 1.0 and CT-Expo software. The effective dose (ED) for 11C-ITMM calculated from PET/CT was estimated to be 4.7 ± 0.5 μSv/MBq for the male subjects and 4.1 ± 0.7 μSv/MBq for the female subjects. The mean ED for 11C-ITMM calculated from PET alone in a previous report was estimated to be 4.6 ± 0.3 μSv/MBq (males, n = 3). The ED values for 11C-ITMM calculated from PET/CT in the male subjects were almost identical to those from PET alone. The absorbed doses (ADs) of the gallbladder, stomach, red bone marrow, and spleen calculated from PET/CT were significantly different from those calculated from PET alone. The EDs of 11C-ITMM calculated from PET/CT were almost identical to those calculated from PET alone. The ADs in several organs calculated from PET/CT differed from those from PET alone. LD-CT images acquired during PET/CT may facilitate organ identification.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Lassmann M, Chiesa C, Flux G, Bardies M (2011) EANM Dosimetry Committee guidance document: good practice of clinical dosimetry reporting. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38(1):192–200. doi:10.1007/s00259-010-1549-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. van der Aart J, Hallett WA, Rabiner EA, Passchier J, Comley RA (2012) Radiation dose estimates for carbon-11-labelled PET tracers. Nucl Med Biol 39(2):305–314. doi:10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2011.08.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Zanotti-Fregonara P, Innis RB (2012) Suggested pathway to assess radiation safety of 11C-labeled PET tracers for first-in-human studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 39(3):544–547. doi:10.1007/s00259-011-2005-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Zanotti-Fregonara P, Lammertsma AA, Innis RB (2013) Suggested pathway to assess radiation safety of (1)(8)F-labeled PET tracers for first-in-human studies. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40(11):1781–1783. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2512-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sakata M, Oda K, Toyohara J, Ishii K, Nariai T, Ishiwata K (2013) Direct comparison of radiation dosimetry of six PET tracers using human whole-body imaging and murine biodistribution studies. Ann Nucl Med 27(3):285–296. doi:10.1007/s12149-013-0685-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Townsend DW, Carney JP, Yap JT, Hall NC (2004) PET/CT today and tomorrow. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 45(Suppl 1):4s–14s

    Google Scholar 

  7. Nakamoto Y, Osman M, Cohade C, Marshall LT, Links JM, Kohlmyer S, Wahl RL (2002) PET/CT: comparison of quantitative tracer uptake between germanium and CT transmission attenuation-corrected images. J Nucl Med Off Publi Soc Nucl Med 43(9):1137–1143

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wu TH, Huang YH, Lee JJ, Wang SY, Wang SC, Su CT, Chen LK, Chu TC (2004) Radiation exposure during transmission measurements: comparison between CT- and germanium-based techniques with a current PET scanner. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 31(1):38–43. doi:10.1007/s00259-003-1327-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fabbri C, Galassi R, Moretti A, Sintuzzi E, Mautone V, Sarti G, Strigari L, Benassi M, Matteucci F (2014) Radiation dosimetry of 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT studies in prostate cancer patients. Physica medica: pM: an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology. Off J Ital Assoc Biomed Phys (AIFB) 30(3):346–351. doi:10.1016/j.ejmp.2013.10.007

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bockisch A, Beyer T, Antoch G, Freudenberg LS, Kuhl H, Debatin JF, Muller SP (2004) Positron emission tomography/computed tomography–imaging protocols, artifacts, and pitfalls. Mol Imaging Biol MIB Off Publ Acad Mol Imaging 6(4):188–199. doi:10.1016/j.mibio.2004.04.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Toyohara J, Sakata M, Oda K, Ishii K, Ito K, Hiura M, Fujinaga M, Yamasaki T, Zhang MR, Ishiwata K (2013) Initial human PET studies of metabotropic glutamate receptor type 1 ligand 11C-ITMM. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 54(8):1302–1307. doi:10.2967/jnumed.113.119891

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fujinaga M, Yamasaki T, Yui J, Hatori A, Xie L, Kawamura K, Asagawa C, Kumata K, Yoshida Y, Ogawa M, Nengaki N, Fukumura T, Zhang MR (2012) Synthesis and evaluation of novel radioligands for positron emission tomography imaging of metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 1 (mGluR1) in rodent brain. J Med Chem 55(5):2342–2352. doi:10.1021/jm201590g

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Toyohara J, Sakata M, Fujinaga M, Yamasaki T, Oda K, Ishii K, Zhang MR, Moriguchi Jeckel CM, Ishiwata K (2013) Preclinical and the first clinical studies on [11C]ITMM for mapping metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 1 by positron emission tomography. Nucl Med Biol 40(2):214–220. doi:10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2012.11.008

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fujiwara T, Watanuki S, Yamamoto S, Miyake M, Seo S, Itoh M, Ishii K, Orihara H, Fukuda H, Satoh T, Kitamura K, Tanaka K, Takahashi S (1997) Performance evaluation of a large axial field-of-view PET scanner: sET-2400W. Ann Nucl Med 11(4):307–313

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Stamm G, Nagel HD (2002) CT-expo—a novel program for dose evaluation in CT. RoFo: Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin 174(12):1570–1576. doi:10.1055/s-2002-35937

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kortesniemi M, Salli E, Seuri R (2012) Organ dose calculation in CT based on scout image data and automatic image registration. Acta Radiologica 53(8):908–913. doi:10.1258/ar.2012.110611

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Stabin MG, Sparks RB, Crowe E (2005) OLINDA/EXM: the second-generation personal computer software for internal dose assessment in nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 46(6):1023–1027

    Google Scholar 

  18. Sievert RM, Failla G (1990) Recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. Ann ICRP 21:1–201

    Google Scholar 

  19. Senthamizhchelvan S, Bravo PE, Esaias C, Lodge MA, Merrill J, Hobbs RF, Sgouros G, Bengel FM (2010) Human biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of 82Rb. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 51(10):1592–1599. doi:10.2967/jnumed.110.077669

    Google Scholar 

  20. Doss M, Kolb HC, Walsh JC, Mocharla V, Fan H, Chaudhary A, Zhu Z, Alpaugh RK, Lango MN, Yu JQ (2013) Biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of 18F-CP-18, a potential apoptosis imaging agent, as determined from PET/CT scans in healthy volunteers. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 54(12):2087–2092. doi:10.2967/jnumed.113.119800

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Postnov A, Froklage FE, van Lingen A, Reijneveld JC, Hendrikse NH, Windhorst AD, Schuit RC, Eriksson J, Lammertsma AA, Huisman MC (2013) Radiation dose of the P-glycoprotein tracer 11C-laniquidar. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 54(12):2101–2103. doi:10.2967/jnumed.113.120857

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Challapalli A, Kenny LM, Hallett WA, Kozlowski K, Tomasi G, Gudi M, Al-Nahhas A, Coombes RC, Aboagye EO (2013) 18F-ICMT-11, a caspase-3-specific PET tracer for apoptosis: biodistribution and radiation dosimetry. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 54(9):1551–1556. doi:10.2967/jnumed.112.118760

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sandstrom M, Velikyan I, Garske-Roman U, Sorensen J, Eriksson B, Granberg D, Lundqvist H, Sundin A, Lubberink M (2013) Comparative biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of 68 Ga-DOTATOC and 68 Ga-DOTATATE in patients with neuroendocrine tumors. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 54(10):1755–1759. doi:10.2967/jnumed.113.120600

    Google Scholar 

  24. Smolarz K, Krause BJ, Graner FP, Wagner FM, Wester HJ, Sell T, Bacher-Stier C, Fels L, Dinkelborg L, Schwaiger M (2013) Biodistribution and radiation dosimetry in healthy volunteers of a novel tumour-specific probe for PET/CT imaging: bAY 85-8050. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40(12):1861–1868. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2502-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ahmad R, Koole M, Evens N, Serdons K, Verbruggen A, Bormans G, Van Laere K (2013) Whole-body biodistribution and radiation dosimetry of the cannabinoid type 2 receptor ligand [11C]-NE40 in healthy subjects. Mol Imaging Biol MIB Off Publ Acad Mol Imaging 15(4):384–390. doi:10.1007/s11307-013-0626-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Boellaard R, van Lingen A, Lammertsma AA (2001) Experimental and clinical evaluation of iterative reconstruction (OSEM) in dynamic PET: quantitative characteristics and effects on kinetic modeling. J Nucl Med Off Publ Soc Nucl Med 42(5):808–817

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed. This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B), No. 24390298, from The Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. We thank Kumpei Hayashi, Airin Oonishi, and Hatsumi Endo for their technical assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimiteru Ito.

Additional information

Clinical trial registration

UMIN Clinical Trial Registry under unique trial number UMIN000012396 (date of registration 11/25/2013).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ito, K., Sakata, M., Oda, K. et al. Comparison of dosimetry between PET/CT and PET alone using 11C-ITMM. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 39, 177–186 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-015-0419-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-015-0419-5

Keywords

Navigation