nach oben

European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging

Erschienen in:

Open Access 29.04.2021 | Original Article

EANM position paper on the role of radiobiology in nuclear medicine

verfasst von: An Aerts, Uta Eberlein, Sören Holm, Roland Hustinx, Mark Konijnenberg, Lidia Strigari, Fijs W.B. van Leeuwen, Gerhard Glatting, Michael Lassmann

Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging | Ausgabe 11/2021

Executive Summary

With an increasing variety of radiopharmaceuticals for diagnostic or therapeutic nuclear medicine as valuable diagnostic or treatment option, radiobiology plays an important role in supporting optimizations. This comprises particularly safety and efficacy of radionuclide therapies, specifically tailored to each patient. As absorbed dose rates and absorbed dose distributions in space and time are very different between external irradiation and systemic radionuclide exposure, distinct radiation-induced biological responses are expected in nuclear medicine, which need to be explored. This calls for a dedicated nuclear medicine radiobiology. Radiobiology findings and absorbed dose measurements will enable an improved estimation and prediction of efficacy and adverse effects. Moreover, a better understanding on the fundamental biological mechanisms underlying tumor and normal tissue responses will help to identify predictive and prognostic biomarkers as well as biomarkers for treatment follow-up. In addition, radiobiology can form the basis for the development of radiosensitizing strategies and radioprotectant agents. Thus, EANM believes that, beyond in vitro and preclinical evaluations, radiobiology will bring important added value to clinical studies and to clinical teams. Therefore, EANM strongly supports active collaboration between radiochemists, radiopharmacists, radiobiologists, medical physicists, and physicians to foster research toward precision nuclear medicine.

G.G. and M.L. shared senior authorship.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Radiation biology

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

In recent years, the number of radiopharmaceuticals for diagnostic and therapeutic applications has increased considerably. In addition, theranostics are being developed that use the same molecular targeting platform for both imaging and treatment. This has led to an increased medical use in both malignant as well as benign conditions. Consequently, an improved understanding of the biological processes, with special regard to the effects of ionizing radiation to normal tissues and tumors, is required. This is to determine the absorbed dose-effect relationship more precisely, as a prerequisite for achieving an optimal diagnostic or therapeutic outcome. In general, absorbed doses are low (< 20 mGy) for most organs in diagnostic procedures [1]. However, when multiple diagnostic examinations or therapeutic applications are undertaken, this is no longer the case. Repeated diagnostic irradiations can result in cumulative absorbed doses in normal organs and tissues up to a few hundred milligray [2]. For therapies, absorbed doses can exceed previously suggested absorbed dose limits (e.g., 23 Gy for the kidneys in peptide receptor radionuclide therapies [3]). For absorbed doses of < 1 Gy, stochastic effects of ionizing radiation may be observed, whereas for therapies, a mixture of stochastic and deterministic effects is expected. Radiation-related adverse effects strongly depend on both the individual absorbed doses [4] and the individual radiation sensitivity [5‐8]. Thus, without an individualized approach in radionuclide therapy, a group of patients may be over-treated, jeopardizing patient safety. Conversely, patients may be undertreated, leading to suboptimal treatment efficacy.

Systemic radiation delivery via radiopharmaceuticals is inherently different from irradiation by external radiation sources. As a consequence, distinct radiation-induced biological responses are expected for radiopharmaceuticals posing considerable challenges for in vitro, preclinical and clinical studies investigating radionuclide applications. Several research topics are suggested that should be addressed with regard to radiobiology in relation to the systemic use of radiopharmaceuticals and which have not yet been rigorously investigated [9‐11]. Presently, there are limited studies related to the use of radiobiology in nuclear medicine. Typical examples of such studies are provided in Table 1.

Table 1

Non-exhaustive list of typical examples of nuclear medicine radiobiology studies including a description of the method or biomarker applied, targets, radionuclides, and activity/absorbed dose range

Topics investigated	Method/biomarker	Target	Radionuclide	Model	Activity/dose range	Remark	References
DNA damage	ɣ-H2AX, 53BP1 foci in PMBCs	Blood	¹⁷⁷Lu, ¹³¹I, ²²³Ra	Patients	< 100 mGy	Ex vivo and in vivo data	[7, 12‐16]
DNA damage	ɣ-H2AX, 53BP1 foci in tumor cells	Neuroendocrine tumor, (SST₂), prostate tumor (PSMA)	¹⁷⁷Lu, ²¹³Bi	Cell culture, mouse	< 2.5 MBq ¹⁷⁷Lu in vitro, 30 MBq ¹⁷⁷Lu in vivo, 0.3 MBq ²¹³Bi in vitro, < 6.6 MBq ²¹³Bi in vivo	SST₂ agonist vs. antagonist	[17, 18]
DNA damage Imaging	[¹¹¹In]In-anti-γH2AX-TAT, [⁸⁹Zr]Zr-DFO-anti-γH2AX-TAT	Neuroendocrine tumor, pancreatic carcinoma	¹⁷⁷Lu, ²²⁵Ac	Mouse	< 20 MBq ¹⁷⁷Lu, 37 kBq ²²⁵Ac	DNA damage monitoring after [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE therapy	[19, 20]
Preclinical therapeutic value, cell survival, cell cycle progression	Tumor volume, cell survival, cell cycle analysis	Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (CD37)	¹⁷⁷Lu	Cell culture, mouse, patient samples	< 6 MBq/mL ¹⁷⁷Lu in vitro, < 500 MBq/kg ¹⁷⁷Lu in vivo	Radioimmunotherapy	[21]
In vitro cytotoxicity	Cell-free plasmid DNA damage, DNA damage, cell survival, cell viability, microautoradiography cell distribution assay	Breast cancer (HER2), prostate tumor	⁶⁷Ga, ¹¹¹In	Cell culture	< 0.3 MBq/mL ⁶⁷Ga in vitro; 1.1 Bq/cell (15 MBq/mL) ⁶⁷Ga or ¹¹¹In in vitro, 0.1 MBq/mL ⁶⁷Ga or ¹¹¹In cell free	Auger electrons	[22, 23]
Combination with other agents: radiosensitizing agents	53BP1, micronuclei in cell cultures, cell survival, cell viability, cell cycle progression, DNA damage response, gene expression, tumor perfusion, tumor, tumor radioactivity uptake, tumor volume	Neuroendocrine tumor (SST₂), small cell lung cancer (SST₂), prostate tumor (PSMA), neuroblastoma PARP, protein folding, DNA and DNA synthesis, Hedgehog signaling, nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase, topoisomerase I, proteasome, P53-MDM2 interaction nutlin-3, and the copper-chelated form of the oxidizing agent disulfiram, G2/M cell cycle arrest	¹⁷⁷Lu, ¹³¹I	Cell culture, spheroids, mouse, patients	< 6 MBq/mL ¹⁷⁷Lu in vitro, < 30 MBq ¹⁷⁷Lu in vivo, < 6 MBq ¹⁷⁷Lu ex vivo patients, 4 × 7.8 GBq patients, 0.37 MBq/mL ¹³¹I in vitro, 20 MBq ¹³¹I in vivo	Olaparib, 1,5-dihydroxyisoquinoline, PJ-34, veliparib, talazoparib, Hsp90 inhibitor, androgen receptor inhibitor, capecitabine, temozolomide, sonidegib, NAMPT inhibitor, topotecan, bortezomib, the inhibitor of the P53-MDM2 interaction nutlin-3 and the copper-chelated form of the oxidizing agent disulfiram (DSF:Cu), EBRT	[21, 24‐37]
Combination with other agents: upregulation of the therapeutic target	Transcriptional, translational, and functional analysis, tracer uptake	Neuroendocrine tumor (SST₂)	n.a.	Cell culture	n.a.	–	[38, 39]
Combination with other agents: chemotherapeutic drugs	Cell viability, biodistribution, tumor volume	Breast cancer	¹³¹I	Cell culture, mouse	< 7.4 MBq/mL in vitro, 7.4 MBq in vivo	Human serum albumin–paclitaxel nanoparticles	[40]
Combination with other agents: radioprotectant agents	Biodistribution, tumor response	Kidneys	¹⁷⁷Lu	Mouse	30 MBq	Kidney-preserving agent	[41]
Tumor radionuclide/receptor distribution	[¹¹¹In]In-EGF and [¹¹¹In]In-labeled trastuzumab imaging, autoradiography, immunofluorescence microscopy	Breast cancer (EGFR, HER2), head and neck cancer (EGFR), neuroendocrine tumor (SST₂)	¹¹¹In, ¹⁷⁷Lu	Spheroids, cell culture, mouse, patients (ex vivo)	1 MBq/mL ¹⁷⁷Lu in vitro, 30 MBq ¹⁷⁷Lu in vivo	–	[42, 43]
Molecular profiling	Blood NET transcript analysis	Neuroendocrine tumors (SST₂)	¹⁷⁷Lu	Patients	[¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE-based PRRT	NETest, PPQ: PRRT predictive quotient (PPQ)	[44‐46]
Molecular profiling	Whole genome microarray analysis	Neuroendocrine tumor (SST₂), thyroid gland, various normal tissues, Kidney	¹⁷⁷Lu, ¹³¹I, ²¹¹At	Mouse, rat	< 15 MBq ¹⁷⁷Lu, < 4.7 MBq ¹³¹I, < 42 kBq ²¹¹At	–	[47‐50]
Molecular profiling	Targeted next-generation sequencing of DNA damage-repair associated genes	Prostate cancer	²²⁵Ac	Biopsies	[²²⁵Ac]Ac-PSMA-617 therapy	–	[8]
Relative biological effectiveness	Cell survival	Neuroendocrine tumor (SST₂)	¹⁷⁷Lu, ²¹³Bi	Cell culture	< 10 Gy (¹⁷⁷Lu), < 5.2 MBq (7 Gy) ²¹³Bi	RBE = 6	[51]
Radiation quality effects	Cell survival, cell viability, gene expression, DNA damage, in vivo therapy studies		¹³¹I, ¹⁶¹Tb, ¹⁷⁷Lu	Cell culture, mouse	< 9.25 MBq ¹³¹I in vitro	–	[52, 53]
Cell membrane-mediated non-targeted effects	Cell membrane lipid raft analysis, underlying signaling pathways, cell survival, DNA damage tumor volume	Colon cancer (CEA), vulvar squamous carcinoma (A431 HER2 + CEA), ovarian carcinoma (SKOV3 MISRII), endometrial carcinoma (AN3CA MISRII)	¹²⁵I, ²¹²Pb/²¹²Bi, ²¹³Bi	Cell culture, mouse	< 0.5 MBq/ml ²¹²Pb in vitro, 0.5 MBq/mL ²¹³Bi in vitro, < 4 MBq ¹²⁵I in vitro, 1.48 MBq ²¹²Pb in vivo, 37 MBq ¹²⁵I in vivo	–	[54, 55]
Single cell and micrometastases dosimetry	Calculation	Neuroendocrine tumor (SST₂)	¹⁷⁷Lu, ¹⁶¹Tb	Cell culture, computed cell model	2.5 MBq/mL ¹⁷⁷Lu in vitro	–	[56, 57]
Radiobiology, generic dose models	Calculation	Kidneys, tumor				Development of the linear-quadratic model for nuclear medicine	[58‐64]
Thyroid dose-toxicity model	Retrospective calculations of TCP, NTCP	Thyroid treatment	¹³¹I	Patients	< 560 MBq [65]	Retrospective analysis	[65, 66]
Hepatocellular carcinoma tumor response	Prospective study based on [^99mTc]Tc macro-aggregated albumin dosimetry	Liver treatment glass microspheres	⁹⁰Y	Patients	> 205 Gy	Prospective study	[67]
Hepatic dose-toxicity model	BED, TD, EUD	Liver treatment glass and resin microspheres	⁹⁰Y	–	< 250 Gy BED₅₀	Dose-toxicity model	[68]
Kidney dose-toxicity model	BED, TCP, NTCP	SST₂ agonists, treatment of neuroendocrine tumors	⁹⁰Y, ¹⁷⁷Lu	Patients	40 Gy BED	Clinical trial	[69]
Kidneys and red bone marrow toxicity model	BED	Neuroendocrine tumor	¹⁷⁷Lu	Virtual patients	40 Gy_2.5 kidneys BED, 2 Gy₁₅ red bone marrow BED	In silico clinical trial	[70]
mIBG treatment	Retrospective calculations	Neuroblastoma mIBG treatment	¹³¹I	Patients	30 GBq	Two fractions	[71, 72]
Predicting tumor response	BED	Prostate carcinoma	¹⁷⁷Lu	Patients	7.3 ± 0.3 GBq	Prediction of tumor volume shrinking using PBPK/PD modeling	[73]

BED biologically effective dose, EBRT external beam radiation therapy, EUD equivalent uniform dose, NAMPT nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase, NTCP normal-tissue complication probability, PMBC peripheral mononuclear blood cells, RBE relative biological effectiveness, SST₂ somatostatin receptor subtype 2, TCP tumor control probability, TD tolerable dose, PARP poly-[ADP-ribose]-polymerase 1, PRRT peptide receptor radionuclide therapy

In addition, in a recent review it was stated that, for radiation oncology, incomplete physics and dosimetry reporting limits the progress of radiobiology [74]. The authors concluded that there is not only a crucial deficiency on experimental details but also a lack of interaction between medical physicists and radiobiologists. The reporting of results pertaining to radiobiology in nuclear medicine is often provided in activities rather than absorbed doses (Table 1). Therefore, future radiobiology studies in nuclear medicine will benefit from including good practice of dosimetry reporting [75]. Conversely, dosimetry calculations should be based on available experimental biological data.

Consequently, in nuclear medicine, patient care optimization principles, which include not only absorbed dose or dose rate parameters but also radiobiological parameters, should be integrated. To this end, close interaction and collaboration between radiochemists, radiopharmacists, radiobiologists, medical physicists, and physicians will be needed.

Radiobiology

Radiobiology (also known as radiation biology) is a branch of biology concerned with the biological effects of ionizing radiation on living organisms. Radiobiology studies the interactions of ionizing radiation on atomic and molecular structures and consequently their induced effects on cells, tissues, and organs, both normal and diseased. As such, radiobiology enhances the understanding of biological outcome (harm or benefit) from ionizing radiation exposure.

When ionizing radiation impinges living matter, it deposits energy along its path leading to atomic ionization, thereby damaging biological molecular structures (Fig. 1). In the common paradigm, DNA is considered the critical target for radiation damage [76]. However, not only DNA, but also proteins, lipids and metabolites may be modified by ionizing radiation [77, 78]. In direct action, absorption of ionizing radiation will happen at the site of the atoms of the cellular molecules. Subsequent ionization events may cause breakage of chemical bonds. It may also convert atoms and molecules into free radicals with very reactive unpaired electrons that can further react with neighboring molecules after which a chain of damaging reactions may occur. The indirect effect from the absorption of ionizing radiation is the production of free hydroxyl and other highly reactive radicals, due to the hydrolysis of water molecules. Despite their short existence, they can still diffuse to and damage other cellular molecules. Moreover, oxygen can create reactive oxygen or nitrogen radical species with greater stability, longer lifetimes, and thus wider diffusion possibilities [76, 78]. The abundance of these oxygen radicals generates a condition known as oxidative stress which can further impact cellular signaling and alter metabolic pathways resulting in, among others, cell death mechanisms, senescence, and inflammation [78, 79]. Furthermore, ionizing radiation can harm supramolecular structures like cellular membranes, mitochondria, the endoplasmic reticulum, the Golgi apparatus, the lysosomal system, and the cytoskeleton [80]. Finally, also aspects beyond cellular boundaries are increasingly being considered in radiobiology, like the tumor microenvironment, intercellular communication, immune responses, and the abscopal effect [81, 82].

Research in radiobiology can rely on the newest techniques and insights in biology in general and is exploiting (epi)genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, high-throughput screening, and exploring new models like stem cells, organoids, in vivo orthotopic and subcutaneous patient-derived xenograft models, or siRNA- or CRISPR/Cas9-derived models. These are anticipated to lead to new hypotheses to understand the effects generated from ionizing radiation on biological systems and to improve therapies based on ionizing radiation [78, 83].

Today, improved insights into the dose-response effects caused by ionizing radiation on tumor cell killing as well as on acute and long-term normal tissue collateral damage are impacting greatly treatment planning in external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) [83, 84]. Of several models, the linear-quadratic (LQ) model has been best validated by experimental and clinical data to describe cell survival fractions. The selection of accurate LQ parameters, α, β, and α/β, is pivotal for a reliable estimate of radiation response. Clinically, the LQ model is mainly used to estimate equivalent radiotherapy schedules (e.g., calculate the equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions), but increasingly also to predict tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) using logistic models [76, 85]. In addition, radiobiological discoveries are guiding clinical trials that test EBRT combined with inhibitors of the DNA damage response and immune or cell cycle checkpoint inhibitors. To have maximum impact for individual patients, predictive biomarkers should be identified that enable the rational selection of treatments to combine with EBRT. Further research into the radiobiology of tumor metabolism, cancer stem cells, and the tumor microenvironment has the potential to translate current knowledge and future gains to the clinic [83].

The question arises whether there is a need for a dedicated nuclear medicine radiobiology or whether we can rely on radiobiological models derived for EBRT or brachytherapy.

The response of a living system to an irradiation strongly depends on the distribution of absorbed doses across space and time. As these dose distributions in EBRT and brachytherapy are very different to those in radionuclide therapy, extrapolation of EBRT or brachytherapy radiobiology to radionuclide therapy is not straightforward. Indeed, the specific physical characteristics of radionuclide therapy (mixed radiation qualities, time-varying and protracted exposure, low absorbed dose rates, and inhomogeneous dose distributions) differ from those of conventional EBRT (short exposure time, high absorbed dose rate, and mostly homogeneous irradiation fields) and brachytherapy (even in the low dose rate case there is a well-defined source distribution). As a result, the responses of irradiated tissues and of the human/patient are expected to be different for radionuclide therapy [10, 86, 87]. For example, due to the time-varying and comparatively low dose rates in radionuclide therapies, the DNA damage induction and repair may strongly differ compared to EBRT [7, 12, 13, 75]. Consequently, there is a need for the generation and application of more radiobiological knowledge specific for nuclear medicine diagnostic and therapeutic procedures.

Efforts to gather more evidence in radiobiology regarding systemic exposure to ionizing radiation in nuclear medicine applications have been increasing recently; this is illustrated in this paragraph at the example of [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-[Tyr3]octreotate ([¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE) radionuclide therapy in patients with advanced, progressive, somatostatin receptor subtype (SST₂)-positive midgut neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) that was studied in the NETTER-1 phase III trial [88]. Even though [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE is clearly successful in terms of survival benefits, current figures could be further improved. In addition, treatment is limited by potential adverse effects on the kidneys and the bone marrow, hindering the use to its full potential. This emphasizes the need to further optimize [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-TATE radionuclide therapy to further improve efficacy while reducing toxicity. This includes improved dosimetry hand in hand with a deep biological evaluation of superior radionuclides, improved SST₂ ligands, increased SST₂ levels, the role of tumor microenvironment, and combinations with immunotherapy, targeted therapy or DNA modulating agents, as well as predictive markers for improved patient selection and treatment follow-up [24, 44, 45, 89‐91].

Position of the EANM

Radiobiology is particularly relevant for nuclear medicine therapies, as these treatments differ substantially from irradiation by external radiation sources. This is highlighted in the common strategic research agenda for radiation protection in medicine [92] developed by the five medical societies involved in the medical application of ionizing radiation, which later founded the European Alliance for Medical Radiation Protection Research (EURAMED) (https://www.euramed.eu/)¹. An improved understanding of the biological processes with special regard to the effects of ionizing radiation to normal tissues and tumors is needed to individualize the use of existing and future developed radiopharmaceuticals. Therefore, the radiobiological knowledge concerning the specific needs of nuclear medicine (e.g., patient-specific and tumor-specific radiation sensitivity, dose-effect relationships, spatio-temporal properties, therapy response, normal tissue effects, role of microenvironment and systemic reactions, combination therapies) must be obtained and considered together with physical and medical parameters in the development of nuclear medicine procedures. This will also foster the principles stated in the EC Directive 2013/59/Euratom, article 56, that exposures of target volumes in nuclear medicine treatments shall be individually planned and their delivery appropriately verified [93]. How to interpret the EC directive for nuclear medicine therapies is further detailed in the recently published EANM position paper on article 56 of the Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom [94].

Absorbed dose measurements can be combined with radiobiological parameters to enable an improved estimation and prediction of efficacy and adverse effects, which can further support treatment planning [94]. This additional input is presently, however, very rarely used, as only limited studies related to therapeutic use of radiopharmaceuticals and including radiobiological parameters are available. Of note, the precision dosimetry approach to describe the dose on the cellular and subcellular level in targeted radionuclide therapy is under development [56, 57].

In diagnostic nuclear medicine applications, especially in longitudinal procedures, the role of radiobiology and the long-term consequences of radiobiology-related findings, such as reported in studies on DNA damage and repair, still has to be defined [95‐101]. Currently, these studies provide no evidence that diagnostic nuclear medicine procedures are not safe.

Consequently, EANM believes that, to further optimize nuclear medicine procedures for each individual patient, efforts should be undertaken to promote the integration of radiobiology within nuclear medicine by endorsing further research and teaching activities. The knowledge of different disciplines, such as biology, chemistry, medicine, pharmacy, and physics, can then be combined for providing reproducible results, which are, ideally, traceable to metrological standards.

Essential radiobiological studies

The nature of radiation exposure resulting from nuclear medicine procedures is diverse and comprises different radiation qualities, absorbed doses, dose rates, and temporal and spatial dose distributions [102, 103]. Low doses are encountered in diagnostic procedures as well as from out-of-target therapeutic exposures. High doses are expected within the tumor and in the close proximity of the tumor during radionuclide therapy. The determination of the absorbed dose to the tissue and on a (sub-)cellular scale are a prerequisite for defining dose-effect relationships, both in estimating (pre-)clinical therapy outcome and normal tissue toxicity as well as in assessing the cellular and molecular mechanisms, including repair capacity (Fig. 2).

With the ambition to maximize the benefits of radiopharmaceutical products that are effective and safe for each individual patient, preclinical and translational science undertakes dedicated research to understand the biological characteristics of tumor and normal tissue intrinsic radiosensitivities and the fundamental biological mechanisms underlying the therapeutic and short- and long-term cytotoxic effects of radiopharmaceutical products, as well as determining the dose-effect relationship herein (Fig. 2) [9‐11]. Essential aspects to investigate related to patient- and tumor-specific radiosensitivities include genetic background and underlying anomalies that impact radiosensitivity, target distribution, tumor heterogeneity, tumor micro-environment, and tumor growth and metastatic spread. Important endpoints to be assessed in tumor and healthy tissue responses are DNA damage, damage to other cell elements, death and survival pathways, oxidative stress and inflammation, effect on the immune and systemic reactions, and repair capacities. To this end, high-end molecular and cellular biology tools, omics data analyses (proteomic, transcriptomic, genomic, radiomics) as well as bioimaging (microscopy, PET/CT or SPECT/CT, autoradiography) are available. As such, radiobiological data may reveal patient-specific radiation sensitivity traits useful as predictive biomarkers of response for a personalized radionuclide therapy regimen (e.g., genomic traits, target level and distribution, anomalies in signaling pathways altering radiosensitivity) as well as biomarkers useful for therapy response monitoring, both on a therapeutic aspect as well as for normal tissue damage. Radiobiological findings may also be used as input for the development of radiosensitizers or radioprotectant agents. Moreover, the radiobiology of fractionation schemes (how many/how much activity per fraction) as well as the radiobiology of combination therapies (combinations of radionuclide therapy with chemotherapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, immunotherapy, hormone therapy, or radiosensitizers) [9, 25] is not well explored and could be helpful in defining optimal treatment strategies. Finally, standardization of biological study protocols as well as depositing study data in repositories is required to allow comparison and combining of cohorts.

Some publications, regarding both external and internal irradiation, indicate that there is a very low dose range (< 10 mGy) which shows a different dose response compared to higher doses [99, 104‐107]. Therefore, extrapolating from higher absorbed doses and dose rates to very low doses and dose rates is not straightforward and needs further research. It is likely that other, different, biological responses exist after low-dose and high-dose ionizing radiation exposure using radiopharmaceuticals for both tumor and normal tissues.

Investigating low-dose radiation effects in nuclear medicine

The linear-no-threshold (LNT) model based on the extrapolation of epidemiological data at high absorbed doses is currently used to estimate the risk at low doses [108], although this is a matter of debate [109, 110]. An important aspect of the justification of using this model is that radiation carcinogenesis has been assumed to be primarily driven by the damage to the DNA and subsequent mutation of growth-regulating genes in target cells. Yet, a number of other potential mechanisms contributing to and modulating radiation carcinogenesis have been proposed, including epigenetic mechanisms of gene regulation such as DNA methylation and miRNA expression, transmissible genomic instability, bystander effects, and adaptive response. The extent to which these modulating effects and non-mutational mechanisms challenge the validity of the LNT risk extrapolation model needs to be determined. For this purpose, the use of well-validated animal and human cellular/tissue models of radiation carcinogenesis (both solid cancers and leukemias) is required. In addition, also non-cancer effects (e.g., cardiovascular and neurocognitive) should be considered and studied [111].

The key question here is whether the LNT model is valid for internal radiation exposure such as that encountered from nuclear medicine procedures with typically low dose rates, heterogeneous dose distributions, and a protracted nature of exposure. Therefore, the determination of corresponding low-dose-effect relationships can be a basis for risk assessment also in radiation protection (ALARA, LNT hypothesis, second cancer risk), e.g., in medical imaging or staff exposure.

To describe and monitor such effects, studies are needed to identify biomarkers for assessing short-term or medium-/long-term stochastic radiation risks (cancer and non-cancer) that (1) are sufficiently sensitive in the low-dose range (< 100 mGy), (2) are strongly linked to medium-/long-term side effects of ionizing radiation, and (3) possess definite dose/dose rate/dose fractionation/radiation quality dependencies.

Investigating therapeutic radiation effects in nuclear medicine

Currently, dose-effect relations are not fully utilized in most radionuclide therapies, as these therapies are given at a minimal activity that is deemed safe in all patients and effective to some extent. This often results in suboptimal therapy delivery. Radioembolization therapies arguably form the exception to this rule, as both normal liver thresholds and tumor target absorbed doses are considered as input to the treatment planning of these therapies.

More studies should be undertaken to determine TCP and NTCP curves for specific radionuclide therapies. In this context, radiobiological data (e.g., LQ α/β parameters and repair kinetics) can serve as input for better dose-effect modeling [58, 59, 65, 70] taking into account the radiation quality, dose rate, dose fractionation, and dose distribution on the tissue as well as on the (sub)cellular scale [60]. Finally, results from comparison studies with external beam radiation therapy could inform on better treatment strategies in nuclear medicine.

Radiobiology and dosimetry should be integrated in all stages of the development of individualized radionuclide therapy drugs. Preclinical experiments should deliver the radiobiological data through standardized and controlled settings with multiple cancer models to study response variability. Radiobiological concepts should ideally form the basis for the design of clinical trial protocols. Phase I studies focus on safety and thus should consider both absorbed dose and individual patient radiosensitivity. Phase II studies should ideally be based on absorbed dose thresholds and individual radiosensitivity. In many cases, the choice is made for a phase II trial with fixed activity at the maximum tolerable activity from phase I in order to simplify the clinical protocol. However, without absorbed doses available, it is impossible to build knowledge on dose-effect relationships and prospective clinical trials based on individually absorbed doses are crucial [67].

Discussion

Radiobiological knowledge is not yet used in many nuclear medicine applications, or it is used only in a basic phenomenological manner, such as that integrated in the model of biologically effective dose (BED). This can be attributed to two main reasons:

Detailed radiobiological knowledge is currently not readily available, because of

The specifics of nuclear medicine procedures and their multiple parameters involved (dose, dose rate, individual DNA repair capacity, …) as well as the heterogeneity of the conditions being treated.

The complexity of its integration into the clinical procedures for example due to technical constraints (e.g., microscopes, bone marrow biopsies) or missing know-how.

The associated patient load (time per patient per measurement).

The resources and costs associated (personnel, supplies, and others).

The phenomenological parameters (LQ α/β parameters, DNA repair) known from EBRT are incorrectly thought to suffice fully for the needs of all nuclear medicine applications.

All of the above points need to be addressed for continued improvement of nuclear medicine procedures, including the adequate integration of radiobiology. To solve item 1.a requires intensified research as previously discussed, while item 1.b needs education and training of all involved, scientists and physicians. Both call for the need of standardized procedures to produce reliable data. Lastly, items 1.c and 1.d are an issue for cost-benefit analysis which is mandatory for all medical procedures. This applies also to item 2 whose applicability and justification should be applied adhering to the requirements of best available science and cost-benefit analysis.

Thus, to develop an optimal nuclear medicine procedure one needs to acquire and include all knowledge and appropriate commitment from all involved in the process. This will inevitably include time investment from the patient for more measurements. Such collection of data and inclusion of a priori knowledge is the required input for a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. Implemented therapies will then be well founded, both scientifically and in terms of cost and effort.

Conclusion

While the role of radiobiology for diagnostics remains to be clarified, there is a clear role for radiobiology in optimizing the benefits of therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals to ensure that they are effective and safe for each individual patient. Just as radiobiology data are routinely used in EBRT treatment planning, nuclear medicine could also benefit from a deeper integration of such data. Therefore, there is a need to better define the dose-effect relationships of systemic ionizing radiation for tumors as well as for normal tissue. As absorbed dose rates and absorbed dose distributions in space and time are very different between external irradiation and systemic radionuclide exposure, distinct radiation-induced biological responses are expected in nuclear medicine and need to be explored. It is expected that a better understanding of radiobiological parameters can contribute to fully exploit the capabilities of new and existing nuclear medicine applications to be effective and safe for each individual patient. To this end, a strong link between radiochemists, radiopharmacists, radiobiologists, medical physicists, and physicians is warranted to design sound study designs. In particular, the inclusion of radiobiologists in the clinical team will be advantageous.

Acknowledgments

We thank all EANM committee members, who responded to the nuclear medicine radiobiology questionnaire by the EANM Radiobiology Working Group, for their valuable input.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

M.L. has received research grants by IPSEN Pharma and Nordic Nanovector. A.A., G.G., M.K., S.H., R.H, and F.v.L. have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. U.E., L.S. and R.H. have no conflicts of interest to declare. M.L. and R.H. are members of the EANM board. The other authors are members of the following EANM committees: Radiation Protection (G.G., S.H.); Dosimetry (U.E., M.K., L.S.); Translational Molecular Imaging & Therapy (A.A., F.v.L.).

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

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/.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Jetzt e.Med zum Sonderpreis bestellen!

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Jetzt bestellen und 100 € sparen!

Jetzt testen ¹

e.Med Radiologie

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Radiologie erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen des Fachgebietes Radiologie, den Premium-Inhalten der radiologischen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten Radiologie-Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Jetzt testen ²

EURAMED represents the European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), the European Federation of Organizations for Medical Physics (EFOMP), the European Federation of Radiographer Societies (EFRS), the European Society of Radiology (ESR), and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO).

Eberlein U, Bröer JH, Vandevoorde C, Santos P, Bardiès M, Bacher K, et al. Biokinetics and dosimetry of commonly used radiopharmaceuticals in diagnostic nuclear medicine – a review. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:2269–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-011-1904-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Chawla SC, Federman N, Zhang D, Nagata K, Nuthakki S, McNitt-Gray M, et al. Estimated cumulative radiation dose from PET/CT in children with malignancies: a 5-year retrospective review. Pediatr Radiol. 2010;40:681–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-009-1434-z.CrossRefPubMed

Bodei L, Mueller-Brand J, Baum RP, Pavel ME, Hörsch D, O'Dorisio MS, et al. The joint IAEA, EANM, and SNMMI practical guidance on peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRNT) in neuroendocrine tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:800–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-012-2330-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Strigari L, Konijnenberg M, Chiesa C, Bardies M, Du Y, Gleisner KS, 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;41:1976–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2824-5.CrossRefPubMed

Jia X, Guo K, Gao R, Yu Y, Yang A. Radiosensitivity-related postirradiation hypothyroidism in Graves’ disease patients. Hormones (Athens). 2019;18:267–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42000-019-00123-7.CrossRef

De-Colle C, Yaromina A, Hennenlotter J, Thames H, Mueller AC, Neumann T, et al. Ex vivo γH2AX radiation sensitivity assay in prostate cancer: inter-patient and intra-patient heterogeneity. Radiother Oncol. 2017;124:386–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2017.08.020.CrossRefPubMed

Eberlein U, Nowak C, Bluemel C, Buck AK, Werner RA, Scherthan H, et al. DNA damage in blood lymphocytes in patients after ¹⁷⁷Lu peptide receptor radionuclide therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:1739–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-015-3083-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kratochwil C, Giesel FL, Heussel CP, Kazdal D, Endris V, Nientiedt C, et al. Patients resistant against PSMA-targeting α-radiation therapy often harbor mutations in DNA damage-repair-associated genes. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:683–8. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.234559.CrossRefPubMed

Terry SYA, Nonnekens J, Aerts A, Baatout S, de Jong M, Cornelissen B, et al. Call to arms: need for radiobiology in molecular radionuclide therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:1588–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04334-3.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Morris ZS, Wang AZ, Knox SJ. The radiobiology of radiopharmaceuticals. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2021;31:20–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semradonc.2020.07.002.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Verburg FA, Nonnekens J, Konijnenberg MW, de Jong M. To go where no one has gone before: the necessity of radiobiology studies for exploration beyond the limits of the “holy Gray” in radionuclide therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05147-5.

12.

Eberlein U, Scherthan H, Bluemel C, Peper M, Lapa C, Buck AK, et al. DNA damage in peripheral blood lymphocytes of thyroid cancer patients after radioiodine therapy. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:173–9. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.164814.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Schumann S, Eberlein U, Muhtadi R, Lassmann M, Scherthan H. DNA damage in leukocytes after internal ex-vivo irradiation of blood with the alpha-emitter Ra-223. Sci Rep. 2018;8:2286. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-20364-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Schumann S, Scherthan H, Lapa C, Serfling S, Muhtadi R, Lassmann M, et al. DNA damage in blood leucocytes of prostate cancer patients during therapy with (¹⁷⁷)Lu-PSMA. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:1723–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04317-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Denoyer D, Lobachevsky P, Jackson P, Thompson M, Martin OA, Hicks RJ. Analysis of ¹⁷⁷Lu-DOTA-octreotate therapy-induced DNA damage in peripheral blood lymphocytes of patients with neuroendocrine tumors. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:505–11. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.114.145581.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Schumann S, Eberlein U, Lapa C, Müller J, Serfling S, Lassmann M, et al. α-Particle-induced DNA damage tracks in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of [²²³Ra]RaCl₂-treated prostate cancer patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05170-6.

17.

Dalm SU, Nonnekens J, Doeswijk GN, de Blois E, van Gent DC, Konijnenberg MW, et al. Comparison of the therapeutic response to treatment with a ¹⁷⁷Lu-labeled somatostatin receptor agonist and antagonist in preclinical models. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:260–5. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.167007.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Nonnekens J, Chatalic KL, Molkenboer-Kuenen JD, Beerens CE, Bruchertseifer F, Morgenstern A, et al. ²¹³Bi-labeled prostate-specific membrane antigen-targeting agents induce DNA double-strand breaks in prostate cancer xenografts. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2017;32:67–73. https://doi.org/10.1089/cbr.2016.2155.CrossRefPubMed

19.

O'Neill E, Kersemans V, Allen PD, Terry SYA, Torres JB, Mosley M, et al. Imaging DNA damage repair in vivo after ¹⁷⁷Lu-DOTATATE therapy. J Nucl Med. 2020;61:743–50. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.232934.

20.

Poty S, Mandleywala K, O'Neill E, Knight JC, Cornelissen B, Lewis JS. ⁸⁹Zr-PET imaging of DNA double-strand breaks for the early monitoring of response following α- and β-particle radioimmunotherapy in a mouse model of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Theranostics. 2020;10:5802–14. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.44772.

21.

Pichard A, Marcatili S, Karam J, Constanzo J, Ladjohounlou R, Courteau A, et al. The therapeutic effectiveness of ¹⁷⁷Lu-lilotomab in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma involves modulation of G2/M cell cycle arrest. Leukemia. 2020;34:1315–28. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-019-0677-4.

22.

Othman MFB, Verger E, Costa I, Tanapirakgul M, Cooper MS, Imberti C, et al. In vitro cytotoxicity of Auger electron-emitting [⁶⁷Ga]Ga-trastuzumab. Nucl Med Biol. 2020;80–81:57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2019.12.004.

23.

Othman MF, Mitry NR, Lewington VJ, Blower PJ, Terry SY. Re-assessing gallium-67 as a therapeutic radionuclide. Nucl Med Biol. 2017;46:12–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2016.10.008.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Hofving T, Sandblom V, Arvidsson Y, Shubbar E, Altiparmak G, Swanpalmer J, et al. ¹⁷⁷Lu-octreotate therapy for neuroendocrine tumours is enhanced by Hsp90 inhibition. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2019;26:437–49. https://doi.org/10.1530/erc-18-0509.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Chan T, O'Neill E, Habjan C, Cornelissen B. Combination strategies to improve targeted radionuclide therapy. J Nucl Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.248062.

26.

Nonnekens J, van Kranenburg M, Beerens CE, Suker M, Doukas M, van Eijck CH, et al. Potentiation of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy by the PARP inhibitor olaparib. Theranostics. 2016;6:1821–32. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.15311.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Purohit NK, Shah RG, Adant S, Hoepfner M, Shah GM, Beauregard JM. Potentiation of ¹⁷⁷Lu-octreotate peptide receptor radionuclide therapy of human neuroendocrine tumor cells by PARP inhibitor. Oncotarget. 2018;9:24693–706. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.25266.

28.

Cullinane C, Waldeck K, Kirby L, Rogers BE, Eu P, Tothill RW, et al. Enhancing the anti-tumour activity of ¹⁷⁷Lu-DOTA-octreotate radionuclide therapy in somatostatin receptor-2 expressing tumour models by targeting PARP. Sci Rep. 2020;10:10196. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-67199-9.

29.

Lundsten S, Spiegelberg D, Stenerlöw B, Nestor M. The HSP90 inhibitor onalespib potentiates ¹⁷⁷LuDOTATATE therapy in neuroendocrine tumor cells. Int J Oncol. 2019;55:1287–95. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2019.4888.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Claringbold PG, Price RA, Turner JH. Phase I–II study of radiopeptide ¹⁷⁷Lu-octreotate in combination with capecitabine and temozolomide in advanced low-grade neuroendocrine tumors. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2012;27:561–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/cbr.2012.1276.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Claringbold PG, Brayshaw PA, Price RA, Turner JH. Phase II study of radiopeptide ¹⁷⁷Lu-octreotate and capecitabine therapy of progressive disseminated neuroendocrine tumours. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:302–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-010-1631-x.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Bison SM, Haeck JC, Bol K, Koelewijn SJ, Groen HC, Melis M, et al. Optimization of combined temozolomide and peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) in mice after multimodality molecular imaging studies. EJNMMI Res. 2015;5:62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-015-0142-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Spetz J, Langen B, Rudqvist N, Parris TZ, Helou K, Nilsson O, et al. Hedgehog inhibitor sonidegib potentiates ¹⁷⁷Lu-octreotate therapy of GOT1 human small intestine neuroendocrine tumors in nude mice. BMC Cancer. 2017;17:528. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3524-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Elf AK, Bernhardt P, Hofving T, Arvidsson Y, Forssell-Aronsson E, Wängberg B, et al. NAMPT inhibitor GMX1778 enhances the efficacy of ¹⁷⁷Lu-DOTATATE treatment of neuroendocrine tumors. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:288–92. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.177584.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Lewin J, Cullinane C, Akhurst T, Waldeck K, Watkins DN, Rao A, et al. Peptide receptor chemoradionuclide therapy in small cell carcinoma: from bench to bedside. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2015;42:25–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-014-2888-2.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Tesson M, Rae C, Nixon C, Babich JW, Mairs RJ. Preliminary evaluation of prostate-targeted radiotherapy using ¹³¹I-MIP-1095 in combination with radiosensitising chemotherapeutic drugs. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2016;68:912–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/jphp.12558.

37.

Corroyer-Dulmont A, Falzone N, Kersemans V, Thompson J, Allen DP, Able S, et al. Improved outcome of ¹³¹I-mIBG treatment through combination with external beam radiotherapy in the SK-N-SH mouse model of neuroblastoma. Radiother Oncol. 2017;124:488–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2017.05.002.

38.

Taelman VF, Radojewski P, Marincek N, Ben-Shlomo A, Grotzky A, Olariu CI, et al. Upregulation of key molecules for targeted imaging and therapy. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:1805–10. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.165092.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Veenstra MJ, van Koetsveld PM, Dogan F, Farrell WE, Feelders RA, Lamberts SWJ, et al. Epidrug-induced upregulation of functional somatostatin type 2 receptors in human pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor cells. Oncotarget. 2018;9:14791–802. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.9462.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Tian L, Chen Q, Yi X, Wang G, Chen J, Ning P, et al. Radionuclide I-131 labeled albumin-paclitaxel nanoparticles for synergistic combined chemo-radioisotope therapy of cancer. Theranostics. 2017;7:614–23. https://doi.org/10.7150/thno.17381.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Andersson CK, Shubbar E, Schüler E, Åkerström B, Gram M, Forssell-Aronsson EB. Recombinant α(1)-microglobulin is a potential kidney protector in ¹⁷⁷Lu-octreotate treatment of neuroendocrine tumors. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:1600–4. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.225243.

42.

Falzone N, Lee BQ, Able S, Malcolm J, Terry S, Alayed Y, et al. Targeting micrometastases: the effect of heterogeneous radionuclide distribution on tumor control probability. J Nucl Med. 2018;60:250–8. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.117.207308.CrossRef

43.

Feijtel D, Doeswijk GN, Verkaik NS, Haeck JC, Chicco D, Angotti C, et al. Inter and intra-tumor somatostatin receptor 2 heterogeneity influences peptide receptor radionuclide therapy response. Theranostics. 2021;11.

44.

Bodei L, Kidd MS, Singh A, van der Zwan WA, Severi S, Drozdov IA, et al. PRRT genomic signature in blood for prediction of ¹⁷⁷Lu-octreotate efficacy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2018;45:1155–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-018-3967-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Bodei L, Kidd MS, Singh A, van der Zwan WA, Severi S, Drozdov IA, et al. PRRT neuroendocrine tumor response monitored using circulating transcript analysis: the NETest. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2020;47:895–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04601-3.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Ćwikła JB, Bodei L, Kolasinska-Ćwikła A, Sankowski A, Modlin IM, Kidd M. Circulating transcript analysis (NETest) in GEP-NETs treated with somatostatin analogs defines therapy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100:E1437–45. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2015-2792.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Spetz J, Rudqvist N, Langen B, Parris TZ, Dalmo J, Schüler E, et al. Time-dependent transcriptional response of GOT1 human small intestine neuroendocrine tumor after ¹⁷⁷Lu[Lu]-octreotate therapy. Nucl Med Biol. 2018;60:11–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2018.01.006.

48.

Rudqvist N, Spetz J, Schüler E, Parris TZ, Langen B, Helou K, et al. Transcriptional response to ¹³¹I exposure of rat thyroid gland. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0171797. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171797.

49.

Langen B, Rudqvist N, Helou K, Forssell-Aronsson E. Microarray studies on ²¹¹At administration in BALB/c nude mice indicate systemic effects on transcriptional regulation in nonthyroid tissues. J Nucl Med. 2017;58:346–53. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.116.176958.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Schüler E, Rudqvist N, Parris TZ, Langen B, Helou K, Forssell-Aronsson E. Transcriptional response of kidney tissue after ¹⁷⁷Lu-octreotate administration in mice. Nucl Med Biol. 2014;41:238–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucmedbio.2013.12.001.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Chan HS, de Blois E, Morgenstern A, Bruchertseifer F, de Jong M, Breeman W, et al. In vitro comparison of ²¹³Bi- and ¹⁷⁷Lu-radiation for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0181473. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181473.

52.

Kumar C, Jayakumar S, Pandey BN, Samuel G, Venkatesh M. Cellular and molecular effects of beta radiation from I-131 on human tumor cells: a comparison with gamma radiation. Curr Radiopharm. 2014;7:138–43. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874471007666140716115938.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Müller C, Umbricht CA, Gracheva N, Tschan VJ, Pellegrini G, Bernhardt P, et al. Terbium-161 for PSMA-targeted radionuclide therapy of prostate cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:1919–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04345-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Paillas S, Ladjohounlou R, Lozza C, Pichard A, Boudousq V, Jarlier M, et al. Localized irradiation of Cell Membrane by Auger Electrons Is Cytotoxic Through Oxidative Stress-Mediated Nontargeted Effects. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2016;25:467–84. https://doi.org/10.1089/ars.2015.6309.

55.

Ladjohounlou R, Lozza C, Pichard A, Constanzo J, Karam J, Le Fur P, et al. Drugs that modify cholesterol metabolism Alter the p38/JNK-mediated targeted and nontargeted response to alpha and auger radioimmunotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25:4775–90. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.Ccr-18-3295.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Tamborino G, De Saint-Hubert M, Struelens L, Seoane DC, Ruigrok EAM, Aerts A, et al. Cellular dosimetry of [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTA-[Tyr³]octreotate radionuclide therapy: the impact of modeling assumptions on the correlation with in vitro cytotoxicity. EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-020-0276-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

57.

Alcocer-Ávila ME, Ferreira A, Quinto MA, Morgat C, Hindié E, Champion C. Radiation doses from ¹⁶¹Tb and ¹⁷⁷Lu in single tumour cells and micrometastases. EJNMMI Phys. 2020;7:33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-020-00301-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

58.

Strigari L, Benassi M, Chiesa C, Cremonesi M, Bodei L, D'Andrea M. Dosimetry in nuclear medicine therapy: radiobiology application and results. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;55:205–21.PubMed

59.

Sarnelli A, Guerriero F, Botta F, Ferrari M, Strigari L, Bodei L, et al. Therapeutic schemes in ¹⁷⁷Lu and ⁹⁰Y-PRRT: radiobiological considerations. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;61:216–31. https://doi.org/10.23736/s1824-4785.16.02744-8.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Hobbs RF, Howell RW, Song H, Baechler S, Sgouros G. Redefining relative biological effectiveness in the context of the EQDX formalism: implications for alpha-particle emitter therapy. Radiat Res. 2014;181:90–8. https://doi.org/10.1667/rr13483.1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

61.

Dale R, Carabe-Fernandez A. The radiobiology of conventional radiotherapy and its application to radionuclide therapy. Cancer Biother Radiopharm. 2005;20:47–51. https://doi.org/10.1089/cbr.2005.20.47.CrossRefPubMed

62.

Wessels BW, Konijnenberg MW, Dale RG, Breitz HB, Cremonesi M, Meredith RF, et al. MIRD pamphlet no. 20: the effect of model assumptions on kidney dosimetry and response—implications for radionuclide therapy. J Nucl Med. 2008;49:1884–99. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.108.053173.CrossRefPubMed

63.

Gustafsson J, Nilsson P, Gleisner KS. On the biologically effective dose (BED)-using convolution for calculating the effects of repair: I. Analytical considerations. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58:1507–27. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/58/5/1507.CrossRefPubMed

64.

Gustafsson J, Nilsson P, Gleisner KS. On the biologically effective dose (BED)-using convolution for calculating the effects of repair: II. Numerical considerations. Phys Med Biol. 2013;58:1529–48. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/58/5/1529.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Strigari L, Sciuto R, Benassi M, Bergomi S, Nocentini S, Maini CL. A NTCP approach for estimating the outcome in radioiodine treatment of hyperthyroidism. Med Phys. 2008;35:3903–10. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2964089.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Walrand S, Hesse M, Jamar F. Statistical and radiobiological analysis of the so-called thyroid stunning. EJNMMI Res. 2015;5:67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-015-0144-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

67.

Garin E, Tselikas L, Guiu B, Chalaye J, Edeline J, de Baere T, 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. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-1253(20)30290-9.

68.

Walrand S, Hesse M, Jamar F, Lhommel R. A hepatic dose-toxicity model opening the way toward individualized radioembolization planning. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:1317–22. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.113.135301.CrossRefPubMed

69.

Sundlöv A, Sjogreen-Gleisner K, Svensson J, Ljungberg M, Olsson T, Bernhardt P, et al. Individualised ¹⁷⁷Lu-DOTATATE treatment of neuroendocrine tumours based on kidney dosimetry. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2017;44:1480–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-017-3678-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

70.

Jiménez-Franco LD, Kletting P, Beer AJ, Glatting G. Treatment planning algorithm for peptide receptor radionuclide therapy considering multiple tumor lesions and organs at risk. Med Phys. 2018;45:3516–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13049.CrossRef

71.

Mínguez P, Gustafsson J, Flux G, Gleisner KS. Biologically effective dose in fractionated molecular radiotherapy—application to treatment of neuroblastoma with ¹³¹I-mIBG. Phys Med Biol. 2016;61:2532–51. https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/61/6/2532.

72.

Flux GD, Chittenden SJ, Saran F, Gaze MN. Clinical applications of dosimetry for mIBG therapy. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;55:116–25.PubMed

73.

Kletting P, Thieme A, Eberhardt N, Rinscheid A, D'Alessandria C, Allmann J, et al. Modeling and predicting tumor response in radioligand therapy. J Nucl Med. 2019;60:65–70. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.210377.CrossRefPubMed

74.

Draeger E, Sawant A, Johnstone C, Koger B, Becker S, Vujaskovic Z, et al. A dose of reality: how 20 years of incomplete physics and dosimetry reporting in radiobiology studies may have contributed to the reproducibility crisis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020;106:243–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.06.2545.CrossRefPubMed

75.

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

76.

Castellucci P, Deandreis D, Krizsán A, Mirzaei S, Prior J, Sattler B, et al. European nuclear medicine guide. A joint publication by EANM and UEMS/EBNM 2020.

77.

Bolus NE. Basic review of radiation biology and terminology. J Nucl Med Technol. 2017;45:259–64. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnmt.117.195230.CrossRefPubMed

78.

Reisz JA, Bansal N, Qian J, Zhao W, Furdui CM. Effects of ionizing radiation on biological molecules—mechanisms of damage and emerging methods of detection. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2014;21:260–92. https://doi.org/10.1089/ars.2013.5489.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

79.

Baselet B, Sonveaux P, Baatout S, Aerts A. Pathological effects of ionizing radiation: endothelial activation and dysfunction. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2019;76:699–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-018-2956-z.CrossRefPubMed

80.

Somosy Z. Radiation response of cell organelles. Micron. 2000;31:165–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0968-4328(99)00083-9.CrossRefPubMed

81.

McKelvey KJ, Hudson AL, Back M, Eade T, Diakos CI. Radiation, inflammation and the immune response in cancer. Mamm Genome. 2018;29:843–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00335-018-9777-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

82.

Ramadan R, Baatout S, Aerts A, Leybaert L. The role of connexin proteins and their channels in radiation-induced atherosclerosis. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00018-020-03716-3.

83.

Kirsch DG, Diehn M, Kesarwala AH, Maity A, Morgan MA, Schwarz JK, et al. The future of radiobiology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018;110:329–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djx231.CrossRefPubMed

84.

Shirato H, Le QT, Kobashi K, Prayongrat A, Takao S, Shimizu S, et al. Selection of external beam radiotherapy approaches for precise and accurate cancer treatment. J Radiat Res. 2018;59:i2–i10. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrx092.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

85.

van Leeuwen CM, Oei AL, Crezee J, Bel A, Franken NAP, Stalpers LJA, et al. The alfa and beta of tumours: a review of parameters of the linear-quadratic model, derived from clinical radiotherapy studies. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13:96. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-018-1040-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

86.

Pouget JP, Lozza C, Deshayes E, Boudousq V, Navarro-Teulon I. Introduction to radiobiology of targeted radionuclide therapy. Front Med (Lausanne). 2015;2:12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2015.00012.CrossRef

87.

Sgouros G, Bodei L, McDevitt MR, Nedrow JR. Radiopharmaceutical therapy in cancer: clinical advances and challenges. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2020;19:589–608. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41573-020-0073-9.CrossRefPubMed

88.

Strosberg J, El-Haddad G, Wolin E, Hendifar A, Yao J, Chasen B, et al. Phase 3 trial of ¹⁷⁷Lu-Dotatate for midgut neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:125–35. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1607427.

89.

Brabander T, Nonnekens J, Hofland J. The next generation of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2019;26:C7–c11. https://doi.org/10.1530/erc-19-0186.CrossRefPubMed

90.

Feijtel D, de Jong M, Nonnekens J. Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy: looking back, looking forward. Curr Top Med Chem. 2020. https://doi.org/10.2174/1568026620666200226104652.

91.

Bodei L, Schöder H, Baum RP, Herrmann K, Strosberg J, Caplin M, et al. Molecular profiling of neuroendocrine tumours to predict response and toxicity to peptide receptor radionuclide therapy. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:e431–e43. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30323-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

92.

European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM), European Federation of Organizations for Medical Physics (EFOMP), European Federation of Radiographer Societies (ESR), European Society of Radiology (ESR), European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO). Common strategic research agenda for radiation protection in medicine. Insights Imaging. 2017;8:183–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-016-0538-x.

93.

Council of the European Union. European Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom on basic safety standards for protection against the dangers arising from exposure to ionising radiation and repealing directives 89/618/Euratom, 90/641/Euratom, 96/29/Euratom, 97/43/Euratom and 2003/122/Euratom. Off J EU. 2014;L13:1–73.

94.

Konijnenberg M, Herrmann K, Kobe C, Verburg F, Hindorf C, Hustinx R, 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. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-020-05038-9.

95.

May MS, Brand M, Wuest W, Anders K, Kuwert T, Prante O, et al. Induction and repair of DNA double-strand breaks in blood lymphocytes of patients undergoing ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT examinations. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:1712–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-012-2201-1.CrossRefPubMed

96.

Schnarr K, Carter TF, Gillis D, Webber C, Lemon JA, Dayes I, et al. Biological response of positron emission tomography scan exposure and adaptive response in humans. Dose Response. 2015;13:1559325815611904. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559325815611904.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

97.

Nautiyal A, Mondal T, Mukherjee A, Mitra D, Kaushik A, Goel HC, et al. Quantification of DNA damage in patients undergoing non-contrast and contrast enhanced whole body PET/CT investigations using comet assay and micronucleus assay. Int J Radiat Biol. 2019;95:710–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2019.1577569.CrossRefPubMed

98.

Schmeiser HH, Muehlbauer KR, Mier W, Baranski AC, Neels O, Dimitrakopoulou-Strauss A, et al. DNA damage in human whole blood caused by radiopharmaceuticals evaluated by the comet assay. Mutagenesis. 2019;34:239–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/gez007.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

99.

Schumann S, Scherthan H, Frank T, Lapa C, Muller J, Seifert S, et al. DNA damage in blood leukocytes of prostate cancer patients undergoing PET/CT examinations with [⁶⁸Ga]Ga-PSMA I&T. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12:388. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12020388.CrossRef

100.

Brix G, Günther E, Rössler U, Endesfelder D, Kamp A, Beer A, et al. Double-strand breaks in lymphocyte DNA of humans exposed to [¹⁸F]fluorodeoxyglucose and the static magnetic field in PET/MRI. EJNMMI Res. 2020;10:43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13550-020-00625-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

101.

Rief M, Hartmann L, Geisel D, Richter F, Brenner W, Dewey M. DNA double-strand breaks in blood lymphocytes induced by two-day ^99mTc-MIBI myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Eur Radiol. 2018;28:3075–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5239-4.

102.

European Association of Nuclear Medicine, Flux G, Stokke C, (Editors). Internal Dosimetry Task Force Report. Treatment planning for molecular radiotherapy: potential and prospects. 2017.

103.

Stokke C, Gabiña PM, Solný P, Cicone F, Sandström M, Gleisner KS, et al. Dosimetry-based treatment planning for molecular radiotherapy: a summary of the 2017 report from the Internal Dosimetry Task Force. EJNMMI Phys. 2017;4:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40658-017-0194-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

104.

Beels L, Bacher K, De Wolf D, Werbrouck J, Thierens H. Gamma-H2AX foci as a biomarker for patient X-ray exposure in pediatric cardiac catheterization: are we underestimating radiation risks? Circulation. 2009;120:1903–9. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.109.880385.CrossRefPubMed

105.

Beels L, Werbrouck J, Thierens H. Dose response and repair kinetics of gamma-H2AX foci induced by in vitro irradiation of whole blood and T-lymphocytes with X- and gamma-radiation. Int J Radiat Biol. 2010;86:760–8. https://doi.org/10.3109/09553002.2010.484479.CrossRefPubMed

106.

Beels L, Bacher K, Smeets P, Verstraete K, Vral A, Thierens H. Dose-length product of scanners correlates with DNA damage in patients undergoing contrast CT. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:1495–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.04.063.CrossRefPubMed

107.

Vandevoorde C, Franck C, Bacher K, Breysem L, Smet MH, Ernst C, et al. γ-H2AX foci as in vivo effect biomarker in children emphasize the importance to minimize x-ray doses in paediatric CT imaging. Eur Radiol. 2015;25:800–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3463-8.CrossRefPubMed

108.

ICRP. Publication 103: The 2007 recommendations of the International Commission of Radiological Protection. Ann ICRP. 2007;37(2–4).

109.

Doss M. Are we approaching the end of the linear no-threshold era? J Nucl Med. 2018;59:1786–93. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.118.217182.CrossRefPubMed

110.

Pennington CW, Siegel JA. The linear no-threshold model of low-dose radiogenic cancer: a failed fiction. Dose Response. 2019;17:1559325818824200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1559325818824200.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

111.

Bouffler S, Auvinen A, Cardis E, Durante M, Jourdain JR, Harms-Ringdahl M, et al. Strategic Research Agenda of the Multidisciplinary European Low Dose Initiative (MELODI). 2019

Titel: EANM position paper on the role of radiobiology in nuclear medicine
verfasst von: An Aerts
Uta Eberlein
Sören Holm
Roland Hustinx
Mark Konijnenberg
Lidia Strigari
Fijs W.B. van Leeuwen
Gerhard Glatting
Michael Lassmann
Publikationsdatum: 29.04.2021
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging / Ausgabe 11/2021
Print ISSN: 1619-7070
Elektronische ISSN: 1619-7089
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05345-9

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

EANM position paper on the role of radiobiology in nuclear medicine

Executive Summary

Publisher’s note

Introduction

Radiobiology

Position of the EANM

Essential radiobiological studies

Investigating low-dose radiation effects in nuclear medicine

Investigating therapeutic radiation effects in nuclear medicine

Discussion

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Declarations

Conflict of interest

Ethical approval

Publisher’s note

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

e.Med Radiologie

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Executive Summary

Publisher’s note

Introduction

Radiobiology

Position of the EANM

Essential radiobiological studies

Investigating low-dose radiation effects in nuclear medicine

Investigating therapeutic radiation effects in nuclear medicine

Discussion

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Declarations

Conflict of interest

Ethical approval

Publisher’s note

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

e.Med Radiologie

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 11/2021

Preclinical evaluation of [225Ac]Ac-DOTA-TATE for treatment of lung neuroendocrine neoplasms

A novel deep-learning–based approach for automatic reorientation of 3D cardiac SPECT images

High-resolution radioluminescence microscopy of FDG uptake in an engineered 3D tumor-stoma model

Segmentation of white matter hyperintensities on 18F-FDG PET/CT images with a generative adversarial network

Patterns of disease detection using [18F]DCFPyL PET/CT imaging in patients with detectable PSA post prostatectomy being considered for salvage radiotherapy: a prospective trial

Prognostic value of myocardial perfusion scintigraphy in asymptomatic patients with diabetes mellitus at high cardiovascular risk: 5-year follow-up of the prospective multicenter BARDOT trial