Single-Time-Point Imaging for Dosimetry After [177Lu]Lu-DOTATATE: Accuracy of Existing Methods and Novel Data-Driven Models for Reducing Sensitivity to Time-Point Selection.

Abstract

Estimation of the time-integrated activity (TIA) for dosimetry from imaging at a single time point (STP) facilitates the clinical translation of dosimetry-guided radiopharmaceutical therapy. However, the accuracy of the STP methods for TIA estimation varies on the basis of time-point selection. We constructed patient data-driven regression models to reduce the sensitivity to time-point selection and to compare these new models with commonly used STP methods. Methods: SPECT/CT performed at time period (TP) 1 (3-5 h), TP2 (days 1-2), TP3 (days 3-5), and TP4 (days 6-8) after cycle 1 of [¹⁷⁷Lu]Lu-DOTATATE therapy involved 27 patients with 100 segmented tumors and 54 kidneys. Influenced by the previous physics-based STP models of Madsen et al. and Hänscheid et al., we constructed an STP prediction expression, TIA = A(t) × g(t), in a SPECT data-driven way (model 1), in which A(t) is the observed activity at imaging time t, and the curve, g(t), is estimated with a nonparametric generalized additive model by minimizing the normalized mean square error relative to the TIA derived from 4-time-point SPECT (reference TIA). Furthermore, we fit a generalized additive model that incorporates baseline biomarkers as auxiliary data in addition to the single activity measurement (model 2). Leave-one-out cross validation was performed to evaluate STP models using mean absolute error (MAE) and mean square error between the predicted and reference TIA. Results: At days 3-5, all evaluated STP methods performed very well, with an MAE of less than 7% (between-patient SD of <10%) for both kidneys and tumors. At other TPs, the Madsen method and data-driven models 1 and 2 performed reasonably well (MAEs < 17% for kidneys and < 32% for tumors), whereas the error with the Hänscheid method was substantially higher. The proof of concept of adding baseline biomarkers to the prediction model was demonstrated and showed a moderate enhancement at TP1, especially for estimating kidney TIA (MAE ± SD from 15.6% ± 1.3% to 11.8% ± 1.0%). Evaluations on 500 virtual patients using clinically relevant time-activity simulations showed a similar performance. Conclusion: The performance of the Madsen method and proposed data-driven models is less sensitive to TP selection than is the Hänscheid method. At the earliest TP, which is the most practical, the model incorporating baseline biomarkers outperforms other methods that rely only on the single activity measurement.