Purpose Patient-specific dosimetry is required to ensure the safety of molecular radiotherapy and to predict response. Dosimetry involves several steps, the first of which is the determination of the activity of the radiopharmaceutical taken up by an organ/lesion over time. As uncertainties propagate along each of the subsequent steps (integration of the time–activity curve, absorbed dose calculation), establishing a reliable activity quantification is essential. The MRTDosimetry project was a European initiative to bring together expertise in metrology and nuclear medicine research, with one main goal of standardizing quantitative \(^{177}\)Lu SPECT/CT imaging based on a calibration protocol developed and tested in a multicentre inter-comparison. This study presents the setup and results of this comparison exercise. Methods The inter-comparison included nine SPECT/CT systems. Each site performed a set of three measurements with the same setup (system, acquisition and reconstruction): (1) Determination of an image calibration for conversion from counts to activity concentration (large cylinder phantom), (2) determination of recovery coefficients for partial volume correction (IEC NEMA PET body phantom with sphere inserts), (3) validation of the established quantitative imaging setup using a 3D printed two-organ phantom (ICRP110-based kidney and spleen). In contrast to previous efforts, traceability of the activity measurement was required for each participant, and all participants were asked to calculate uncertainties for their SPECT-based activities. Results Similar combinations of imaging system and reconstruction lead to similar image calibration factors. The activity ratio results of the anthropomorphic phantom validation demonstrate significant harmonization of quantitative imaging performance between the sites with all sites falling within one standard deviation of the mean values for all inserts. Activity recovery was underestimated for total kidney, spleen, and kidney cortex, while it was overestimated for the medulla. Conclusion This international comparison exercise demonstrates that harmonization of quantitative SPECT/CT is feasible when following very specific instructions of a dedicated calibration protocol, as developed within the MRTDosimetry project. While quantitative imaging performance demonstrates significant harmonization, an over- and underestimation of the activity recovery highlights the limitations of any partial volume correction in the presence of spill-in and spill-out between two adjacent volumes of interests.

C-X-C motif chemokine receptor 4 (CXCR4) and somatostatin receptors (SSTR) are overexpressed in gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NET). In this study, we aimed to elucidate the feasibility of non-invasive CXCR4 positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging in GEP-NET patients using [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor in comparison to \(^{68}\)Ga-DOTA-D-Phe-Tyr3-octreotide ([\(^{68}\)Ga]DOTATOC) and \(^{18}\)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ([\(^{18}\)F]FDG). Twelve patients with histologically proven GEP-NET (3xG1, 4xG2, 5xG3) underwent [\(^{68}\)Ga]DOTATOC, [\(^{18}\)F]FDG, and [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT for staging and planning of the therapeutic management. Scans were analyzed on a patient as well as on a lesion basis and compared to immunohistochemical staining patterns of CXCR4 and somatostatin receptors SSTR2a and SSTR5. [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor visualized tumor lesions in 6/12 subjects, whereas [\(^{18}\)F]FDG revealed sites of disease in 10/12 and [\(^{68}\)Ga]DOTATOC in 11/12 patients, respectively. Regarding sensitivity, SSTR-directed PET was the superior imaging modality in all G1 and G2 NET. CXCR4-directed PET was negative in all G1 NET. In contrast, 50% of G2 and 80% of G3 patients exhibited [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor-positive tumor lesions. Whereas CXCR4 seems to play only a limited role in detecting well-differentiated NET, increasing receptor expression could be non-invasively observed with increasing tumor grade. Thus, [\(^{68}\)Ga]Pentixafor PET/CT might serve as non-invasive read-out for evaluating the possibility of CXCR4-directed endoradiotherapy in advanced dedifferentiated SSTR-negative tumors.

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.

The EC Directive 2013/59/Euratom states in article 56 that exposures of target volumes in nuclear medicine treatments shall be individually planned and their delivery appropriately verified. The Directive also mentions that medical physics experts should always be appropriately involved in those treatments. Although it is obvious that, in nuclear medicine practice, every nuclear medicine physician and physicist should follow national rules and legislation, the EANM considered it necessary to provide guidance on how to interpret the Directive statements for nuclear medicine treatments. For this purpose, the EANM proposes to distinguish three levels in compliance to the optimization principle in the directive, inspired by the indication of levels in prescribing, recording and reporting of absorbed doses after radiotherapy defined by the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements (ICRU): Most nuclear medicine treatments currently applied in Europe are standardized. The minimum requirement for those treatments is ICRU level 1 (“activity-based prescription and patient-averaged dosimetry”), which is defined by administering the activity within 10% of the intended activity, typically according to the package insert or to the respective EANM guidelines, followed by verification of the therapy delivery, if applicable. Non-standardized treatments are essentially those in developmental phase or approved radiopharmaceuticals being used off-label with significantly (> 25% more than in the label) higher activities. These treatments should comply with ICRU level 2 (“activity-based prescription and patient-specific dosimetry”), which implies recording and reporting of the absorbed dose to organs at risk and optionally the absorbed dose to treatment regions. The EANM strongly encourages to foster research that eventually leads to treatment planning according to ICRU level 3 (“dosimetry-guided patient-specific prescription and verification”), whenever possible and relevant. Evidence for superiority of therapy prescription on basis of patient-specific dosimetry has not been obtained. However, the authors believe that a better understanding of therapy dosimetry, i.e. how much and where the energy is delivered, and radiobiology, i.e. radiation-related processes in tissues, are keys to the long-term improvement of our treatments.

Various single or multi-modality therapeutic options are available to treat pain of bone metastasis in patients with prostate cancer. Different radionuclides that emit β-rays such as 153Samarium and 89Strontium and achieve palliation are commercially available. In contrast to β-emitters, 223Radium as a α-emitter has a short path-length. The advantage of the α-emitter is thus a highly localized biological effect that is caused by radiation induced DNA double-strand breaks and subsequent cell killing and/or limited effectiveness of cellular repair mechanisms. Due to the limited range of the α-particles the bone surface to red bone marrow dose ratio is also lower for 223Radium which is expressed in a lower myelotoxicity. The α emitter 223Radium dichloride is the first radiopharmaceutical that significantly prolongs life in castrate resistant prostate cancer patients with wide-spread bone metastatic disease. In a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study 921 patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases were randomly assigned. The analysis confirmed the 223Radium survival benefit compared to the placebo (median, 14.9 mo vs 11.3 mo; P < 0.001). In addition, the treatment results in pain palliation and thus, improved quality of life and a delay of skeletal related events. At the same time the toxicity profile of 223Radium was favourable. Since May 2013, 223Radium dichloride (Xofigo®) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Core tip: The incidence rate of prostate cancer worldwide is high. Ninety percent of patients dying of prostate cancer have bone metastases with varying symptoms which are significantly impairing their quality of life. 223Radium is the first therapeutic that results in a survival benefit for patients with bone metastatic, castrate resistant prostate cancer. 223Radium was also associated with low myelosuppression rates and fewer adverse events.This article provides an overview of the pre-clinical and clinical trials with 223Radium.