Radiation and Environmental Biophysics

, Volume 57, Issue 4, pp 395–404 | Cite as

Red bone marrow dose estimation using several internal dosimetry models for prospective dosimetry-oriented radioiodine therapy

  • Mohammad AbuqbeitahEmail author
  • Mustafa Demir
  • İffet Çavdar
  • Handan Tanyildizi
  • Nami Yeyin
  • Lebriz Uslu-Beşli
  • Levent Kabasakal
  • Nazenin İpek Işıkcı
  • Kerim Sönmezoğlu
Original Article


The aim of the present study was to review the available models developed for calculating red bone marrow dose in radioiodine therapy using clinical data. The study includes 18 patients (12 females and six males) with metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer. Radioiodine tracer of 73 ± 16 MBq 131I was orally administered, followed by blood sampling (2 ml) and whole-body scans (WBSs) done at several time points (2, 6, 24, 48, 72, and ≥ 96 h). Red bone marrow dose was estimated using the OLINDA/EXM 1.0, IDAC-Dose 2.1, and EANM models, the models developed by Shen and co-workers, Keizer and co-workers and Siegel and co-workers, and Traino and co-workers, as well as the single measurement model (SMM). The results were then compared to the standard reference model Revised Sgouros Model (RSM) reported by Wessels and co-workers. The mean dose deviations of the Traino, Siegel, Shen, Keizer, OLINDA/EXM, EANM, SMM, and IDAC-Dose 2.1 models from the RSM were − 17%, − 24%, 6%, − 29%, − 15%, 40%, 48%, and − 8%, respectively. The statistical analysis demonstrated no significant difference between the results obtained with the RSM and with those obtained with the Shen, Traino, OLINDA/EXM, and IDAC-Dose 2.1 models (t test; pvalue > 0.05). However, a significant difference was found between RSM doses and those obtained with the EANM, SMM, and Keizer models (t test; pvalue < 0.05). The correlation between red marrow dose from the SMM and EANM models was modest (R2 = 0.65), while the crossfire dose calculated with the OLINDA/EXM and IDAC-Dose 2.1 models were in good agreement with each other and with the reference model. The findings obtained indicate that most of the dosimetry models can be used for a reliable dosimetry, and the calculated total body doses can be considered as a reliable non-invasive option for a conservative activity planning. In addition, the excellent performance of the IDAC-Dose 2.1 model will be of particular importance for a practical and accurate dosimetry, with the advantages of allowing for the use of realistic advanced phantoms and updated dose fractions, and of providing information about the blood dose contribution to the red bone marrow.


Red marrow Dosimetry models Radioiodine therapy IDAC-Dose 2.1 



The authors would thank all the patients for their cooperation and patience.


This research did not receive any specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sector.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the current study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Istanbul University Cerrahpaşa Medical Faculty Clinical Research Ethics Committee approved this study (document number: 83045809/604/02-8877).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all the individual participants included in the study.


  1. Andersson M, Johansson L, Eckerman K, Mattsson S (2017) IDAC-Dose 2.1, an Internal dosimetry program for diagnostic nuclear medicine based on the ICRP adult reference voxel phantoms. EJNMMI Res 7(1):88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benua RS, Cicale NR, Sonenberg M, Rawson RW (1962) The relation of radioiodine dosimetry to results and complications in the treatment of metastatic thyroid cancer. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 87:171–182Google Scholar
  3. Bernier O, Leenhardt L, Hoang C, Aurengo A, Mary JY, Menegaux F, Enkaoua E, Turpin G, Chiras J, Saillant G, Hejblum G (2001) Survival and therapeutic modalities in patients with bone metastases of differentiated thyroid carcinomas. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86:1568–1573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brans B, Bodei L, Giammarile F, Linden O, Luster M, Oyen G, Tennvall J (2007) Clinical radionuclide therapy dosimetry: the quest for the “Holy Gray”. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 34:772–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breitz B, Durham JS, Fisher DR, Weiden PL, DeNardo GL, Goodgold HM, Nelp WB (1995) Pharmacokinetics and normal organ dosimetry following intraperitoneal rhenium-186-labeled monoclonal antibody. J Nucl Med 36:754–761Google Scholar
  6. Chiesa C, Castellani MR, Vellani C, Orunesu E, Negri A, Azzeroni R, Botta F, Maccauro M, Aliberti G, Seregni E, Lassmann M, Bombardieri E (2009) Individualized dosimetry in the management of metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 53:546–561Google Scholar
  7. Council of the European Union (2013) Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM. Off J Eur Union 56:216Google Scholar
  8. De Keizer B, Hoekstra A, Konijnenberg MW, Devos F, Lambert B, Van RP, Lips M, de Klerk JH (2004) Bone marrow dosimetry and safety of high 131I activities given after recombinant human thyroid-stimulating hormone to treat metastatic differentiated thyroid cancer. J Nucl Med 45:1549–1554Google Scholar
  9. Franzius C, Dietlein M, Biermann MF, Fruhwald M, Linden T, Bucsky P, Reiners C, Schober O (2007) Procedure guideline for radioiodine therapy and 131iodine whole-body scintigraphy in paediatric patients with differentiated thyroid cancer. Nuklearmedizin 46(5):224–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hänscheid H, Lassmann M, Luster M, Kloos RT, Reiners C (2009) Blood dosimetry from a single measurement of the whole body radioiodine retention in patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Endocr Relat Cancer 16:1283–1289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hänscheid H, Canzi C, Eschner W, Flux G, Luster M, Strigari L, Lassmann M (2013) EANM dosimetry committee series on standard operational procedures for pretherapeutic dosimetry II. Dosimetry prior to radioiodine therapy of benign thyroid diseases. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 40:1126–1134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hindorf C, Glatting G, Chiesa C, Lindén O, Flux G (2010) EANM dosimetry committee guidelines for bone marrow and whole-body dosimetry. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37(4):821–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ICRP (2002) Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection reference values. ICRP Publication 89. Annals of ICRP, vol 32, issue 3–4Google Scholar
  14. ICRP (2008) Nuclear Decay Data for Dosimetric Calculations. ICRP Publication 107. Annals of ICRP, vol 38, issue 3Google Scholar
  15. ICRP (2009) Adult Reference Computational Phantoms. ICRP Publication 110. Annals of ICRP, vol 39, issue 2Google Scholar
  16. ICRP (2016) The ICRP computational framework for internal dose assessment for reference adults: specific absorbed fractions. ICRP Publication 133 Ann ICRP 45(2):1–74Google Scholar
  17. Klubo-Gwiezdzinska J, Van Nostrand D. Atkins F, Burman K, Jonklaas J, Mete M, Wartofsky L (2011) Efficacy of dosimetric versus empiric prescribed activity of 131I for therapy of differentiated thyroid cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96:3217–3225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lamart S, Bouville A, Simon SL, Eckerman KF, Melo D, Lee C (2011) Comparison of internal dosimetry factors for three classes of adult computational phantoms with emphasis on I-131 in the thyroid. Phys Med Biol 56(22):7317–7335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lamart S, Simon SL, Bouville A, Moroz BE, Lee C (2016) S values for 131I based on the ICRP adult voxel phantoms. Radiat Prot Dosim 168(1):92–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lassmann M, Hänscheid H, Chiesa C, Hindorf C, Flux G, Luster M (2008) EANM Dosimetry Committee series on standard operational procedures for pre-therapeutic dosimetry I: blood and bone marrow dosimetry in differentiated thyroid cancer therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35:1405–1412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lassmann M, Reiners C, Luster M (2010) Dosimetry and thyroid cancer: the individual dosage of radioiodine. Endocr Relat Cancer 17(3):R161–R172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee JJ, Chung JK, Kim SE, Kang WJ, Park DJ, Lee DS, Cho BY, Lee MC (2008) Maximal safe dose of I-131 after failure of standard fixed dose therapy in patients with differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Ann Nucl Med 22:727–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luster M, Clarke SE, Dietlein M, Lassmann M, Lind P, Oyen WG, Tennvall J, Bombardieri E (2008) Guidelines for radioiodine therapy of differentiated thyroid cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 35(10):1941–1959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mazzaferri EL, Kloos RT (2001) Clinical review 128: Current approaches to primary therapy for papillary and follicular thyroid cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 86(4):1447–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pearson TC, Guthrie DL, Simpson J, Chinn S, Barosi G, Ferrant A, Lewis SM, Najean Y (1995) Interpretation of measured red cell mass and plasma volume in adults: Expert Panel on Radionuclides of the International Council for Standardization in Haematology. Br J Haematol 89:748–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Salvatori M, Luster M (2010) Radioiodine therapy dosimetry in benign thyroid disease and differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37(4):821–828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shen S, DeNardo GL, Sgouros G, O’Donnell RT, DeNardo SJ (1999) Practical determination of patient-specific marrow dose using radioactivity concentration in blood and body. J Nucl Med 40:2102–2106Google Scholar
  28. Siegel JA (2005) Establishing a clinically meaningful predictive model of hematologic toxicity in nonmyeloablative targeted radiotherapy: practical aspects and limitations of red marrow dosimetry. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 20:126–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Siegel JA, Thomas SR, Stubbs JB, Stabin MG, Hays MT, Koral KF, Robertson JS, Howell RW, Wessels BW, Fisher DR, Weber D, Brill B (1999) MIRD pamphlet no. 16: Techniques for quantitative radiopharmaceutical biodistribution data acquisition and analysis for use in human radiation dose estimates. J Nucl Med 40:37S– 61SGoogle Scholar
  30. Stabin MG, Parks RB, Crowe E (2005) OLINDA/EXM: the second-generation personal computer software for internal dose assessment in nuclear medicine. J Nucl Med 46:1023–1027ADSGoogle Scholar
  31. Stabin MG, Xu X, Emmons M, Segars W, Shi C, Fernald J (2012) RADAR reference adult, pediatric, and pregnant female phantom series for internal and external dosimetry. J Nucl Med 53(11):1807–1813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Traino AC, Ferrari M, Cremonesi M, Stabin MG (2007) Influence of total-body mass on the scaling of S -factors for patient-specific, blood-based red-marrow dosimetry. Phys Med Biol 52:5231–5248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Verburg F, Markus L, Luca G, Michael L, Carlo C, Nicolas C, Glenn F (2017) The ‘reset Button’ revisited: why high activity 131i therapy of advanced differentiated thyroid cancer after dosimetry is advantageous for patients. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 44(6):915–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wessels BW, Bolch WE, Bouchet LG, Breitz HB, Denardo GL, Meredith RF, Stabin MG, Sgouros G (2004) Bone marrow dosimetry using blood-based models for radiolabeled antibody therapy: a multiinstitutional comparison. J Nucl Med 45:1725–1733Google Scholar
  35. Willegaignon J, Sapienza MT, Buchpiguel CA (2012) Comparison of different dosimetric methods for red marrow absorbed dose calculation in thyroid cancer therapy. Radiat Prot Dosim 149:138–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad Abuqbeitah
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mustafa Demir
    • 1
  • İffet Çavdar
    • 2
  • Handan Tanyildizi
    • 2
    • 3
  • Nami Yeyin
    • 1
  • Lebriz Uslu-Beşli
    • 1
  • Levent Kabasakal
    • 1
  • Nazenin İpek Işıkcı
    • 4
  • Kerim Sönmezoğlu
    • 1
  1. 1.Cerrahpasa Faculty of Medicine, Department of Nuclear MedicineIstanbul UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Science Faculty, Department of Nuclear PhysicsIstanbul UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Vocational School of Health Services, Department of Medical Imaging TechniquesAltinbas UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  4. 4.Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Department of Mechatronics EngineeringNisantasi UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations