Minimal Residual Disease: a Target for Radioimmunotherapy with 131I-labeled Monoclonal Antibodies? Some Dosimetric Considerations

  • M.-L. Sautter-Bihl
  • G. Herbold
  • H. Bihl
Part of the Recent Results in Cancer Research book series (RECENTCANCER, volume 141)


Tumor size is one of the decisive parameters for the efficacy of conventional radiation therapy. From experimental and clinical data this seems also to be true for systemic radiotherapy, such as radioiodine therapy in thyroid cancer (Malone 1975) or radioimmunotherapy (RIT) with labeled monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) (Thedrez et al. 1989; Chatal et al. 1989) In general, it may be stated that the smaller the tumor size, the greater the chance of controlling it. However, for a very small tumor, the contrary may be the case in systemic radiotherapy: due to the limited range of the radionuclides used, a considerable proportion of the energy may be deposited outside the tumor and tumoricidal doses may not be achieved. Thus, in the situation of minimal residual disease (MRD) the chance of cure may be lessened.


Dose Distribution Minimal Residual Disease Radioiodine Therapy Sphere Center Tumor Sphere 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Akabani G, Poston JW (1991) Absorbed dose calculation to blood and blood vessels for internally deposited radionuclides. J Nucl Med 32: 830–834PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Akabani G, Poston JW, Bolch WE (1991) Estimates of beta absorbed fractions in small tissue volumes for selected radionuclides. J Nucl Med 32: 835–839PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Chatal JF, Saccavini JC, Gestin JE, Thedrez P, Curtet C, Kremer M, Guerreau D, Nobile D, Fumoleau P, Guillard Y (1989) Biodistribution of indium-111-labeled OC 125 monoclonal antibody intraperitoneally injected into patients operated on for ovarian carcinomas. Cancer Res 49: 3089–3094Google Scholar
  4. Ford RL, Nelson WR (1978) The EGS code system. National Technical Information Service, Springfeld (Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, report no 210 )Google Scholar
  5. Fraker PJ, Speck JC (1980) Protein and cell membrane iodinations with a sparingly soluble chloramine l,3,4,6-tetra-chlor-3,6-diphenyl-glycoluryl. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 80: 849–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gimbrone MA, Leapman SB, Cotran RS, Folkman J (1972) Tumor dormancy in vivo by prevention of neovascularization. J Exp Med 136: 261–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ICRU (1979) Methods of assessment of absorbed dose in clinical use of radionuclides. International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements, Washington (Report no 32 )Google Scholar
  8. James F (1980) Monte Carlo theory and practice. Rep Prog Phys 43: 1145–1189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kalos H, Whitlock PA (1986) Monte Carlo method, vol. 1. Basics. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Loevinger R, Berman MA (1968) Scheme for absorbed dose calculations for biologically distributed radionuclides. J Nucl Med 9 Suppl 1: 9–14Google Scholar
  11. Loevinger R, Berman MA (1976) A revised scheme for calculation and absorbed dose from biologically distributed radionuclides. New York: Society of Nuclear Medicine, New York tMIRD pamphlet, no 1Google Scholar
  12. Mach J-P, Buchegger F, Forni M, Ritschard J, Berche C, Lumbroso J-D, Schreyer M, Girardet C, Accola RS, Carrel S (1981) Use of radiolabeled monoclonal anti- CEA antibodies for the detection of human carcinomas by external photoscanning and tomoscintigraphy. Immunol Today 2: 239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Malone JF (1975) The radiation biology of the thyroid. Curr Top Radiat Res Q 10: 263–268PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Nelson WR, Hirayama H, Rogers DWO (1985) The EGS4 code system. Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Stanford (SLAC report 265 )Google Scholar
  15. Rogers DWO (1984) Low-energy electron transport with EGS. Nucl Instrum Methods 227: 535–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schmid U, Schirrmacher V, Momburg F, Matzku S (1993) Preferential antibody targeting of small lymphoma metastases in the absence of primary tumor. Eur J Cancer 29: 217–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Sullivan D, Siva JS, Cox CE, Haagensen DE, Harris CC, Briner WH, Wells SA (1982) Localisation of I-131-labeled goat and primate anti-carcinoembryonic antigen ( CEA) antibodies in patients with cancer. Invest Radiol 17: 350–355Google Scholar
  18. Thedrez P, Saccavini JC, Nobile D, Simoen JP, Guerreau D, Gestin JF, Curtet C, Kremer M, Chatal FF (1989) Biodistribution of indium-111-labeled OC125 monoclonal antibody after intraperitoneal injection in nude mice intraperitoneally grafted with ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res 49: 3081–3086PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Wessels BW, Rogues RD (1984) Radionuclide selection and model absorbed dose calculations for radiolabeled tumor associated antibodies. Med Phys 11: 638–645PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • M.-L. Sautter-Bihl
    • 1
  • G. Herbold
    • 1
  • H. Bihl
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiooncology and Nuclear MedicineKlinikum KarlsruheKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations