Stabin Michael G
Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee 37232-2675, USA.
J Nucl Med. 2008 Sep;49(9):1555-63. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.108.052241.
The technical basis for the dose estimates for several radiopharmaceuticals used in nuclear cardiology is reviewed, and cases in which uncertainty has been encountered in the dosimetry of an agent are discussed. Also discussed is the issue of uncertainties in radiation dose estimates and how to compare the relative risks of studies.
Radiation dose estimates (organ absorbed doses and effective doses) from different literature sources were directly compared. Typical values for administered activity per study were used to compare doses that are to be expected in clinical applications.
The effective doses for all agents varied from 2 to 15 mSv per study, with the lowest values being seen for (13)N-NH(3) and (15)O-H(2)O studies and the highest values being seen for (201)Tl-chloride studies. The effective doses for (99m)Tc- and (201)Tl-labeled agents differed by about a factor of 2, a factor that is comparable to the uncertainty in individual values. This uncertainty results from the application of standard anthropomorphic and biokinetic models, presumably representative of the exposed population, to individual patients.
Considerations such as diagnostic accuracy, ease of use, image quality, and patient comfort and convenience should generally dictate the choice of a radiopharmaceutical, with radiation dose being only a secondary or even tertiary consideration. Counseling of nuclear medicine patients who may be concerned about exposure should include a reasonable estimate of the median dose for the type of examination and administered activity of the radiopharmaceutical; in addition, it should be explained that the theoretic risks of the procedure are orders of magnitude lower than the actual benefits of the examination. Providing numeric estimates of risks from studies to individual patients is inappropriate, given the uncertainties in the dose estimates and the limited predictive power of current dose-risk models in the low-dose (i.e., diagnostic) range.
回顾了核心脏病学中使用的几种放射性药物剂量估算的技术基础,并讨论了在某种药物剂量测定中遇到不确定性的情况。还讨论了辐射剂量估算中的不确定性问题以及如何比较研究的相对风险。
直接比较不同文献来源的辐射剂量估算值(器官吸收剂量和有效剂量)。使用每项研究中给药活度的典型值来比较临床应用中预期的剂量。
每项研究中所有药物的有效剂量在2至15毫希沃特之间变化,其中(13)N-NH(3)和(15)O-H(2)O研究的有效剂量最低,(201)Tl-氯化物研究的有效剂量最高。(99m)Tc和(201)Tl标记药物的有效剂量相差约2倍,这一倍数与个体值的不确定性相当。这种不确定性源于将大概代表受照人群的标准人体模型和生物动力学模型应用于个体患者。
一般来说,诊断准确性、易用性、图像质量以及患者的舒适度和便利性等因素应决定放射性药物的选择,辐射剂量仅为次要甚至更次要的考虑因素。对于可能担心辐射暴露的核医学患者进行咨询时,应包括对检查类型和放射性药物给药活度的中位剂量的合理估算;此外,应向患者解释该检查的理论风险比实际益处低几个数量级。鉴于剂量估算存在不确定性且当前剂量-风险模型在低剂量(即诊断)范围内的预测能力有限,向个体患者提供研究风险的数值估算并不合适。