Article Text

Download PDFPDF
177Lu-Dotatate administration using an infusion pump or a peristaltic pump: comparison of two methods
  1. Charlotte Donzé1,
  2. Léa Rubira1,
  3. Lore Santoro1,
  4. Malissone Viarasakd1,
  5. Pierre Olivier Kotzki1,2,
  6. Emmanuel Deshayes1,2,
  7. Cyril Fersing1,3
  1. 1 Nuclear medicine department, Institut régional du Cancer de Montpellier (ICM), Univ. Montpellier, Montpellier, France
  2. 2 Institut de Recherche en Cancérologie de Montpellier (IRCM), INSERM U1194, Univ. Montpellier, Institut régional du Cancer de Montpellier (ICM), Montpellier, France
  3. 3 IBMM, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, ENSCM, Montpellier, France
  1. Correspondence to Dr Cyril Fersing, Nuclear medicine department, Institut régional du Cancer de Montpellier, Montpellier, France; cyril.fersing{at}


Objectives 177Lu-oxodotreotide (Lutathera) is an intravenous peptide receptor radionuclide therapy to treat unresectable metastatic digestive neuroendocrine tumours. The recommended method for Lutathera administration is gravity infusion; however, other appropriate and safe techniques are possible. This work compares two infusion methods from a medico-economic, radiation protection, efficiency and practicality point of view.

Methods Two infusion methods were studied, either involving a volumetric infusion pump (method 1) or a peristaltic pump (method 2). For each method, the mean residual activity per vial and the mean injection time were compared. Occupational radiation exposure was measured. The cost of initial equipment and consumables for one administration was determined. Feedback from operators and past incidents during injections were collected through a survey.

Results Three operators performed 219 Lutathera injections over 70 months: 60.7% (133) with method 1 and 39.3% (86) with method 2. After infusion, the mean residual activity in vial was 124.3±16.9 MBq with method 1 and 80.9±19.3 MBq with method 2 (34.9% decrease). The average administration time was 41±7.2 min with method 1 and 39±8.5 min with method 2. Occupational exposures obtained with both methods were very low and quite similar. Method 1 required an initial investment of 1165.8 US$ plus 4.0 US$ of supplies for each administration. Initial investment for method 2 was comparable (1261.4 US$) but supplies cost per administration was higher (12.5 US$). Two major incidents were recorded with method 1 and none with method 2. From operators' experience, method 2 felt safer and more suitable.

Conclusions Method 2 appeared to be convenient and secure, despite a higher cost per injection. It could also be applied to new radioligand therapies such as 177Lu-PSMA or 225Ac-Dotatate.

  • antineoplastic agents
  • drug administration routes
  • quality of health care
  • safety
  • nuclear medicine

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Data availability statement

Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.

View Full Text