TABLE 37.
_
Lymph

Oncan Distrinution oF #?Th 1n Man FoLLowIneG INTRAVASCULAR ADMINISTRATION OF THOROTRAST

Author... -. 02ers ee eee Hurshet al.(@)

nodes

Kaul

Rundo

ANL group

Parret al.

9

6

3

11, 17

This paper

4

Several

9

2

6

Duration .....-.-..255-

17d-19y

Long term

Long term
(mean 12y)

18y, 26.5y

26d-26y

Method of analysis. .....

comity

analysis

analysis

@-ray analysis

analysis

Reference... 1s. seen ee
_—-——_——
Kev of caseS.-- 6... ee eee
~

3
960

Mean values
fcolumns 2-6)

Fraction of body
burden in
organ :‘¢)
10041/144,7
percent

—_———

fi

————f
'

Liver
spleen

Red bone marrow
Lung
skeleton
Adrenal
Heart
Intestine
Kidney

—_

Muscle
Pancreas
Thyroid

100
9

8
1.8
0.75
0.003
0.07
0.6

(52)) 100
(17)
33

(30)

(0.8)

58

(71)®
(17)

(<12)

1.2

100
36

100

<17

(0.55) © 0.8)

0.18

100
18

11
' 0.4
4.1

0.13

5
0.05
0.05

Total

100
24

12)
1.1
1.7
0.003
0.07
0.6
0.15

5
0.05
0.05
144.7

69
17

8
0.8
1.2
0.0029
0.05
0.4¢°
0.1

3,5
0.0366
0.03)
100

“ Liver, spleen, red bone marrow and lung figures are from authors’ ‘‘preferred values” for 3?Th concentrations in these organs,
based on 4 patients (17d, 49d, 18y and 19y burdens). Other figures are based directly on quoted #2Th concentrations (18 and 19y
simplest’ burdens). Organ weights in standard man assumed.
imes thee
‘” Quoted distribution as percent of whole-body burden.
erties off
(? Normalized with respect to the liver content assuming liver burden to be 70% of whole-body burden.
“) Weighted mean value, using weighting factor of 0.1 for results of Rundo and Kaul, which were not based directly on measure-

is paper.fr
‘nts of separated red bone marrow, and unit weighting factor otherwise.
she basis:

" Excluding organs not listed (particularly lymph nodes and perivascular deposits, which may contain a significant fraction
fof the injected Thorotrast).
‘8 Measurements to be interpreted with caution as they are based on only a single analysis.

tion of °8°Th among the various organsof the body, so
revealed (Table 36) is in general agreement with the
can be made on
itions inresults of other workers. A comparison
i
acentraedth basis of the data presented in Table 37, where, as
n Tablet for Table 35, normalized values relative to the conre 2827,RCCNtration in the liver, are quoted. The results sugthe ma-feC"! that the major part of the Thorotrast (~95% of
y, some thet contained in the organslisted) is taken up by the
olations £20" !oendothelial system, and that it is distributed
between the liver, spleen, and bone marrow, approxi> due tok
an, Un ma.‘tely in the ratios 100:24:12.
sample}

It is important to note that the percentage values

larly in fisted i3 n Table 37, last column, refer only to those orin thet Bins listed, and notably they neglect any considera-

s basis, jtion of the lymph nodes. Reliable data for the lym-

rat are Pltic system are almost completely lacking, but the -

factivities quoted for patient 166 (Table 35) suggest
35) tof thet theTh concentration in certain lymph nodes
, organ B' ¢xcced that in the liver by approximately a factor
ith the 0 0. It would be not surprising, therefore, if a sig-

istribu- Mic“tnt proportion of the whole-body burden of 73?Th

were to be found located in the whole lymphatic sys-

tem.
Consideration has also been omitted from Table 37

of the activities located in perivascular deposits at the
site of the injection. Such deposits are indicative of a

poor injection technique. External measurements of

Thorotrast patients in Vienna by whole-body profile

scanning have shown that the proportion of the total-

body radioactivity (of *°°T1) so located, not uncommonly exceeds 50%. The perivascular deposits deserve
a separate study.
Considerable caution is called for when using the re-

sults of Table 37 to predict the distribution of *8?Th in
any one Thorotrast patient. Particularly for the liver
and spleen, wide departures from these average values
—showing no obvious correlations with variables such
as the age of the burden—are commonly observed in

individual cases. This is evident from the data of Table
35, though undoubtedly here, sampling problems were

partly responsible. However,it is also certain that real
differences exist. Thus, in a series of 15 patients,

Select target paragraph3