IP Library Granted Patent US 12,555,658
Granted Patent B2
US 12,555,658 · App. 17/496,646 · Granted Feb 17, 2026

Control system for radiopharmaceuticals

Inventors: Derek F. Rhodes (North Andover, MA); Robert W. Siegler (Bedford, MA)
Assignee: Lantheus Medical Imaging, Inc.
G16H20/10G05B15/02G05D21/02G06Q10/06G06Q30/018G16H70/40
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,555,658
App. No.
17/496,646
Granted
Feb 17, 2026
Kind
B2
Abstract

Techniques for monitoring a pharmaceutical manufacturing process and making determinations regarding the release of radiopharmaceuticals to health care providers. A data processing system collects data across multiple batches of radiopharmaceuticals, across multiple entities, and/or across multiple stages of the manufacturing process, processes the data, and provides feedback to entities involved in the manufacturing process. In scenarios where quality assurance tests are conducted, data is collected from radiopharmaceutical products before they are shipped, and the data is analyzed to provide the recipients with an indication of whether the radiopharmaceutical products satisfy quality assurance standards. Techniques for analyzing information about a batch manufacturing process and, when a problem occurred during a manufacture of a batch, determining whether to continue to manufacture a next batch in time for delivering and administering to a patient. The detected problem may be investigated and remedied before or during the synthesis of the next batch.

Claims (80)

1 . A method of managing a process of manufacturing a plurality of batches of a radiopharmaceutical at a facility, the method comprising:

receiving data relating to performance of a process of manufacturing a first batch of the plurality of batches of a radiopharmaceutical;

with at least one processor, generating information about the process of manufacturing the first batch of the plurality of batches of a radiopharmaceutical;

using the generated information to determine whether a first problem occurred during the process of manufacturing the first batch of the plurality of batches of a radiopharmaceutical and/or whether a second problem is likely to occur during manufacturing of a subsequent batch;

based on the determination, analyzing the first problem and/or the second problem to determine whether to proceed to a manufacture of the subsequent batch, the analyzing comprising using at least one processor to:

evaluate a risk associated with proceeding to the manufacture of the subsequent batch; and

generate an indication based on the analyzing, the generating comprising:

generating the indication instructing the process to stop and not proceed to the manufacture of the subsequent batch when the risk is above a threshold; and

generating the indication instructing the process to proceed to the manufacture of the subsequent batch when the risk is below the threshold; and

causing one or more machines of the facility to execute the manufacture of the subsequent batch when the indication instructs the process to proceed.

2 . The method of claim 1 , wherein:

the indication comprises an indication for the process to (a) proceed to the manufacture of the subsequent batch, or (b) stop and not to proceed to the manufacture of the subsequent batch.

3 . The method of claim 1 , wherein:

the determination of whether to proceed to manufacture the subsequent batch is (a) completed within a time period after a manufacture of the first batch is completed, or (b) performed in real time.

4 . The method of claim 1 , further comprising:

determining whether the first problem occurred during the process of manufacturing the first batch by:

comparing a plurality of characteristics of the process of manufacturing the first batch to a predefined set of characteristics of a radiopharmaceutical manufacturing process, optionally wherein comparing the plurality of characteristics of the process of manufacturing the first batch to the predefined set of characteristics comprises automatically comparing at least a portion of the received data relating to performance of the process of manufacturing the first batch to one or more values of the predefined set of characteristics; and

determining whether the first problem occurred during the process of manufacturing the first batch based on the comparison.

5 . The method of claim 4 , further comprising displaying a digital representation of the predefined set of characteristics in the user interface, the digital representation comprising a plurality of user selectable options, wherein comparing the plurality of characteristics of the process of manufacturing the first batch to the predefined set of characteristics comprises:

receiving, via the user interface, one or more user selections corresponding to one or more of the plurality of user selectable options, wherein each of the one or more user selections corresponds to a respective value; and

comparing the respective values of the one or more user selections to one or more values of the predefined set of characteristics.

6 . The method of claim 5 , wherein the each of the plurality of user selectable options corresponds to a respective item of a checklist, the checklist indicating an assessment of the process of manufacturing the first batch.

7 . The method of claim 1 , wherein:

determining whether the second problem is likely to occur during the manufacturing of the subsequent batch comprises assessing a risk associated with the second problem; and

the method further comprises generating the indication based on the determining whether the second problem is likely to occur during the manufacturing of the subsequent batch.

8 . The method of claim 7 , wherein assessing the risk associated with the second problem comprises determining a probability of failure during manufacturing of the subsequent batch.

9 . The method of claim 7 , further comprising:

if the assessed risk is above the threshold, determining at least one remediation measure to remedy the problem and prevent the second problem.

10 . The method of claim 7 , wherein:

determining whether a second problem is likely to occur during the manufacturing of the subsequent batch comprises assessing a risk associated with the second problem; and

the method further comprises determining at least one remediation measure.

11 . The method of claim 10 , further comprising:

determining whether a performance of the at least one remediation measure allows the process to proceed to the manufacture of the subsequent batch, optionally wherein:

the performance of the at least one remediation measure allows the process to proceed to the manufacture of the subsequent batch when the at least one remediation measure can be completed within a time period, further optionally wherein:

when it is determined that the performance of the at least one remediation measure allows the process to proceed to the manufacture of the subsequent batch, generating the indication instructing the process to proceed to the manufacture of the subsequent batch; and

when it is determined that the performance of the at least one remediation measure does not allow the process to proceed to the manufacture of the subsequent batch, generating the indication instructing the process to stop and not to proceed to the manufacture of the subsequent batch.

12 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the indication comprises an indication of an area of concern in the manufacturing process, optionally further comprising:

using a statistical analysis on the received data to determine whether the received data indicates a deviation from an expected or standard set of data; and

generating the indication of the area of concern based on the statistical analysis.

13 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the indication comprises a characteristic of the manufacturing process, and the characteristic is a predicted problem with the manufacturing process, wherein:

generating information comprises generating a trend analysis of at least one parameter of the manufacturing process based on the received data; and

the predicted problem is:

a systemic problem with an underlying recipe for synthesizing the radiopharmaceutical;

an excursion of at least one manufacturing process parameter of the manufacturing process that may lead to out of specification pharmaceuticals; or

a future infirmity in the manufacturing process.

14 . The method of claim 1 , generating information comprises populating a database with received data by:

validating the data before storing data in the database such that corrupted data is not stored in the database, wherein validating further comprises generating an alert when the data indicates an out of specification critical parameter, or

converting the received data into a common format before storing the data in the database.

15 . The method of claim 1 , wherein generating the indication comprises: providing feedback to the facility, wherein the feedback is provided via (a) e-mail or (b) an electronic posting to a collaboration space accessible to a plurality of entities each performing a respective portion of the manufacturing process, optionally further comprising conditionally supplying the indication to an entity associated with the facility based on a security key possessed by the entity.

16 . A system for use in managing a process of manufacturing a plurality of batches of a radiopharmaceutical at a facility, the system comprising:

a database configured to store data;

at least one processor connected to a network, wherein the processor is programmed to:

receive data relating to performance of the process of manufacturing a first batch of the plurality of batches of a radiopharmaceutical;

generate information about the process of manufacturing the first batch of the plurality of batches of a radiopharmaceutical;

use the generated information to determine whether a first problem occurred during the process of manufacturing the first batch of the plurality of batches of a radiopharmaceutical and/or whether a second problem is likely to occur during manufacturing of a subsequent batch;

based on the determination, analyze the first problem and/or the second problem to determine whether to proceed to a manufacture of the subsequent batch, the analyzing comprising:

evaluating a risk associated with proceeding to the manufacture of the subsequent batch;

generate an indication based on the analysis of the problem, the generating comprising:

generating the indication instructing the process to stop and not proceed to the manufacture of the subsequent batch when the risk is above a threshold; and

generating the indication instructing the process to proceed to the manufacture of the subsequent batch when the risk is below the threshold; and

cause the indication to be displayed in a user interface.

17 . A method of managing a process of manufacturing a plurality of batches of a radiopharmaceutical at a facility, the method comprising:

receiving data relating to performance of a process of manufacturing a first batch of the plurality of batches of a radiopharmaceutical;

with at least one processor, generating information about the process of manufacturing the first batch of the plurality of batches of a radiopharmaceutical;

using the generated information to determine whether a first problem occurred during the process of manufacturing the first batch of the plurality of batches of a radiopharmaceutical and/or whether a second problem is likely to occur during manufacturing of a subsequent batch;

based on the determination, analyzing the first problem and/or the second problem to determine whether to proceed to a manufacture of the subsequent batch, the analyzing comprising using at least one processor to:

evaluate a risk associated with proceeding to the manufacture of the subsequent batch;

generating an indication based on the analyzing, the generating comprising:

generating the indication instructing the process to stop and not proceed to the manufacture of the subsequent batch when the risk is above a threshold; and

generating the indication instructing the process to proceed to the manufacture of the subsequent batch when the risk is below the threshold;

causing the indication to be displayed in a user interface; and

causing one or more machines of the facility to execute the manufacture of the subsequent batch when the indication instructs the process to proceed.

18 . The method of claim 17 , further comprising:

determining whether the first problem occurred during the process of manufacturing the first batch by:

comparing a plurality of characteristics of the process of manufacturing the first batch to a predefined set of characteristics of a radiopharmaceutical manufacturing process, optionally wherein comparing the plurality of characteristics of the process of manufacturing the first batch to the predefined set of characteristics comprises automatically comparing at least a portion of the received data relating to performance of the process of manufacturing the first batch to one or more values of the predefined set of characteristics; and

determining whether the first problem occurred during the process of manufacturing the first batch based on the comparison.

19 . The method of claim 18 , further comprising displaying a digital representation of the predefined set of characteristics in the user interface, the digital representation comprising a plurality of user selectable options, wherein comparing the plurality of characteristics of the process of manufacturing the first batch to the predefined set of characteristics comprises:

receiving, via the user interface, one or more user selections corresponding to one or more of the plurality of user selectable options, wherein each of the one or more user selections corresponds to a respective value; and

comparing the respective values of the one or more user selections to one or more values of the predefined set of characteristics.

20 . The method of claim 19 , wherein the each of the plurality of user selectable options corresponds to a respective item of a checklist, the checklist indicating an assessment of the process of manufacturing the first batch.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Aug 16, 2022
From: RHODES, DEREK F.; SIEGLER, ROBERT W.
To: LANTHEUS MEDICAL IMAGING, INC.
Reel/Frame 060820/0534 →
Continuity (4)
Continuation 16450088 · Jun 24, 2019
Division 14774714
Provisional Application 61801461 · Mar 15, 2013
Related Publication 20220165382A1 · May 26, 2022
References Cited (81)
US 5143081A · Young et al. · 1992 [cited by applicant]
US 5761064A · La et al. · 1998 [cited by applicant]
US 6243615B1 · Neway et al. · 2001 [cited by applicant]
US 6748285B2 · Bozich et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 7275070B2 · Kataria et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 7305278B2 · Enright et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 7568000B2 · Keyes et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 7799273B2 · Popp · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7831445B2 · Reiner · 2010 [cited by examiner]
US 8015443B2 · Adachi · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 8019554B2 · Conway et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 8298054B2 · Hodge · 2012 [cited by examiner]
US 9671798B2 · Hodge · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 9952577B2 · Hill · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 9977846B2 · Nakagawa · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 10331146B2 · Rhodes et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 11170884B2 · Rhodes et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20010004089A1 · Gleis · 2001 [cited by applicant]
US 20030149608A1 · Kall et al. · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 20040117126A1 · Fetterman et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20040153868A1 · Nonaka et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20040236723A1 · Reymond · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20050159973A1 · Krause et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050203775A1 · Chesbrough · 2005 [cited by examiner]
US 20050226794A1 · Hodge · 2005 [cited by examiner]
US 20050228523A1 · Heminway et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050251013A1 · Krishnan · 2005 [cited by examiner]
US 20050251276A1 · Shen · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050251278A1 · Popp · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20070142950A1 · Okita · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070179805A1 · Gilbert · 2007 [cited by examiner]
US 20070179811A1 · Reiner · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070185751A1 · Dempers · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20080091466A1 · Butler et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080109232A1 · Musgrove · 2008 [cited by examiner]
US 20080154909A1 · Dam et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080274510A1 · Santi et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20090149981A1 · Evans · 2009 [cited by examiner]
US 20090193049A1 · Karimisetty et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090292156A9 · Whittacre et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20100161101A1 · Pouyez et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20110029445A1 · Whittacre et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110166884A1 · Lesselroth · 2011 [cited by examiner]
US 20120078648A1 · Reiner · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120290104A1 · Holt et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130274929A1 · Hodge · 2013 [cited by examiner]
US 20140136157A1 · Nakagawa · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 20160026193A1 · Rhodes · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20160306332A1 · Hill · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20180039288A1 · Cregger · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20200004275A1 · Rhodes et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200185105A1 · Najmi · 2020 [cited by examiner]
CN 101493697A · 2009 [cited by applicant]
JP 2001188876A · 2001 [cited by applicant]
JP 2003022115A · 2003 [cited by applicant]
JP 2010507176A · 2010 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2005110543A2 · 2005 [cited by applicant]
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2014/027807 mailed Jul. 25, 2014. [cited by applicant]
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for PCT/US2014/027807 mailed Sep. 24, 2015. [cited by applicant]
European communication in connection with Application No. EP 14762344.1 dated Oct. 30, 2019. [cited by applicant]
European Result of Consultation in connection with European Application No. 14762344.1 dated May 4, 2021. [cited by applicant]
[No Author Listed], OSIsoft PI Historian—Application Summary. Automated Results Computer Consulting LLC. Brevard, NC. In existence as of Aug. 3, 2012. Last accessed Jun. 1, 2017 at <http://www.automatedresults.com/PI/pi… [cited by applicant]
Amadeo et al., Determination of Robustness and Optimal Work Conditions for a Purification Process of a Therapeutic Recombinant Protein Using Response Surface Methodology. Biotechnology Progress. May 2011;27(3):724-32. [cited by applicant]
Andraos, On using tree analysis to quantify the material, input energy, and cost throughput efficiencies of simple and complex synthesis plans and networks: Towards a blueprint for quantitative total synthesis and green… [cited by applicant]
Christophe et al., To robotize chemistry laboratories. An example of organic synthesis: 2-Boc-amino-N-hydroxy-3-phenyl-propionamide. J Autom Methods Manag Chem. 2002;24(1):17-24. doi: 10.1155/S1463924602000032. [cited by applicant]
Enjalbal et al., MALDI-TOF MS analysis of soluble PEG based multi-step synthetic reaction mixtures with automated detection of reaction failure. Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry. 2005;16(5):670-8. [cited by applicant]
Fassett, Key Performance Outcomes of Patient Safety Curricula: Root Cause Analysis, Failure Mode and Effects Analysis, and Structured Communications Skills. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2011;75(8):164. … [cited by applicant]
Jeong et al., Synthesis of the Knowledge Model for Fault Diagnosis Using Qualitative Simulation. Korean J. Chem. Eng. Jan. 1993;10(1):36-43. [cited by applicant]
Kim et al., Development of a new automatic system for fault tree analysis for chemical process industries. Korean J. Chem. Eng. Nov. 2009;26(6):1429-40. [cited by applicant]
Kim et al., Risk Analysis Using Automatically Synthesized Robust Accident Scenarios and Consequence Assessment for Chemical Processes: Process Partition and Consequence Analysis Approach. Korean J. Chem. Eng. Nov. 2003;… [cited by applicant]
Krouwer, An improved Failure Mode Effects Analysis for hospitals. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. 2004;128(6):663-7. [cited by applicant]
Mila et al., Application of a risk analysis method to different technologies for producing a monoclonal antibody employed in Hepatitis B vaccine manufacturing. Biologicals. 2012;40(2):118-28. [cited by applicant]
Nam et al., Automatic Generation of the Symptom Tree Model for Process Fault Diagnosis. Korean J. Chem. Eng. Jan. 1993;10(1):28-35. [cited by applicant]
Oldenhof et al., Consistency of FMEA used in the validation of analytical procedures. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis. 2011;54(3):592-5. [cited by applicant]
Yeh et al., An automaton-based approach to evaluate and improve online diagnosis schemes for multi-failure scenarios in batch chemical processes. Chemical Engineering Research and Design. 2011;89(12A):2652-66. [cited by applicant]
Charoo et al., Quality by design approach for formulation development: A case study of dispersible tablets. International Journal of Pharmaceutics. 2012;423:167-78. Epub Dec. 23, 2011. [cited by applicant]
Cheng et al., Applying HFMEA to Prevent Chemotherapy Errors. J Med Syst. 2012;36:1543-51. Epub Nov. 11, 2010. [cited by applicant]
Mila et al., Using Quality Risk Management in the Plantibody HB-01 manufacturing by Transgenic Tobacco Plants for Vaccine Production. Lat Am J Pharm. 2010;29(3):383-92. [cited by applicant]
Silveira et al., Analisis modal de fallos y efectos del proceso de prescripcion, validacion y dispensacion de medicamentos. Farmacia Hospitalaria. 2012;36(1):24-32. Epub Apr. 22, 2011. [cited by applicant]
Van Leeuwen et al., Risk analysis by FMEA as an element of analytical validation. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis. 2009;50:1085-7. Epub Jul. 7, 2009. [cited by applicant]
Examiner's Report dated Nov. 22, 2022 in connection with Canadian Application No. 2905110. [cited by applicant]