UNLABELLED: (166)Ho-poly(l-lactic acid) microspheres allow for quantitative imaging with MR imaging or SPECT for microsphere biodistribution assessment after radioembolization. The purpose of this study was to evaluate SPECT- and MR imaging-based dosimetry in the first patients treated with (166)Ho radioembolization. METHODS: Fifteen patients with unresectable, chemorefractory liver metastases of any origin were enrolled in this phase 1 study and were treated with (166)Ho radioembolization according to a dose escalation protocol (20-80 Gy). The contours of all liver segments and all discernible tumors were manually delineated on T2-weighted posttreatment MR images and registered to the posttreatment SPECT images (n = 9) or SPECT/CT images (n = 6) and MR imaging-based R2* maps (n = 14). Dosimetry was based on SPECT (n = 15) and MR imaging (n = 9) for all volumes of interest, tumor-to-nontumor (T/N) activity concentration ratios were calculated, and correlation and agreement of MR imaging- and SPECT-based measurements were evaluated. RESULTS: The median overall T/N ratio was 1.4 based on SPECT (range, 0.9-2.8) and 1.4 based on MR imaging (range, 1.1-3.1). In 6 of 15 patients (40%), all tumors had received an activity concentration equal to or higher than the normal liver (T/N ratio ≥ 1). Analysis of SPECT and MR imaging measurements for dose to liver segments yielded a high correlation (R(2) = 0.91) and a moderate agreement (mean bias, 3.7 Gy; 95% limits of agreement, -11.2 to 18.7). CONCLUSION: With the use of (166)Ho-microspheres, in vivo dosimetry is feasible on the basis of both SPECT and MR imaging, which enables personalized treatment by selective targeting of inadequately treated tumors.
UNLABELLED: (166)Ho-poly(l-lactic acid) microspheres allow for quantitative imaging with MR imaging or SPECT for microsphere biodistribution assessment after radioembolization. The purpose of this study was to evaluate SPECT- and MR imaging-based dosimetry in the first patients treated with (166)Ho radioembolization. METHODS: Fifteen patients with unresectable, chemorefractory liver metastases of any origin were enrolled in this phase 1 study and were treated with (166)Ho radioembolization according to a dose escalation protocol (20-80 Gy). The contours of all liver segments and all discernible tumors were manually delineated on T2-weighted posttreatment MR images and registered to the posttreatment SPECT images (n = 9) or SPECT/CT images (n = 6) and MR imaging-based R2* maps (n = 14). Dosimetry was based on SPECT (n = 15) and MR imaging (n = 9) for all volumes of interest, tumor-to-nontumor (T/N) activity concentration ratios were calculated, and correlation and agreement of MR imaging- and SPECT-based measurements were evaluated. RESULTS: The median overall T/N ratio was 1.4 based on SPECT (range, 0.9-2.8) and 1.4 based on MR imaging (range, 1.1-3.1). In 6 of 15 patients (40%), all tumors had received an activity concentration equal to or higher than the normal liver (T/N ratio ≥ 1). Analysis of SPECT and MR imaging measurements for dose to liver segments yielded a high correlation (R(2) = 0.91) and a moderate agreement (mean bias, 3.7 Gy; 95% limits of agreement, -11.2 to 18.7). CONCLUSION: With the use of (166)Ho-microspheres, in vivo dosimetry is feasible on the basis of both SPECT and MR imaging, which enables personalized treatment by selective targeting of inadequately treated tumors.
Authors: Andor F van den Hoven; Jip F Prince; Rutger C G Bruijnen; Helena M Verkooijen; Gerard C Krijger; Marnix G E H Lam; Maurice A A J van den Bosch Journal: Trials Date: 2016-10-25 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Marco D'Arienzo; Maria Pimpinella; Marco Capogni; Vanessa De Coste; Luca Filippi; Emiliano Spezi; Nick Patterson; Francesca Mariotti; Paolo Ferrari; Paola Chiaramida; Michael Tapner; Alexander Fischer; Timo Paulus; Roberto Pani; Giuseppe Iaccarino; Marco D'Andrea; Lidia Strigari; Oreste Bagni Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Robbert C Bakker; Robert J J van Es; Antoine J W P Rosenberg; Sebastiaan A van Nimwegen; Remco Bastiaannet; Hugo W A M de Jong; Johannes F W Nijsen; Marnix G E H Lam Journal: Nucl Med Commun Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 1.690
Authors: Andor F van den Hoven; Marnix G E H Lam; Shaphan Jernigan; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Gregory D Buckner Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-08-01
Authors: Andor F van den Hoven; Maarten L J Smits; Charlotte E N M Rosenbaum; Helena M Verkooijen; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Marnix G E H Lam Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Arthur J A T Braat; Dik J Kwekkeboom; Boen L R Kam; Jaap J M Teunissen; Wouter W de Herder; Koen M A Dreijerink; Rob van Rooij; Gerard C Krijger; Hugo W A M de Jong; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Marnix G E H Lam Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Tiantian Li; Edwin C I Ao; Bieke Lambert; Boudewijn Brans; Stefaan Vandenberghe; Greta S P Mok Journal: Theranostics Date: 2017-10-13 Impact factor: 11.556