Marnix G E H Lam1, John D Louie2, Mohamed H K Abdelmaksoud2, George A Fisher3, Cheryl D Cho-Phan3, Daniel Y Sze4. 1. Division of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94305-5642; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Division of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94305-5642. 3. Division of Medical Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94305-5642. 4. Division of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94305-5642. Electronic address: dansze@stanford.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To calculate absorbed radiation doses in patients treated with resin microspheres prescribed by the body surface area (BSA) method and to analyze dose-response and toxicity relationships. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of 45 patients with colorectal carcinoma metastases who received single-session whole-liver resin microsphere radioembolization. Prescribed treatment activity was calculated using the BSA method. Liver volumes and whole-liver absorbed doses (D(WL)) were calculated. D(WL) was correlated with toxicity and radiographic and biochemical response. RESULTS: The standard BSA-based administered activity (range, 0.85-2.58 GBq) did not correlate with D(WL) (mean, 50.4 Gy; range, 29.8-74.7 Gy; r = -0.037; P = .809) because liver weight was highly variable (mean, 1.89 kg; range, 0.94-3.42 kg) and strongly correlated with D(WL) (r = -0.724; P < .001) but was not accounted for in the BSA method. Patients with larger livers were relatively underdosed, and patients with smaller livers were relatively overdosed. Patients who received D(WL) > 50 Gy experienced more toxicity and adverse events (> grade 2 liver toxicity, 46% vs 17%; P < .05) but also responded better to the treatment than patients who received D(WL)< 50 Gy (disease control, 88% vs 24%; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Using the standard BSA formula, the administered activity did not correlate with D(WL). Based on this short-term follow-up after salvage therapy in patients with late stage metastatic colorectal carcinoma, dose-response and dose-toxicity relationships support using a protocol based on liver volume rather than BSA to prescribe the administered activity.
PURPOSE: To calculate absorbed radiation doses in patients treated with resin microspheres prescribed by the body surface area (BSA) method and to analyze dose-response and toxicity relationships. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of 45 patients with colorectal carcinoma metastases who received single-session whole-liver resin microsphere radioembolization. Prescribed treatment activity was calculated using the BSA method. Liver volumes and whole-liver absorbed doses (D(WL)) were calculated. D(WL) was correlated with toxicity and radiographic and biochemical response. RESULTS: The standard BSA-based administered activity (range, 0.85-2.58 GBq) did not correlate with D(WL) (mean, 50.4 Gy; range, 29.8-74.7 Gy; r = -0.037; P = .809) because liver weight was highly variable (mean, 1.89 kg; range, 0.94-3.42 kg) and strongly correlated with D(WL) (r = -0.724; P < .001) but was not accounted for in the BSA method. Patients with larger livers were relatively underdosed, and patients with smaller livers were relatively overdosed. Patients who received D(WL) > 50 Gy experienced more toxicity and adverse events (> grade 2 liver toxicity, 46% vs 17%; P < .05) but also responded better to the treatment than patients who received D(WL)< 50 Gy (disease control, 88% vs 24%; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Using the standard BSA formula, the administered activity did not correlate with D(WL). Based on this short-term follow-up after salvage therapy in patients with late stage metastatic colorectal carcinoma, dose-response and dose-toxicity relationships support using a protocol based on liver volume rather than BSA to prescribe the administered activity.
Authors: Aaron K T Tong; Yung Hsiang Kao; Chow Wei Too; Kenneth F W Chin; David C E Ng; Pierce K H Chow Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Abigail E Besemer; Benjamin Titz; Joseph J Grudzinski; Jamey P Weichert; John S Kuo; H Ian Robins; Lance T Hall; Bryan P Bednarz Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2017-07-06 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Arthur J A T Braat; Julia E Huijbregts; I Quintus Molenaar; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Marnix G E H Lam Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2014-07-30 Impact factor: 6.244
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: Morsal Samim; Linde M van Veenendaal; Manon N G J A Braat; Andor F van den Hoven; Richard Van Hillegersberg; Bruno Sangro; Yung Hsiang Kao; Dave Liu; John D Louie; Daniel Y Sze; Steven C Rose; Daniel B Brown; Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar; Edward Kim; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Marnix G E H Lam Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-07-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Remco Bastiaannet; S Cheenu Kappadath; Britt Kunnen; Arthur J A T Braat; Marnix G E H Lam; Hugo W A M de Jong Journal: EJNMMI Phys Date: 2018-11-02