OBJECTIVE: To determine the best predictor for the response to and survival with transarterial radioembolisation (RE) with (90)yttrium microspheres in patients with liver metastases. METHODS: Forty consecutive patients with liver metastases undergoing RE were evaluated with multiphase CT, perfusion CT and (99m)Tc-MAA SPECT. Arterial perfusion (AP) from perfusion CT, HU values from the arterial (aHU) and portal venous phase (pvHU) CT, and (99m)Tc-MAA uptake ratio of metastases were determined. Morphologic response was evaluated after 4 months and available in 30 patients. One-year survival was calculated with Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: We found significant differences between responders and non-responders for AP (P < 0.001) and aHU (P = 0.001) of metastases, while no differences were found for pvHU (P = 0.07) and the (99m)Tc-MAA uptake ratio (P = 0.40). AP had a significantly higher specificity than aHU (P = 0.003) for determining responders to RE. Patients with an AP >20 ml/100 ml/min had a significantly (P = 0.01) higher 1-year survival, whereas an aHU value >55 HU did not discriminate survival (P = 0.12). The Cox proportional hazard model revealed AP as the only significant (P = 0.02) independent predictor of survival. CONCLUSION: Compared to arterial and portal venous enhancement and the (99m)Tc-MAA uptake ratio of liver metastases, the AP from perfusion CT is the best predictor of morphologic response to and 1-year survival with RE. KEY POINTS: • Perfusion CT allows for calculation of the liver arterial perfusion. • Arterial perfusion of liver metastases differs between responders and non-responders to RE. • Arterial perfusion can be used to select patients responding to RE.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the best predictor for the response to and survival with transarterial radioembolisation (RE) with (90)yttrium microspheres in patients with liver metastases. METHODS: Forty consecutive patients with liver metastases undergoing RE were evaluated with multiphase CT, perfusion CT and (99m)Tc-MAA SPECT. Arterial perfusion (AP) from perfusion CT, HU values from the arterial (aHU) and portal venous phase (pvHU) CT, and (99m)Tc-MAA uptake ratio of metastases were determined. Morphologic response was evaluated after 4 months and available in 30 patients. One-year survival was calculated with Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: We found significant differences between responders and non-responders for AP (P < 0.001) and aHU (P = 0.001) of metastases, while no differences were found for pvHU (P = 0.07) and the (99m)Tc-MAA uptake ratio (P = 0.40). AP had a significantly higher specificity than aHU (P = 0.003) for determining responders to RE. Patients with an AP >20 ml/100 ml/min had a significantly (P = 0.01) higher 1-year survival, whereas an aHU value >55 HU did not discriminate survival (P = 0.12). The Cox proportional hazard model revealed AP as the only significant (P = 0.02) independent predictor of survival. CONCLUSION: Compared to arterial and portal venous enhancement and the (99m)Tc-MAA uptake ratio of liver metastases, the AP from perfusion CT is the best predictor of morphologic response to and 1-year survival with RE. KEY POINTS: • Perfusion CT allows for calculation of the liver arterial perfusion. • Arterial perfusion of liver metastases differs between responders and non-responders to RE. • Arterial perfusion can be used to select patients responding to RE.
Authors: Ricarda Seidensticker; Max Seidensticker; Robert Damm; Konrad Mohnike; Kerstin Schütte; Peter Malfertheiner; Mark Van Buskirk; Maciej Pech; Holger Amthauer; Jens Ricke Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Vicky Goh; Steve Halligan; Frances Daley; David M Wellsted; Thomas Guenther; Clive I Bartram Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-09-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gerhard Ulrich; Oliver Dudeck; Christian Furth; Juri Ruf; Oliver S Grosser; Daniela Adolf; Marvin Stiebler; Jens Ricke; Holger Amthauer Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Alejandro Forner; Carmen Ayuso; María Varela; Jordi Rimola; Amelia J Hessheimer; Carlos Rodriguez de Lope; María Reig; Luís Bianchi; Josep M Llovet; Jordi Bruix Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Andrew S Kennedy; Patrick McNeillie; William A Dezarn; Charles Nutting; Bruno Sangro; Dan Wertman; Michael Garafalo; David Liu; Douglas Coldwell; Michael Savin; Tobias Jakobs; Steven Rose; Richard Warner; Dennis Carter; Stephen Sapareto; Subir Nag; Seza Gulec; Allison Calkins; Vanessa L Gates; Riad Salem Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2009-01-20 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: F Edward Boas; Lynn A Brody; Joseph P Erinjeri; Hooman Yarmohammadi; Waleed Shady; Sirish Kishore; Constantinos T Sofocleous Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Claus Christian Pieper; Winfried A Willinek; Daniel Thomas; Hojjat Ahmadzadehfar; Markus Essler; Jennifer Nadal; Kai E Wilhelm; Hans Heinz Schild; Carsten Meyer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Claus C Pieper; Alois M Sprinkart; Carsten Meyer; Roy König; Hans H Schild; Guido M Kukuk; Petra Mürtz Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 1.889