PURPOSE: Radiation pneumonitis is a rare but serious complication of radioembolic therapy of liver tumours. Estimation of the mean absorbed dose to the lungs based on pretreatment diagnostic (99m)Tc-macroaggregated albumin ((99m)Tc-MAA) imaging should prevent this, with administered activities adjusted accordingly. The accuracy of (99m)Tc-MAA-based lung absorbed dose estimates was evaluated and compared to absorbed dose estimates based on pretreatment diagnostic (166)Ho-microsphere imaging and to the actual lung absorbed doses after (166)Ho radioembolization. METHODS: This prospective clinical study included 14 patients with chemorefractory, unresectable liver metastases treated with (166)Ho radioembolization. (99m)Tc-MAA-based and (166)Ho-microsphere-based estimation of lung absorbed doses was performed on pretreatment diagnostic planar scintigraphic and SPECT/CT images. The clinical analysis was preceded by an anthropomorphic torso phantom study with simulated lung shunt fractions of 0 to 30 % to determine the accuracy of the image-based lung absorbed dose estimates after (166)Ho radioembolization. RESULTS: In the phantom study, (166)Ho SPECT/CT-based lung absorbed dose estimates were more accurate (absolute error range 0.1 to -4.4 Gy) than (166)Ho planar scintigraphy-based lung absorbed dose estimates (absolute error range 9.5 to 12.1 Gy). Clinically, the actual median lung absorbed dose was 0.02 Gy (range 0.0 to 0.7 Gy) based on posttreatment (166)Ho-microsphere SPECT/CT imaging. Lung absorbed doses estimated on the basis of pretreatment diagnostic (166)Ho-microsphere SPECT/CT imaging (median 0.02 Gy, range 0.0 to 0.4 Gy) were significantly better predictors of the actual lung absorbed doses than doses estimated on the basis of (166)Ho-microsphere planar scintigraphy (median 10.4 Gy, range 4.0 to 17.3 Gy; p < 0.001), (99m)Tc-MAA SPECT/CT imaging (median 2.5 Gy, range 1.2 to 12.3 Gy; p < 0.001), and (99m)Tc-MAA planar scintigraphy (median 5.5 Gy, range 2.3 to 18.2 Gy; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, lung absorbed doses are significantly overestimated by pretreatment diagnostic (99m)Tc-MAA imaging. Pretreatment diagnostic (166)Ho-microsphere SPECT/CT imaging accurately predicts lung absorbed doses after (166)Ho radioembolization.
PURPOSE: Radiation pneumonitis is a rare but serious complication of radioembolic therapy of liver tumours. Estimation of the mean absorbed dose to the lungs based on pretreatment diagnostic (99m)Tc-macroaggregated albumin ((99m)Tc-MAA) imaging should prevent this, with administered activities adjusted accordingly. The accuracy of (99m)Tc-MAA-based lung absorbed dose estimates was evaluated and compared to absorbed dose estimates based on pretreatment diagnostic (166)Ho-microsphere imaging and to the actual lung absorbed doses after (166)Ho radioembolization. METHODS: This prospective clinical study included 14 patients with chemorefractory, unresectable liver metastases treated with (166)Ho radioembolization. (99m)Tc-MAA-based and (166)Ho-microsphere-based estimation of lung absorbed doses was performed on pretreatment diagnostic planar scintigraphic and SPECT/CT images. The clinical analysis was preceded by an anthropomorphic torso phantom study with simulated lung shunt fractions of 0 to 30 % to determine the accuracy of the image-based lung absorbed dose estimates after (166)Ho radioembolization. RESULTS: In the phantom study, (166)Ho SPECT/CT-based lung absorbed dose estimates were more accurate (absolute error range 0.1 to -4.4 Gy) than (166)Ho planar scintigraphy-based lung absorbed dose estimates (absolute error range 9.5 to 12.1 Gy). Clinically, the actual median lung absorbed dose was 0.02 Gy (range 0.0 to 0.7 Gy) based on posttreatment (166)Ho-microsphere SPECT/CT imaging. Lung absorbed doses estimated on the basis of pretreatment diagnostic (166)Ho-microsphere SPECT/CT imaging (median 0.02 Gy, range 0.0 to 0.4 Gy) were significantly better predictors of the actual lung absorbed doses than doses estimated on the basis of (166)Ho-microsphere planar scintigraphy (median 10.4 Gy, range 4.0 to 17.3 Gy; p < 0.001), (99m)Tc-MAA SPECT/CT imaging (median 2.5 Gy, range 1.2 to 12.3 Gy; p < 0.001), and (99m)Tc-MAA planar scintigraphy (median 5.5 Gy, range 2.3 to 18.2 Gy; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In clinical practice, lung absorbed doses are significantly overestimated by pretreatment diagnostic (99m)Tc-MAA imaging. Pretreatment diagnostic (166)Ho-microsphere SPECT/CT imaging accurately predicts lung absorbed doses after (166)Ho radioembolization.
Authors: Chadwick L Wright; Jeff D Werner; Jerry M Tran; Vanessa L Gates; Ali A Rikabi; Manisha H Shah; Riad Salem Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Ellen D Yorke; Andrew Jackson; Kenneth E Rosenzweig; Louise Braban; Steven A Leibel; C Clifton Ling Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2005-06-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Kent Sato; Robert J Lewandowski; James T Bui; Reed Omary; Russell D Hunter; Laura Kulik; Mary Mulcahy; David Liu; Howard Chrisman; Scott Resnick; Albert A Nemcek; Robert Vogelzang; Riad Salem Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2006 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: M A D Vente; M Wondergem; I van der Tweel; M A A J van den Bosch; B A Zonnenberg; M G E H Lam; A D van Het Schip; J F W Nijsen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-11-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Maarten L J Smits; Johannes F W Nijsen; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Marnix G E H Lam; Maarten A D Vente; Willem P T M Mali; Alfred D van Het Schip; Bernard A Zonnenberg Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-08-22 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Ravi Murthy; Daniel B Brown; Riad Salem; Steven G Meranze; Douglas M Coldwell; Sunil Krishnan; Rodolfo Nunez; Amit Habbu; David Liu; William Ross; Alan M Cohen; Michael Censullo Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 3.464
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: M A D Vente; J F W Nijsen; T C de Wit; J H Seppenwoolde; G C Krijger; P R Seevinck; A Huisman; B A Zonnenberg; T S G A M van den Ingh; A D van het Schip Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2008-03-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Justin K Mikell; Bill S Majdalany; Dawn Owen; Kelly C Paradis; Yuni K Dewaraja Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2019-04-22 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Martina Stella; Rob van Rooij; Marnix G E H Lam; Hugo W A M de Jong; Arthur J A T Braat Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-11-12 Impact factor: 11.082
Authors: Robert Drescher; Philipp Seifert; Falk Gühne; René Aschenbach; Christian Kühnel; Martin Freesmeyer Journal: J Endovasc Ther Date: 2021-02-25 Impact factor: 3.487