Thomas J Ward1, Anobel Tamrazi2, Marnix G E H Lam3, John D Louie4, Peter N Kao5, Rajesh P Shah4, Michael A Kadoch6, Daniel Y Sze4. 1. Division of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, H-3646, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94305-5642. Electronic address: Thomasjward@gmail.com. 2. Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 3. Division of Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Division of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, H-3646, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94305-5642. 5. Division of Pulmonology and Critical Care, Stanford University Medical Center, H-3646, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94305-5642. 6. Division of Thoracic Imaging, Stanford University Medical Center, H-3646, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford, CA 94305-5642.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review the safety of hepatic radioembolization (RE) in patients with high (≥ 10%) hepatopulmonary shunt fraction (HPSF) using various prophylactic techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review was conducted of 409 patients who underwent technetium 99m-labeled macroaggregated albumin scintigraphy before planned RE. Estimated pulmonary absorbed radiation doses based on scintigraphy and hepatic administered activity were calculated. Outcomes from dose reductions and adjunctive catheter-based prophylactic techniques used to reduce lung exposure were assessed. RESULTS: There were 80 patients with HPSF ≥ 10% who received RE treatment (41 resin microspheres for metastases, 39 glass microspheres for hepatocellular carcinoma). Resin microspheres were used in 17 patients according to consensus guideline-recommended dose reduction; 38 patients received no dose reduction because the expected lung dose was < 30 Gy. Prophylactic techniques were used in 25 patients (with expected lung dose ≤ 74 Gy), including hepatic vein balloon occlusion, variceal embolization, or bland arterial embolization before, during, or after RE delivery. Repeated scintigraphy after prophylactic techniques to reduce HPSF in seven patients demonstrated a median change of -40% (range, +32 to -69%). Delayed pneumonitis developed in two patients, possibly related to radiation recall after chemoembolization. Response was lower in patients treated with resin spheres with dose reduction, with an objective response rate of 13% and disease control rate of 47% compared with 56% and 94%, respectively, without dose reduction (P = .023, P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Dose reduction recommendations for HPSF may compromise efficacy. Excessive shunting can be reduced by prophylactic catheter-based techniques, which may improve the safety of performing RE in patients with high HPSF.
PURPOSE: To review the safety of hepatic radioembolization (RE) in patients with high (≥ 10%) hepatopulmonary shunt fraction (HPSF) using various prophylactic techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review was conducted of 409 patients who underwent technetium 99m-labeled macroaggregated albumin scintigraphy before planned RE. Estimated pulmonary absorbed radiation doses based on scintigraphy and hepatic administered activity were calculated. Outcomes from dose reductions and adjunctive catheter-based prophylactic techniques used to reduce lung exposure were assessed. RESULTS: There were 80 patients with HPSF ≥ 10% who received RE treatment (41 resin microspheres for metastases, 39 glass microspheres for hepatocellular carcinoma). Resin microspheres were used in 17 patients according to consensus guideline-recommended dose reduction; 38 patients received no dose reduction because the expected lung dose was < 30 Gy. Prophylactic techniques were used in 25 patients (with expected lung dose ≤ 74 Gy), including hepatic vein balloon occlusion, variceal embolization, or bland arterial embolization before, during, or after RE delivery. Repeated scintigraphy after prophylactic techniques to reduce HPSF in seven patients demonstrated a median change of -40% (range, +32 to -69%). Delayed pneumonitis developed in two patients, possibly related to radiation recall after chemoembolization. Response was lower in patients treated with resin spheres with dose reduction, with an objective response rate of 13% and disease control rate of 47% compared with 56% and 94%, respectively, without dose reduction (P = .023, P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Dose reduction recommendations for HPSF may compromise efficacy. Excessive shunting can be reduced by prophylactic catheter-based techniques, which may improve the safety of performing RE in patients with high HPSF.
Authors: Joseph H Yacoub; David Mauro; Andrew Moon; Aiwu R He; Mustafa R Bashir; Christine C Hsu; Thomas M Fishbein; Lauren M B Burke Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-04-16
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: Kazim H Narsinh; Mark Van Buskirk; Andrew S Kennedy; Mohammed Suhail; Naif Alsaikhan; Carl K Hoh; Kenneth Thurston; Jeet Minocha; David S Ball; Steven J Cohen; Michael Cohn; Douglas M Coldwell; Alain Drooz; Eduardo Ehrenwald; Samir Kanani; Charles W Nutting; Fred M Moeslein; Michael A Savin; Sabine Schirm; Samuel G Putnam; Navesh K Sharma; Eric A Wang; Steven C Rose Journal: Radiology Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Bastiaan J van Nierop; Jip F Prince; Rob van Rooij; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Marnix G E H Lam; Hugo W A M de Jong Journal: Med Phys Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 4.071