| Literature DB >> 28536968 |
Kathy P Willowson1, Aimee R Hayes2,3, David L H Chan2,3, Michael Tapner4, Elizabeth J Bernard2,5, Richard Maher6, Nick Pavlakis3,5, Stephen J Clarke3,5, Dale L Bailey2,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between absorbed dose and response of colorectal cancer liver metastases treated with [90Y]-resin microspheres and to explore possible clinical and imaging derived prognostic factors.Entities:
Keywords: 90Y; Dose; Heterogeneity; Radioembolisation; Response; SIRT
Year: 2017 PMID: 28536968 PMCID: PMC5442040 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-017-0292-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EJNMMI Res Impact factor: 3.138
Characteristics of study cohort at baseline (n = 32)
| Characteristic |
|
|---|---|
| Age in years, median (range) | 63 (37–86) |
| Sex | |
| Male | 23 (72%) |
| Female | 9 (28%) |
| BMI, median (range) | 26 (20–38) |
| Primary site | |
| Colon | 23 (72%) |
| Rectum | 9 (28%) |
| Definitive treatment to primary tumour | 26 (81%) |
| Hepatic tumour burdena, median (range) | 9 (1–46) |
| Hepatic tumour burdena > 25% | 4 (13%) |
| Extrahepatic metastasesb | 23 (72%) |
| Location of extrahepatic metastases | |
| Lungs alone | 13 |
| Lung and lymph nodes | 2 |
| Lymph nodes alone | 5 |
| Other | 3 |
| Prior therapies | |
| Lines of chemotherapy | 9 (28%) |
| 2 | 22 (69%) |
| Anti-VEGF/EGFR mAb | 28 (88%) |
| Hepatic resection | 11 (34%) |
| RFA/SBRTc to liver | 2 (6%) |
| Isolated liver oxaliplatin | 1 (3%) |
| Radiotherapy to extrahepatic sites | 6 (19%) |
| RAS mutation statusd | |
| Wild type | 14 (44%) |
| Mutant | 10 (31%) |
| Unknown | 8 (25%) |
| Treatment to both liver lobes | 19 (59%) |
| Prescribed amount of 90Y for treatment in GBq, median (range)e | 1.68 (0.42–2.08) |
| Time to follow-up FDG PET/CTe in days, median (range) | 56 (38–80) |
aAs measured by the MeVis® radiological service (MeVis Medical Solutions AG, Bremen, Germany), based on contrast enhanced CT performed at the time of baseline FDG PET/CT
bDetected on FDG PET/CT
cRFA, Radiofrequency ablation; SBRT, stereotactic body radiation therapy
dKRAS/NRAS where tested
eFrom sub-cohort of 22 patients with analysable lesion data only
Fig. 1Flowchart representing the patient cohort for analysis and categorisation definitions
Response rates of lesions for different 90Y absorbed dose metrics, where dose values are presented as Gy ± stdev
| Davg | D70 | V50 | BED | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PMD | 22.3 ± 20.1 | 10.9 ± 11.1 | 12.8 ± 16.6 | 24.2 ± 22.5 |
| SMD | 28.8 ± 19.7 | 16.2 ± 14.2 | 19.9 ± 22.7 | 31.5 ± 22.9 |
| PMR | 49.2 ± 22.7 | 31.7 ± 16.7 | 38.8 ± 24.5 | 55.8 ± 28.6 |
| CMR | 52.1 ± 18.5 | 35.2 ± 15.1 | 43.6 ± 25.8 | 59.0 ± 22.9 |
| Total | 42.9 ± 22.8 | 27.5 ± 17.4 | 33.9 ± 26.3 | 48.3 ± 27.4 |
Fig. 2Dose curves for each category of response for Davg, D70, V50 and BED. Error bars represent the 95% CI for Davg
The mean dose (Gy ± stdev) corresponding to responding and non-responding lesions for each of the investigated metrics, including the p value from the two-sided t test of significance (set at 0.05)
| Davg | D70 | V50 | BED | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Responders | 51.1 ± 19.7 | 34.0 ± 15.5 | 42.0 ± 25.2 | 58.0 ± 24.6 |
| Non-responders | 26.6 ± 19.6 | 14.5 ± 13.2 | 17.5 ± 20.7 | 29.1 ± 22.5 |
|
| 1.8 × 10−5 | 6.0 × 10−6 | 2.9 × 10−4 | 3.0 × 10−5 |
Fig. 3a The ratio of true (90Y) to predicted (MAA) mean absorbed dose across all lesions. Horizontal dashed lines represent a ±50% difference. An outlier with a ratio value of 12.3 was excluded for visual purposes. b The mean ratio of true (90Y) to predicted (MAA) lesion absorbed dose for each response category. Dashed line represents a ratio of 1.0
Fig. 4The dose–response for all lesions follows the expected relationship when measuring response with change in TLG (R = 0.61, when fitted with a function of the form: ) (a); this relationship is not demonstrated when change in SUVpeak is used to measure response (R = 0.33) (b). Using D70 instead of Davg as the metric slightly improves the correlation further (R = 0.63) (c). A 50 Gy cut-off (dashed line) corresponds to a significant response in all but two lesions (a)
Fig. 5Average lesion doses corresponding to each response category, separated for lesions of wild type and mutated RAS status. The shaded regions represent the interquartile (IQ) range, with the solid line representing the median value. Mild outliers (circle) are points which lie greater than 1.5 times the IQ range from the upper (3rd) or lower (1st) quartile. Extreme outliers (asterisk) are points which lie greater than three times the IQ range from the upper (3rd) or lower (1st) quartile
Univariate (unadjusted) logistic regression and multivariate (adjusted) backward stepwise likelihood ratio regression of factors associated with significant lesional response (*)
| Independent variable |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted | Adjusted | |||
| All lesions | <50 Gy | >50 Gy | ||
| D70 | 0.0002* | |||
| V50 | 0.001* | |||
| Davg | 0.0004* | 0.039* | 0.259 | 0.604 |
| BED | 0.001* | |||
| FDG COV | 0.050* | 0.291 | 0.422 | 0.719 |
| Dose COV | 0.001* | 0.017* | 0.005* | 0.868 |
Fig. 6Baseline TLG (a) and Absorbed dose CoV (b) of lesions within each response category
Fig. 7Kaplan-Meier plot of patient survival by presence or absence of extrahepatic disease on FDG PET/CT prior to radioembolisation. Patients with presence of extrahepatic disease had lower overall survival (p = 0.03 by log-rank test)
Fig. 8Kaplan-Meier plot of patient survival with patients dichotomised into low (≤12%) and high (>12%) hepatic tumour burden groups as measured by MeVis. Patients with hepatic tumour burden ≤12% had improved survival compared to those with higher hepatic tumour burden (p < 0.0001 by log-rank test)
Fig. 9Kaplan-Meier plot of patient survival by mean TLG reduction after radioembolisation analysed in categories of >65% vs. lower. Patients with TLG reduction >65% had improved overall survival compared to those with lower TLG reduction (p = 0.028 by log-rank test)