Orapin Chansanti1, Younes Jahangiri1, Yusuke Matsui1, Akira Adachi1, Yindee Geeratikun1, John A Kaufman1, Kenneth J Kolbeck1, Jeffrey S Stevens2, Khashayar Farsad3. 1. Dotter Interventional Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239. 3. Dotter Interventional Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239. Electronic address: farsad@ohsu.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate dose-response relationship in yttrium-90 (90Y) resin microsphere radioembolization for neuroendocrine tumor (NET) liver metastases using a tumor-specific dose estimation based on technetium-99m-labeled macroaggregated albumin (99mTc MAA) single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)-CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-five tumors (mean size 3.9 cm) in 15 patients (10 women; mean age 57 y) were evaluated. Tumor-specific absorbed dose was estimated using a partition model. Initial (median 2.3 months) follow-up data were available for all tumors; last (median 7.6 months) follow-up data were available for 45 tumors. Tumor response was evaluated using Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) on follow-up CT. Tumors with complete or partial response were considered responders. Mean tumor absorbed dose was 231.4 Gy ± 184.3, and mean nontumor liver absorbed dose was 39.0 Gy ± 18.0. RESULTS: Thirty-six (65.5%) and 30 (66.7%) tumors showed response at initial and last follow-up, respectively. Mean absorbed doses in responders and nonresponders at initial and last follow-up were 285.8 Gy ± 191.1 and 128.1 Gy ± 117.1 (P = .0004) and 314.3 Gy ± 195.8 and 115.7 Gy ± 117.4 (P = .0001). Cutoff value of ≥ 191.3 Gy for tumor-specific absorbed dose predicted tumor response with 93% specificity, whereas < 72.8 Gy predicted nonresponse with 100% specificity at last follow-up. Estimated mean absorbed tumor dose per patient was significantly higher in responders versus nonresponders over the follow-up period (224.5 Gy ± 90.3 vs 70.0 Gy ± 28.0; P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: Tumor-specific absorbed dose, estimated with a partition model, was significantly associated with tumor response in NET liver metastases. An estimated dose ≥ 191.3 Gy predicted treatment response with high sensitivity and specificity.
PURPOSE: To evaluate dose-response relationship in yttrium-90 (90Y) resin microsphere radioembolization for neuroendocrine tumor (NET) liver metastases using a tumor-specific dose estimation based on technetium-99m-labeled macroaggregated albumin (99mTc MAA) single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)-CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-five tumors (mean size 3.9 cm) in 15 patients (10 women; mean age 57 y) were evaluated. Tumor-specific absorbed dose was estimated using a partition model. Initial (median 2.3 months) follow-up data were available for all tumors; last (median 7.6 months) follow-up data were available for 45 tumors. Tumor response was evaluated using Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) on follow-up CT. Tumors with complete or partial response were considered responders. Mean tumor absorbed dose was 231.4 Gy ± 184.3, and mean nontumor liver absorbed dose was 39.0 Gy ± 18.0. RESULTS: Thirty-six (65.5%) and 30 (66.7%) tumors showed response at initial and last follow-up, respectively. Mean absorbed doses in responders and nonresponders at initial and last follow-up were 285.8 Gy ± 191.1 and 128.1 Gy ± 117.1 (P = .0004) and 314.3 Gy ± 195.8 and 115.7 Gy ± 117.4 (P = .0001). Cutoff value of ≥ 191.3 Gy for tumor-specific absorbed dose predicted tumor response with 93% specificity, whereas < 72.8 Gy predicted nonresponse with 100% specificity at last follow-up. Estimated mean absorbed tumor dose per patient was significantly higher in responders versus nonresponders over the follow-up period (224.5 Gy ± 90.3 vs 70.0 Gy ± 28.0; P = .007). CONCLUSIONS:Tumor-specific absorbed dose, estimated with a partition model, was significantly associated with tumor response in NET liver metastases. An estimated dose ≥ 191.3 Gy predicted treatment response with high sensitivity and specificity.
Authors: Alejandro Bertolet; Eric Wehrenberg-Klee; Mislav Bobić; Clemens Grassberger; Joseph Perl; Harald Paganetti; Jan Schuemann Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2021-12-29 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Robert J Lewandowski; Beau B Toskich; Daniel B Brown; Ghassan El-Haddad; Siddharth A Padia Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2022-08-02 Impact factor: 2.797
Authors: Hugo Levillain; Oreste Bagni; Christophe M Deroose; Arnaud Dieudonné; Silvano Gnesin; Oliver S Grosser; S Cheenu Kappadath; Andrew Kennedy; Nima Kokabi; David M Liu; David C Madoff; Armeen Mahvash; Antonio Martinez de la Cuesta; David C E Ng; Philipp M Paprottka; Cinzia Pettinato; Macarena Rodríguez-Fraile; Riad Salem; Bruno Sangro; Lidia Strigari; Daniel Y Sze; Berlinda J de Wit van der Veen; Patrick Flamen Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-01-12 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Sander C Ebbers; Caren van Roekel; Manon N G J A Braat; Maarten W Barentsz; Marnix G E H Lam; Arthur J A T Braat Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-12-07 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Xiangjun Han; Oleh Taratula; Anna St Lorenz; Abraham S Moses; Hassan A Albarqi; Younes Jahangiri; Qirun Wu; Ke Xu; Olena Taratula; Khashayar Farsad Journal: RSC Adv Date: 2021-09-15 Impact factor: 3.361
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
Authors: Daniel Roth; Johan Gustafsson; Carl Fredrik Warfvinge; Anna Sundlöv; Anna Åkesson; Jan Tennvall; Katarina Sjögreen Gleisner Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 10.057