Chi Lai Ho1, Sirong Chen2,3, Shing Kee Cheung2, Yim Lung Leung2, Kam Chau Cheng2, Ka Nin Wong2, Yuet Hung Wong2, Thomas Wai Tong Leung4. 1. Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, 2 Village Road, Happy Valley, Hong Kong, Hong Kong. garrettho@hksh.com. 2. Department of Nuclear Medicine & PET, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, 2 Village Road, Happy Valley, Hong Kong, Hong Kong. 3. Medical Physics & Research Department, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong. 4. Comprehensive Oncology Center, Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to establish an algorithm for the prescription of 90Y glass microsphere radioembolization (90Y-GMRE) of HCC in individual patients based on the relationship between tumour dose (TD) and response validated by 90Y PET/CT dosimetry and dual-tracer PET/CT metabolic parameters. METHODS: The study group comprised 62 HCC patients prospectively recruited for 90Y-GMRE who underwent pretreatment dual-tracer (11C-acetate and 18F-FDG) PET/CT as surrogate markers of HCC cellular differentiation. Pretreatment tumour-to-nontumour ratio on 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT (T/NTMAA) was correlated with posttreatment 90Y PET/CT T/NT90Y after quantification validation. The TD-response relationship for HCC of different tracer groups was assessed on follow-up PET/CT 2 months after treatment. RESULTS: 90Y PET/CT was accurate in the measurement of recovery of injected 90Y activity (81.9-99.9%, median 94.8%). Pretreatment SPECT/CT T/NTMAA was strongly correlated with posttreatment 90Y PET/CT T/NT90Y (5.6 ± 3.2 versus 5.9 ± 3.5, T/NT90Y 1.01 × T/NTMAA + 0.161, r = 0.918, P < 0.05). The response rates were 72.4% (21/29), 70.6% (12/17) and 25% (4/16) for well, moderately and poorly differentiated HCC, respectively. The cut-off TD for a good response was significantly different between poorly differentiated and well/moderately differentiated HCC (262 Gy versus 152/174 Gy) with 89.2% sensitivity and 88% specificity. At a limiting tolerated liver dose of 70 Gy, the T/NTMAA thresholds for predicting a good response in poorly differentiated and well/moderately differentiated HCC were 3.5 and 2.0/2.3. Disregarding HCC cellular differentiation, the cut-off TD became 170 Gy, with lower sensitivity (70.3%) and specificity (76%). CONCLUSION: 90Y PET/CT can provide accurate dosimetry for 90Y-GMRE. Pretreatment T/NTMAA predicts posttreatment T/NT90Y. The TD thresholds for a good response are tracer-dependent, with a strong correlation between HCC radiosensitivity and cellular differentiation and other PET-based parameters. These cytokinetic factors improve treatment efficacy while minimizing organ damage for the prescription of personalized 90Y-GMRE.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to establish an algorithm for the prescription of 90Y glass microsphere radioembolization (90Y-GMRE) of HCC in individual patients based on the relationship between tumour dose (TD) and response validated by 90Y PET/CT dosimetry and dual-tracer PET/CT metabolic parameters. METHODS: The study group comprised 62 HCC patients prospectively recruited for 90Y-GMRE who underwent pretreatment dual-tracer (11C-acetate and 18F-FDG) PET/CT as surrogate markers of HCC cellular differentiation. Pretreatment tumour-to-nontumour ratio on 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT (T/NTMAA) was correlated with posttreatment 90Y PET/CT T/NT90Y after quantification validation. The TD-response relationship for HCC of different tracer groups was assessed on follow-up PET/CT 2 months after treatment. RESULTS: 90Y PET/CT was accurate in the measurement of recovery of injected 90Y activity (81.9-99.9%, median 94.8%). Pretreatment SPECT/CT T/NTMAA was strongly correlated with posttreatment 90Y PET/CT T/NT90Y (5.6 ± 3.2 versus 5.9 ± 3.5, T/NT90Y 1.01 × T/NTMAA + 0.161, r = 0.918, P < 0.05). The response rates were 72.4% (21/29), 70.6% (12/17) and 25% (4/16) for well, moderately and poorly differentiated HCC, respectively. The cut-off TD for a good response was significantly different between poorly differentiated and well/moderately differentiated HCC (262 Gy versus 152/174 Gy) with 89.2% sensitivity and 88% specificity. At a limiting tolerated liver dose of 70 Gy, the T/NTMAA thresholds for predicting a good response in poorly differentiated and well/moderately differentiated HCC were 3.5 and 2.0/2.3. Disregarding HCC cellular differentiation, the cut-off TD became 170 Gy, with lower sensitivity (70.3%) and specificity (76%). CONCLUSION: 90Y PET/CT can provide accurate dosimetry for 90Y-GMRE. Pretreatment T/NTMAA predicts posttreatment T/NT90Y. The TD thresholds for a good response are tracer-dependent, with a strong correlation between HCC radiosensitivity and cellular differentiation and other PET-based parameters. These cytokinetic factors improve treatment efficacy while minimizing organ damage for the prescription of personalized 90Y-GMRE.
Authors: William B Lea; Katie N Tapp; Mark Tann; Gary D Hutchins; James W Fletcher; Matthew S Johnson Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2014-08-23 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Mattijs Elschot; Johannes F W Nijsen; Marnix G E H Lam; Maarten L J Smits; Jip F Prince; Max A Viergever; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Bernard A Zonnenberg; Hugo W A M de Jong Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-05-13 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: C Chiesa; M Mira; M Maccauro; R Romito; C Spreafico; C Sposito; S Bhoori; C Morosi; S Pellizzari; A Negri; E Civelli; R Lanocita; T Camerini; C Bampo; M Carrara; E Seregni; A Marchianò; V Mazzaferro; E Bombardieri Journal: Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 2.346
Authors: Yung-Hsiang Kao; Jeffrey D Steinberg; Young-Soon Tay; Gabriel Ky Lim; Jianhua Yan; David W Townsend; Charley A Budgeon; Jan A Boucek; Roslyn J Francis; Timothy St Cheo; Mark C Burgmans; Farah G Irani; Richard Hg Lo; Kiang-Hiong Tay; Bien-Soo Tan; Pierce Kh Chow; Somanesan Satchithanantham; Andrew Eh Tan; David Ce Ng; Anthony Sw Goh Journal: EJNMMI Res Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 3.138
Authors: Sandi A Kwee; Maarit Tiirikainen; Miles M Sato; Jared D Acoba; Runmin Wei; Wei Jia; Loic Le Marchand; Linda L Wong Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Riad Salem; Siddharth A Padia; Marnix Lam; Carlo Chiesa; Paul Haste; Bruno Sangro; Beau Toskich; Kirk Fowers; Joseph M Herman; S Cheenu Kappadath; Thomas Leung; Daniel Y Sze; Edward Kim; Etienne Garin Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-09-17 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Alexander S Pasciak; Godwin Abiola; Robert P Liddell; Nathan Crookston; Sepideh Besharati; Danielle Donahue; Richard E Thompson; Eric Frey; Robert A Anders; Matthew R Dreher; Clifford R Weiss Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: José Carlos De La Vega; Pedro Luis Esquinas; Cristina Rodríguez-Rodríguez; Mehrdad Bokharaei; Igor Moskalev; David Liu; Katayoun Saatchi; Urs O Häfeli Journal: Theranostics Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 11.556
Authors: M Weber; M Lam; C Chiesa; M Konijnenberg; M Cremonesi; P Flamen; S Gnesin; L Bodei; T Kracmerova; M Luster; E Garin; K Herrmann Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Christopher D Malone; Christopher Egbulefu; Alexander Zheleznyak; Jahnavi Polina; Partha Karmakar; Kvar Black; Monica Shokeen; Samuel Achilefu Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-07-26 Impact factor: 4.996