Literature DB >> 32591491

Dose-Effect Relationships of 166Ho Radioembolization in Colorectal Cancer.

Caren van Roekel1, Remco Bastiaannet2, Maarten L J Smits2, Rutger C Bruijnen2, Arthur J A T Braat2, Hugo W A M de Jong2, Sjoerd G Elias2, Marnix G E H Lam2.   

Abstract

Radioembolization is a treatment option for colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with inoperable, chemorefractory hepatic metastases. Personalized treatment requires established dose thresholds. Hence, the aim of this study was to explore the relationship between dose and effect (i.e., response and toxicity) in CRC patients treated with 166Ho radioembolization.
Methods: CRC patients treated in the HEPAR II and SIM studies were analyzed. Absorbed doses were estimated using the activity distribution on posttreatment 166Ho SPECT/CT. Metabolic response was assessed using the change in total-lesion glycolysis on 18F-FDG PET/CT between baseline and 3-mo follow-up. Toxicity between treatment and 3 mo was evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 5, and its relationship with parenchyma-absorbed dose was assessed using linear models. The relationship between tumor-absorbed dose and patient- and tumor-level response was analyzed using linear mixed models. Using a threshold of 100% sensitivity for response, the threshold for a minimal mean tumor-absorbed dose was determined and its impact on survival was assessed.
Results: Forty patients were included. The median parenchyma-absorbed dose was 37 Gy (range, 12-55 Gy). New CTCAE grade 3 or higher clinical and laboratory toxicity was present in 8 and 7 patients, respectively. For any clinical toxicity (highest grade per patient), the mean difference in parenchymal dose (Gy) per step increase in CTCAE grade category was 5.75 (95% CI, 1.18-10.32). On a patient level, metabolic response was as follows: complete response, n = 1; partial response, n = 11; stable disease, n = 17; and progressive disease, n = 8. The mean tumor-absorbed dose was 84% higher in patients with complete or partial response than in patients with progressive disease (95% CI, 20%-180%). Survival for patients with a mean tumor-absorbed dose of more than 90 Gy was significantly better than for patients with a mean tumor-absorbed dose of less than 90 Gy (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.06-0.511).
Conclusion: A significant dose-response relationship in CRC patients treated with 166Ho radioembolization was established, and a positive association between toxicity and parenchymal dose was found. For future patients, it is advocated to use a 166Ho scout dose to select patients and yo personalize the administered activity, targeting a mean tumor-absorbed dose of more than 90 Gy and a parenchymal dose of less than 55 Gy.
© 2021 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.

Entities:  

Keywords:  dosimetry; holmium; radioembolization

Year:  2020        PMID: 32591491     DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.243832

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0161-5505            Impact factor:   10.057


  8 in total

Review 1.  Trans-arterial Radioembolization Dosimetry in 2022.

Authors:  Etienne Garin; Boris Guiu; Julien Edeline; Yan Rolland; Xavier Palard
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2022-08-18       Impact factor: 2.797

Review 2.  Role of Transhepatic Arterial Radioembolization in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Irene Bargellini; Elena Bozzi; Giulia Lorenzoni; Giuseppe Boni; Francesca Bianchi; Claudio Antonio Traino; Gianluca Masi; Roberto Cioni; Laura Crocetti
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2022-09-14       Impact factor: 2.797

3.  Dose-Response and Dose-Toxicity Relationships for Glass 90Y Radioembolization in Patients with Liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Ahmed A Alsultan; Caren van Roekel; Maarten W Barentsz; Maarten L J Smits; Britt Kunnen; Miriam Koopman; Arthur J A T Braat; Rutger C G Bruijnen; Bart de Keizer; Marnix G E H Lam
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2021-03-19       Impact factor: 10.057

4.  Dose-response relationship after yttrium-90-radioembolization with glass microspheres in patients with neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases.

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

5.  EANM procedure guideline for the treatment of liver cancer and liver metastases with intra-arterial radioactive compounds.

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

Review 6.  SIRT in 2025.

Authors:  Francesca Romana Ponziani; Francesco Santopaolo; Antonio Gasbarrini; Roberto Iezzi; Alessandro Posa; Maurizio Pompili; Alessandro Tanzilli; Marta Maestri; Maria Pallozzi; Francesca Ibba; Riccardo Manfredi
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2022-08-08       Impact factor: 2.797

Review 7.  Microspheres Used in Liver Radioembolization: From Conception to Clinical Effects.

Authors:  Philippe d'Abadie; Michel Hesse; Amandine Louppe; Renaud Lhommel; Stephan Walrand; Francois Jamar
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2021-06-29       Impact factor: 4.411

8.  Reassessment of the lung dose limits for radioembolization.

Authors:  S Cheenu Kappadath; Benjamin P Lopez; Riad Salem; Marnix G E H Lam
Journal:  Nucl Med Commun       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 1.690

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.