INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the contouring methods on dose metrics and their predictive value on tumor control and survival, in both situations of pre-treatment and post-treatment dosimetry, for patients with advanced HCC treated with SIRT. METHODS: Forty-eight patients who underwent SIRT between 2012 and 2020 were retrospectively included in this study. Target volumes were delineated using two methods: MRI-based contours manually drawn by a radiologist and then registered on SPECT/CT and PET/CT via deformable registration (Pre-CMRI and Post-CMRI), 99mTc-MAA-SPECT and 90Y-microspheres-PET 10% threshold contouring (Pre-CSPECT and Post-CPET). The mean absorbed dose (Dm) and the minimal absorbed dose delivered to 70% of the tumor volume (D70) were evaluated with both contouring methods; the tumor-to-normal liver uptake ratio (TNR) was evaluated with MRI-based contours only. Tumor response was assessed using the mRECIST criteria on the follow-up MRIs. RESULTS: No significant differences were found for Dm and TNR between pre- and post-treatment. TNR evaluated with radiologic contours (Pre-CMRI and Post-CMRI) were predictive of tumor control at 6 months on pre- and post-treatment dosimetry (OR 5.9 and 7.1, respectively; p = 0.02 and 0.01). All dose metrics determined with both methods were predictive of overall survival (OS) on pre-treatment dosimetry, but only Dm with MRI-based contours was predictive of OS on post-treatment images with a median of 23 months for patients with a supramedian Dm versus 14 months for the others (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: In advanced HCC treated with SIRT, Dm and TNR determined with radiologic contours were predictive of tumor control and OS. This study shows that a rigorous clinical workflow (radiologic contours + registration on scintigraphic images) is feasible and should be prospectively considered for improving therapeutic strategy.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the contouring methods on dose metrics and their predictive value on tumor control and survival, in both situations of pre-treatment and post-treatment dosimetry, for patients with advanced HCC treated with SIRT. METHODS: Forty-eight patients who underwent SIRT between 2012 and 2020 were retrospectively included in this study. Target volumes were delineated using two methods: MRI-based contours manually drawn by a radiologist and then registered on SPECT/CT and PET/CT via deformable registration (Pre-CMRI and Post-CMRI), 99mTc-MAA-SPECT and 90Y-microspheres-PET 10% threshold contouring (Pre-CSPECT and Post-CPET). The mean absorbed dose (Dm) and the minimal absorbed dose delivered to 70% of the tumor volume (D70) were evaluated with both contouring methods; the tumor-to-normal liver uptake ratio (TNR) was evaluated with MRI-based contours only. Tumor response was assessed using the mRECIST criteria on the follow-up MRIs. RESULTS: No significant differences were found for Dm and TNR between pre- and post-treatment. TNR evaluated with radiologic contours (Pre-CMRI and Post-CMRI) were predictive of tumor control at 6 months on pre- and post-treatment dosimetry (OR 5.9 and 7.1, respectively; p = 0.02 and 0.01). All dose metrics determined with both methods were predictive of overall survival (OS) on pre-treatment dosimetry, but only Dm with MRI-based contours was predictive of OS on post-treatment images with a median of 23 months for patients with a supramedian Dm versus 14 months for the others (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: In advanced HCC treated with SIRT, Dm and TNR determined with radiologic contours were predictive of tumor control and OS. This study shows that a rigorous clinical workflow (radiologic contours + registration on scintigraphic images) is feasible and should be prospectively considered for improving therapeutic strategy.
Authors: Etienne Garin; Laurence Lenoir; Yan Rolland; Julien Edeline; Habiba Mesbah; Sophie Laffont; Philippe Porée; Bruno Clément; Jean-Luc Raoul; E Boucher Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Pierce K H Chow; Mihir Gandhi; Say-Beng Tan; Maung Win Khin; Ariunaa Khasbazar; Janus Ong; Su Pin Choo; Peng Chung Cheow; Chanisa Chotipanich; Kieron Lim; Laurentius A Lesmana; Tjakra W Manuaba; Boon Koon Yoong; Aloysius Raj; Chiong Soon Law; Ian H Y Cua; Rolley R Lobo; Catherine S C Teh; Yun Hwan Kim; Yun Won Jong; Ho-Seong Han; Si-Hyun Bae; Hyun-Ki Yoon; Rheun-Chuan Lee; Chien-Fu Hung; Cheng-Yuan Peng; Po-Chin Liang; Adam Bartlett; Kenneth Y Y Kok; Choon-Hua Thng; Albert Su-Chong Low; Anthony S W Goh; Kiang Hiong Tay; Richard H G Lo; Brian K P Goh; David C E Ng; Ganesh Lekurwale; Wei Ming Liew; Val Gebski; Kenneth S W Mak; Khee Chee Soo Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-03-02 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Romaric Loffroy; Maxime Ronot; Michel Greget; Antoine Bouvier; Charles Mastier; Christian Sengel; Lambros Tselikas; Dirk Arnold; Geert Maleux; Jean-Pierre Pelage; Olivier Pellerin; Bora Peynircioglu; Bruno Sangro; Niklaus Schaefer; María Urdániz; Nathalie Kaufmann; José Ignacio Bilbao; Thomas Helmberger; Valérie Vilgrain Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Philippe d'Abadie; Stephan Walrand; Renaud Lhommel; Michel Hesse; Ivan Borbath; François Jamar Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-03-29 Impact factor: 3.109