Cassidy R Dodson1, Colin Marshall1,2, Jared C Durieux2, Patrick F Wojtylak2, Jon C Davidson1,2, Raymond F Muzic1,2, Arash Kardan3. 1. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. arash.kardan@bcm.edu.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Currently, the estimated absorbed radiation dose to the lung in 90Y radioembolization therapy is calculated using an assumed 1 kg lung mass for all patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether using a patient-specific lung mass measurement for each patient rather than a generic, assumed 1 kg lung mass would change the estimated lung absorbed dose. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on 68 patients who had undergone 90Y radioembolization therapy at our institution. Individualized lung volumes were measured manually on CT scans for each patient, and these volumes were used to calculate personalized lung masses. The personalized lung masses were used to recalculate the estimated lung absorbed dose from the 90Y therapy, and this dose was compared to the estimated lung absorbed dose calculated using an assumed 1 kg lung mass. RESULTS: Patient-specific lung masses were significantly different from the generic 1 kg when compared individually for each patient (p < 0.0001). Median individualized lung mass was 0.71 (IQR: 0.59, 1.02) kg overall and was significantly different from the generic 1 kg lung mass for female patients [0.59 (0.50, 0.68) kg, (p < 0.0001)] but not for male patients [0.99 (0.71, 1.14) kg, (p = 0.24)]. Median estimated lung absorbed dose was 4.48 (2.38, 11.71) Gy using a patient-specific lung mass and 3.45 (1.81, 6.68) Gy when assuming a 1 kg lung mass for all patients. The estimated lung absorbed dose was significantly different using a patient-specific versus generic 1 kg lung mass when comparing the doses individually for each patient (p < 0.0001). The difference in the estimated lung absorbed dose between the patient-specific and generic 1 kg lung mass method was significant for female patients as a subgroup but not for male patients. CONCLUSIONS: The current method of assuming a 1 kg lung mass for all patients inaccurately estimates the lung absorbed dose in 90Y radioembolization therapy. Using patient-specific lung masses resulted in estimated lung absorbed doses that were significantly different from those calculated using an assumed 1 kg lung mass for all patients. A personalized dosimetry method that includes individualized lung masses is necessary and can warrant a 90Y dose reduction in some patients with lung masses smaller than 1 kg. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3, Retrospective Study.
RATIONALE: Currently, the estimated absorbed radiation dose to the lung in 90Y radioembolization therapy is calculated using an assumed 1 kg lung mass for all patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether using a patient-specific lung mass measurement for each patient rather than a generic, assumed 1 kg lung mass would change the estimated lung absorbed dose. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on 68 patients who had undergone 90Y radioembolization therapy at our institution. Individualized lung volumes were measured manually on CT scans for each patient, and these volumes were used to calculate personalized lung masses. The personalized lung masses were used to recalculate the estimated lung absorbed dose from the 90Y therapy, and this dose was compared to the estimated lung absorbed dose calculated using an assumed 1 kg lung mass. RESULTS: Patient-specific lung masses were significantly different from the generic 1 kg when compared individually for each patient (p < 0.0001). Median individualized lung mass was 0.71 (IQR: 0.59, 1.02) kg overall and was significantly different from the generic 1 kg lung mass for female patients [0.59 (0.50, 0.68) kg, (p < 0.0001)] but not for male patients [0.99 (0.71, 1.14) kg, (p = 0.24)]. Median estimated lung absorbed dose was 4.48 (2.38, 11.71) Gy using a patient-specific lung mass and 3.45 (1.81, 6.68) Gy when assuming a 1 kg lung mass for all patients. The estimated lung absorbed dose was significantly different using a patient-specific versus generic 1 kg lung mass when comparing the doses individually for each patient (p < 0.0001). The difference in the estimated lung absorbed dose between the patient-specific and generic 1 kg lung mass method was significant for female patients as a subgroup but not for male patients. CONCLUSIONS: The current method of assuming a 1 kg lung mass for all patients inaccurately estimates the lung absorbed dose in 90Y radioembolization therapy. Using patient-specific lung masses resulted in estimated lung absorbed doses that were significantly different from those calculated using an assumed 1 kg lung mass for all patients. A personalized dosimetry method that includes individualized lung masses is necessary and can warrant a 90Y dose reduction in some patients with lung masses smaller than 1 kg. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3, Retrospective Study.
Authors: Chadwick L Wright; Jeff D Werner; Jerry M Tran; Vanessa L Gates; Ali A Rikabi; Manisha H Shah; Riad Salem Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Neena A Davisson; Zachary L Bercu; Sarah C Friend; Elisavet Paplomata; Robert M Ermentrout; Janice Newsome; Bill S Majdalany; Nima Kokabi Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: P M Paprottka; K J Paprottka; A Walter; A R Haug; C G Trumm; S Lehner; W P Fendler; T F Jakobs; M F Reiser; C J Zech Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: A J A T Braat; S C Kappadath; H Ahmadzadehfar; C L Stothers; A Frilling; C M Deroose; P Flamen; D B Brown; D Y Sze; A Mahvash; M G E H Lam Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Helmut Dittmann; Daniel Kopp; Juergen Kupferschlaeger; Diana Feil; Gerd Groezinger; Roland Syha; Matthias Weissinger; Christian la Fougère Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Mohammad Elsayed; Bernard Cheng; Minzhi Xing; Ila Sethi; David Brandon; David M Schuster; Zachary Bercu; James Galt; Bruce Barron; Nima Kokabi Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Shoaib Rafi; Sarat M Piduru; Bassel El-Rayes; John S Kauh; David A Kooby; Juan M Sarmiento; Hyun S Kim Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2012-09-07 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Bruno Sangro; Diego Martínez-Urbistondo; Lourens Bester; Jose I Bilbao; Douglas M Coldwell; Patrick Flamen; Andrew Kennedy; Jens Ricke; Ricky A Sharma Journal: Hepatology Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 17.425