Cargando…

Radioembolization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with (90)Y Glass Microspheres: No Advantage of Voxel Dosimetry with Respect to Mean Dose in Dose–Response Analysis with Two Radiological Methods

SIMPLE SUMMARY: We confirmed that the non-uniformity of an intra-lesion dose distribution, which was introduced in calculations as voxel dosimetry, did not significantly improve the AUC values of the dose–response relationship with respect to the mean dose. This was probably derived from the strong...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Romanò, Chiara, Mazzaglia, Stefania, Maccauro, Marco, Spreafico, Carlo, Gabutti, Alejandro, Maffi, Gabriele, Morosi, Carlo, Cascella, Tommaso, Mira, Marta, De Nile, Maria Chiara, Aliberti, Gianluca, Argiroffi, Giovanni, Fuoco, Valentina, Bhoori, Sherrie, Zanette, Consuelo, Marchianò, Alfonso, Seregni, Ettore, Mazzaferro, Vincenzo, Chiesa, Carlo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8869948/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35205712
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers14040959
_version_ 1784656618131030016
author Romanò, Chiara
Mazzaglia, Stefania
Maccauro, Marco
Spreafico, Carlo
Gabutti, Alejandro
Maffi, Gabriele
Morosi, Carlo
Cascella, Tommaso
Mira, Marta
De Nile, Maria Chiara
Aliberti, Gianluca
Argiroffi, Giovanni
Fuoco, Valentina
Bhoori, Sherrie
Zanette, Consuelo
Marchianò, Alfonso
Seregni, Ettore
Mazzaferro, Vincenzo
Chiesa, Carlo
author_facet Romanò, Chiara
Mazzaglia, Stefania
Maccauro, Marco
Spreafico, Carlo
Gabutti, Alejandro
Maffi, Gabriele
Morosi, Carlo
Cascella, Tommaso
Mira, Marta
De Nile, Maria Chiara
Aliberti, Gianluca
Argiroffi, Giovanni
Fuoco, Valentina
Bhoori, Sherrie
Zanette, Consuelo
Marchianò, Alfonso
Seregni, Ettore
Mazzaferro, Vincenzo
Chiesa, Carlo
author_sort Romanò, Chiara
collection PubMed
description SIMPLE SUMMARY: We confirmed that the non-uniformity of an intra-lesion dose distribution, which was introduced in calculations as voxel dosimetry, did not significantly improve the AUC values of the dose–response relationship with respect to the mean dose. This was probably derived from the strong correlations (all p < 0.0001) among all voxel-based dosimetric variables (minimum Spearman correlation coefficient: 0.67) caused by the limited spatial resolution of nuclear medicine images. Responses were assessed with mRECIST and with an experimental densitometric method with a response threshold optimized at 20% HU variation. Significant dose–response agreement was obtained only with the densitometric method and only with post-therapy 90Y-PET data. More unexpectedly, the injection of Theraspheres™ on day 8 from the reference date rather than on day 4 worsened the dose–response correlation and reduced the efficacy at high doses. This may be explained by the increased non-uniformity following the non-linear mega-clustering effect triggered by the higher number of microspheres/GBq injected on day 8. ABSTRACT: In this confirmatory study, we tested if a calculation that included the non-uniformity of dose deposition through a voxel-based dosimetric variable Ψ was able to improve the dose–response agreement with respect to the mean absorbed dose D. We performed dosimetry with (99m)Tc-MAA SPECT/CT and (90)Y-PET/CT in 86 patients treated 8 instead of 4 days after the reference date with 2.8 times more (90)Y glass microspheres/GBq than in our previous study. The lesion-by-lesion response was assessed with the mRECIST method and with an experimental densitometric criterion. A total of 106 lesions were studied. Considering Ψ as a prognostic response marker, having no Ψ provided a significantly higher AUC than D. The correlation, t-test, and AUC values were statistically significant only with the densitometric method and only with post-therapy dosimetry. In comparison with our previous study, the dose–response correlation and AUC values were poorer (maximum r = 0.43, R(2) = 0.14, maximal AUC = 0.71), and the efficacy at a high dose did not reach 100%. The expected advantages of voxel dosimetry were nullified by the correlation between any Ψ and D due to the limited image spatial resolution. The lower AUC and efficacy may be explained by the mega-clustering effect triggered by the higher number of microspheres/GBq injected on day 8.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8869948
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88699482022-02-25 Radioembolization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with (90)Y Glass Microspheres: No Advantage of Voxel Dosimetry with Respect to Mean Dose in Dose–Response Analysis with Two Radiological Methods Romanò, Chiara Mazzaglia, Stefania Maccauro, Marco Spreafico, Carlo Gabutti, Alejandro Maffi, Gabriele Morosi, Carlo Cascella, Tommaso Mira, Marta De Nile, Maria Chiara Aliberti, Gianluca Argiroffi, Giovanni Fuoco, Valentina Bhoori, Sherrie Zanette, Consuelo Marchianò, Alfonso Seregni, Ettore Mazzaferro, Vincenzo Chiesa, Carlo Cancers (Basel) Article SIMPLE SUMMARY: We confirmed that the non-uniformity of an intra-lesion dose distribution, which was introduced in calculations as voxel dosimetry, did not significantly improve the AUC values of the dose–response relationship with respect to the mean dose. This was probably derived from the strong correlations (all p < 0.0001) among all voxel-based dosimetric variables (minimum Spearman correlation coefficient: 0.67) caused by the limited spatial resolution of nuclear medicine images. Responses were assessed with mRECIST and with an experimental densitometric method with a response threshold optimized at 20% HU variation. Significant dose–response agreement was obtained only with the densitometric method and only with post-therapy 90Y-PET data. More unexpectedly, the injection of Theraspheres™ on day 8 from the reference date rather than on day 4 worsened the dose–response correlation and reduced the efficacy at high doses. This may be explained by the increased non-uniformity following the non-linear mega-clustering effect triggered by the higher number of microspheres/GBq injected on day 8. ABSTRACT: In this confirmatory study, we tested if a calculation that included the non-uniformity of dose deposition through a voxel-based dosimetric variable Ψ was able to improve the dose–response agreement with respect to the mean absorbed dose D. We performed dosimetry with (99m)Tc-MAA SPECT/CT and (90)Y-PET/CT in 86 patients treated 8 instead of 4 days after the reference date with 2.8 times more (90)Y glass microspheres/GBq than in our previous study. The lesion-by-lesion response was assessed with the mRECIST method and with an experimental densitometric criterion. A total of 106 lesions were studied. Considering Ψ as a prognostic response marker, having no Ψ provided a significantly higher AUC than D. The correlation, t-test, and AUC values were statistically significant only with the densitometric method and only with post-therapy dosimetry. In comparison with our previous study, the dose–response correlation and AUC values were poorer (maximum r = 0.43, R(2) = 0.14, maximal AUC = 0.71), and the efficacy at a high dose did not reach 100%. The expected advantages of voxel dosimetry were nullified by the correlation between any Ψ and D due to the limited image spatial resolution. The lower AUC and efficacy may be explained by the mega-clustering effect triggered by the higher number of microspheres/GBq injected on day 8. MDPI 2022-02-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8869948/ /pubmed/35205712 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers14040959 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Romanò, Chiara
Mazzaglia, Stefania
Maccauro, Marco
Spreafico, Carlo
Gabutti, Alejandro
Maffi, Gabriele
Morosi, Carlo
Cascella, Tommaso
Mira, Marta
De Nile, Maria Chiara
Aliberti, Gianluca
Argiroffi, Giovanni
Fuoco, Valentina
Bhoori, Sherrie
Zanette, Consuelo
Marchianò, Alfonso
Seregni, Ettore
Mazzaferro, Vincenzo
Chiesa, Carlo
Radioembolization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with (90)Y Glass Microspheres: No Advantage of Voxel Dosimetry with Respect to Mean Dose in Dose–Response Analysis with Two Radiological Methods
title Radioembolization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with (90)Y Glass Microspheres: No Advantage of Voxel Dosimetry with Respect to Mean Dose in Dose–Response Analysis with Two Radiological Methods
title_full Radioembolization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with (90)Y Glass Microspheres: No Advantage of Voxel Dosimetry with Respect to Mean Dose in Dose–Response Analysis with Two Radiological Methods
title_fullStr Radioembolization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with (90)Y Glass Microspheres: No Advantage of Voxel Dosimetry with Respect to Mean Dose in Dose–Response Analysis with Two Radiological Methods
title_full_unstemmed Radioembolization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with (90)Y Glass Microspheres: No Advantage of Voxel Dosimetry with Respect to Mean Dose in Dose–Response Analysis with Two Radiological Methods
title_short Radioembolization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with (90)Y Glass Microspheres: No Advantage of Voxel Dosimetry with Respect to Mean Dose in Dose–Response Analysis with Two Radiological Methods
title_sort radioembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma with (90)y glass microspheres: no advantage of voxel dosimetry with respect to mean dose in dose–response analysis with two radiological methods
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8869948/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35205712
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/cancers14040959
work_keys_str_mv AT romanochiara radioembolizationofhepatocellularcarcinomawith90yglassmicrospheresnoadvantageofvoxeldosimetrywithrespecttomeandoseindoseresponseanalysiswithtworadiologicalmethods
AT mazzagliastefania radioembolizationofhepatocellularcarcinomawith90yglassmicrospheresnoadvantageofvoxeldosimetrywithrespecttomeandoseindoseresponseanalysiswithtworadiologicalmethods
AT maccauromarco radioembolizationofhepatocellularcarcinomawith90yglassmicrospheresnoadvantageofvoxeldosimetrywithrespecttomeandoseindoseresponseanalysiswithtworadiologicalmethods
AT spreaficocarlo radioembolizationofhepatocellularcarcinomawith90yglassmicrospheresnoadvantageofvoxeldosimetrywithrespecttomeandoseindoseresponseanalysiswithtworadiologicalmethods
AT gabuttialejandro radioembolizationofhepatocellularcarcinomawith90yglassmicrospheresnoadvantageofvoxeldosimetrywithrespecttomeandoseindoseresponseanalysiswithtworadiologicalmethods
AT maffigabriele radioembolizationofhepatocellularcarcinomawith90yglassmicrospheresnoadvantageofvoxeldosimetrywithrespecttomeandoseindoseresponseanalysiswithtworadiologicalmethods
AT morosicarlo radioembolizationofhepatocellularcarcinomawith90yglassmicrospheresnoadvantageofvoxeldosimetrywithrespecttomeandoseindoseresponseanalysiswithtworadiologicalmethods
AT cascellatommaso radioembolizationofhepatocellularcarcinomawith90yglassmicrospheresnoadvantageofvoxeldosimetrywithrespecttomeandoseindoseresponseanalysiswithtworadiologicalmethods
AT miramarta radioembolizationofhepatocellularcarcinomawith90yglassmicrospheresnoadvantageofvoxeldosimetrywithrespecttomeandoseindoseresponseanalysiswithtworadiologicalmethods
AT denilemariachiara radioembolizationofhepatocellularcarcinomawith90yglassmicrospheresnoadvantageofvoxeldosimetrywithrespecttomeandoseindoseresponseanalysiswithtworadiologicalmethods
AT alibertigianluca radioembolizationofhepatocellularcarcinomawith90yglassmicrospheresnoadvantageofvoxeldosimetrywithrespecttomeandoseindoseresponseanalysiswithtworadiologicalmethods
AT argiroffigiovanni radioembolizationofhepatocellularcarcinomawith90yglassmicrospheresnoadvantageofvoxeldosimetrywithrespecttomeandoseindoseresponseanalysiswithtworadiologicalmethods
AT fuocovalentina radioembolizationofhepatocellularcarcinomawith90yglassmicrospheresnoadvantageofvoxeldosimetrywithrespecttomeandoseindoseresponseanalysiswithtworadiologicalmethods
AT bhoorisherrie radioembolizationofhepatocellularcarcinomawith90yglassmicrospheresnoadvantageofvoxeldosimetrywithrespecttomeandoseindoseresponseanalysiswithtworadiologicalmethods
AT zanetteconsuelo radioembolizationofhepatocellularcarcinomawith90yglassmicrospheresnoadvantageofvoxeldosimetrywithrespecttomeandoseindoseresponseanalysiswithtworadiologicalmethods
AT marchianoalfonso radioembolizationofhepatocellularcarcinomawith90yglassmicrospheresnoadvantageofvoxeldosimetrywithrespecttomeandoseindoseresponseanalysiswithtworadiologicalmethods
AT seregniettore radioembolizationofhepatocellularcarcinomawith90yglassmicrospheresnoadvantageofvoxeldosimetrywithrespecttomeandoseindoseresponseanalysiswithtworadiologicalmethods
AT mazzaferrovincenzo radioembolizationofhepatocellularcarcinomawith90yglassmicrospheresnoadvantageofvoxeldosimetrywithrespecttomeandoseindoseresponseanalysiswithtworadiologicalmethods
AT chiesacarlo radioembolizationofhepatocellularcarcinomawith90yglassmicrospheresnoadvantageofvoxeldosimetrywithrespecttomeandoseindoseresponseanalysiswithtworadiologicalmethods