1
|
Lam M, Salem R, Toskich B, Kappadath SC, Chiesa C, Fowers K, Haste P, Herman JM, Kim E, Leung T, Padia SA, Sangro B, Sze DY, Garin E. Clinical and dosimetric considerations for yttrium-90 glass microspheres radioembolization of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, metastatic colorectal carcinoma, and metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma: recommendations from an international multidisciplinary working group. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2025:10.1007/s00259-025-07229-8. [PMID: 40148510 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-025-07229-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2025] [Accepted: 03/17/2025] [Indexed: 03/29/2025]
Abstract
PURPOSE The TheraSphere Global Steering Committee reconvened to review clinical data and address knowledge gaps related to treatment and dosimetry in non-HCC indications using Yttrium-90 (90Y) glass microspheres. METHODS A PubMed search was performed. References were reviewed and adjudicated by the Delphi method. Recommendations were graded according to the degree of recommendation and strength of consensus. Dosimetry focused on a mean dose approach, i.e., aiming for an average dose over either single or multicompartment volumes of interests. Committee discussion and consensus focused on optimal patient selection, disease presentation, liver function, tumour type, tumour vascularity, and curative/palliative treatment intent for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) and colorectal and neuroendocrine carcinoma liver metastases (mCRC, mNET). RESULTS For all indications, single compartment average perfused volume absorbed dose ≥ 400 Gy is recommended for radiation segmentectomy and 150 Gy for radiation lobectomy. Single compartment 120 Gy for uni- and bilobar treatment reflects current clinical practice, which results in variable tumour and normal tissue absorbed doses. Therefore, multicompartment dosimetry is recommended for uni- and bilobar treatment, aiming for maximum 75 Gy to normal tissue and 150-200 Gy (mCRC, mNET), ≥ 205 (iCCA) tumour absorbed doses. These dose thresholds are preliminary and should be used with caution accounting for patient specific characteristics. CONCLUSION Consensus recommendations are provided to guide clinical and dosimetry approaches for 90Y glass microsphere radioembolization in iCCA, mCRC and mNET. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER not applicable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marnix Lam
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Huispostnummer E01.132, Postbus 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
- Univ Rennes, INSERM, INRA, Centre de Lutte Contre Le Cancer Eugène Marquis, Institut NUMECAN (Nutrition Metabolisms and Cancer), 35000, Rennes, France.
| | - Riad Salem
- Department of Radiology, Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Beau Toskich
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA
| | - S Cheenu Kappadath
- Department of Imaging Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Carlo Chiesa
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Kirk Fowers
- Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, MA, USA
| | - Paul Haste
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA
| | - Joseph M Herman
- Department of Radiation Medicine, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, NY, USA
| | - Edward Kim
- Department of Interventional Radiology, Mount Sinai, New York City, NY, USA
| | - Thomas Leung
- Comprehensive Oncology Centre, Hong Kong Sanatorium and Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
| | - Siddharth A Padia
- Department of Radiology, University of California-los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Bruno Sangro
- Liver Unit, Clinica Universidad de Navarra and CIBEREHD, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Daniel Y Sze
- Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA
| | - Etienne Garin
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cancer Institute Eugene Marquis, Rennes, France
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Dimopoulos PM, Sotirchos VS, Dunne-Jaffe C, Petre EN, Gonen M, Zhao K, Kirov AS, Crane C, D'Angelica M, Connell LC, Sofocleous CT. Voxel-Based Dosimetry Predicts Local Tumor Progression Post 90 Y Radiation Segmentectomy of Colorectal Liver Metastases. Clin Nucl Med 2025; 50:133-142. [PMID: 39745670 DOI: 10.1097/rlu.0000000000005565] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/11/2025]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Radiation segmentectomy (RS) is an alternative potential local curative treatment for selected colorectal liver metastases (CLMs) not amenable to ablation or limited resection. PURPOSE The aim of this study was to evaluate the dosimetric response of low volume CLMs to RS in heavily pretreated patients who are not candidates for resection or percutaneous ablation. PATIENTS AND METHODS This single-center retrospective study evaluated CLMs patients treated with RS (prescribed tumor dose >190 Gy) from 2015 to 2023. RS doses to tumor(s) and margins were calculated from SPECT/CT and PET/CT images. Response and local tumor progression (LTP) were assessed using anatomic (RECIST 1.1) and metabolic (PERCIST) criteria. LTP-free survival (LTPFS) and overall survival were estimated with Kaplan-Meier methodology. Variables were assessed as predictors of LTPFS using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS Thirty-six patients underwent 38 RS procedures to treat 57 tumors. Median time from initial diagnosis to detection of liver metastases and RS were 16.4 (interquartile range: 6.5-32.2) and 26.8 (interquartile range: 12.5-40.0) months, respectively. Median overall survival after RS was 14.3 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.8-30.7) months. Predictors of LTPFS included tumor number(s), mean tumor dose (MTD), and margin mean absorbed dose (MMAD). Complete radiographic (hazards ratio [HR]: 1.29e-16, 95% CI: 4.06e-17-4.07e-16, P < 0.001) and metabolic response (HR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.15-0.95, P = 0.038) correlated with prolonged LTPFS. One-year LTPFS rate was 83.3% for tumors receiving MTD ≥400 Gy and a 5-mm surrounding MMAD ≥350 Gy ( P = 0.006). No instances of LTP were observed when tumors received stereotactic irradiation over 300 Gy (at least 95% of the tumor volume received ≥300 Gy). One-year LTPFS rate for tumors receiving MTD ≥400 Gy was 68.6% versus 14.3% for those that did not reach this threshold ( P = 0.013). In multivariate analysis, MTD ≥400 Gy and 5-mm MMAD ≥350 Gy were independent predictors of LTPFS (HR: 0.11; 95% CI: 0.01-0.81; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS MTD ≥400 Gy, MMAD ≥350 Gy, and stereotactic tumor irradiation ≥300 Gy are associated with prolonged LTPFS after RS for CLMs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Vlasios S Sotirchos
- From the Interventional Oncology/Radiology Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | | | - Elena N Petre
- From the Interventional Oncology/Radiology Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Mithat Gonen
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Ken Zhao
- From the Interventional Oncology/Radiology Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Assen S Kirov
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Christopher Crane
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Michael D'Angelica
- Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Louise C Connell
- Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| | - Constantinos T Sofocleous
- From the Interventional Oncology/Radiology Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Arar A, Heglin A, Veluri S, Alnablsi MW, Benjamin JL, Choudhary M, Pillai A. Radioembolization of HCC and secondary hepatic tumors: a comprehensive review. THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE AND MOLECULAR IMAGING : OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE ITALIAN ASSOCIATION OF NUCLEAR MEDICINE (AIMN) [AND] THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF RADIOPHARMACOLOGY (IAR), [AND] SECTION OF THE SOCIETY OF... 2024; 68:270-287. [PMID: 39088238 DOI: 10.23736/s1824-4785.24.03572-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/02/2024]
Abstract
Transarterial radioembolization (TARE), also called Selective Internal Radiation Therapy (SIRT), has emerged as an effective locoregional therapy for primary and secondary hepatic tumors, utilizing yttrium-90 (Y90) microspheres and other agents such as holmium-166 and rhenium-188. TARE has various applications in the management of HCC across different BCLC stages. Radiation segmentectomy, which involves administering high doses of Y90 (>190 Gy), can be both curative and ablative, achieving complete necrosis of the tumor. In contrast, radiation lobectomy involves administering a lower dose of Y90 (80-120 Gy) as a neoadjuvant treatment modality to improve local control and induce future liver remnant (FLR) hypertrophy in patients who are planned to undergo surgery but have insufficient FLR. Modified radiation lobectomy combines both techniques and offers several advantages over portal vein embolization (PVE). Y90 is also used in downstaging HCC patients outside liver transplantation criteria, as well as bridging those awaiting liver transplantation (LT). Multiple studies and combined analyses were described to highlight the outcomes of TARE and compare it with other treatment modalities, including TACE and sorafenib. Additionally, the review delves into the efficacy and safety of radioembolization in managing metastatic colorectal cancer and other metastatic tumors to the liver. Recent studies have emphasized the role of personalized dosimetry for improved outcomes, and thus we described the different methods used for this purpose. Pretherapy imaging, estimating lung shunt, selection of therapeutic radionuclides, adverse effects, and cost-effectiveness were all discussed as well.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ahmad Arar
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA -
| | - Alex Heglin
- Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - Shriya Veluri
- The University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA
| | - Mhd Wisam Alnablsi
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - Jamaal L Benjamin
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - Moaz Choudhary
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| | - Anil Pillai
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Roll W, Masthoff M, Köhler M, Rahbar K, Stegger L, Ventura D, Morgül H, Trebicka J, Schäfers M, Heindel W, Wildgruber M, Schindler P. Radiomics-Based Prediction Model for Outcome of Radioembolization in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2024; 47:462-471. [PMID: 38416178 DOI: 10.1007/s00270-024-03680-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2023] [Accepted: 01/31/2024] [Indexed: 02/29/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the benefit of a contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) radiomics-based model for predicting response and survival in patients with colorectal liver metastases treated with transarterial Yttrium-90 radioembolization (TARE). MATERIALS AND METHODS Fifty-one patients who underwent TARE were included in this single-center retrospective study. Response to treatment was assessed using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1) at 3-month follow-up. Patients were stratified as responders (complete/partial response and stable disease, n = 24) or non-responders (progressive disease, n = 27). Radiomic features (RF) were extracted from pre-TARE CT after segmentation of the liver tumor volume. A model was built based on a radiomic signature consisting of reliable RFs that allowed classification of response using multivariate logistic regression. Patients were assigned to high- or low-risk groups for disease progression after TARE according to a cutoff defined in the model. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to analyze survival between high- and low-risk groups. RESULTS Two independent RF [Energy, Maximal Correlation Coefficient (MCC)], reflecting tumor heterogeneity, discriminated well between responders and non-responders. In particular, patients with higher magnitude of voxel values in an image (Energy), and texture complexity (MCC), were more likely to fail TARE. For predicting treatment response, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the radiomics-based model was 0.75 (95% CI 0.48-1). The high-risk group had a shorter overall survival than the low-risk group (3.4 vs. 6.4 months, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION Our CT radiomics model may predict the response and survival outcome by quantifying tumor heterogeneity in patients treated with TARE for colorectal liver metastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wolfgang Roll
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
- West German Cancer Centre (WTZ), Münster Site, Münster, Germany
| | - Max Masthoff
- Clinic for Radiology, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany
- West German Cancer Centre (WTZ), Münster Site, Münster, Germany
| | - Michael Köhler
- Clinic for Radiology, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany
- West German Cancer Centre (WTZ), Münster Site, Münster, Germany
| | - Kambiz Rahbar
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
- West German Cancer Centre (WTZ), Münster Site, Münster, Germany
| | - Lars Stegger
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
- West German Cancer Centre (WTZ), Münster Site, Münster, Germany
| | - David Ventura
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
- West German Cancer Centre (WTZ), Münster Site, Münster, Germany
| | - Haluk Morgül
- Department for General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
- West German Cancer Centre (WTZ), Münster Site, Münster, Germany
| | - Jonel Trebicka
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
- West German Cancer Centre (WTZ), Münster Site, Münster, Germany
| | - Michael Schäfers
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
- West German Cancer Centre (WTZ), Münster Site, Münster, Germany
| | - Walter Heindel
- Clinic for Radiology, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany
- West German Cancer Centre (WTZ), Münster Site, Münster, Germany
| | - Moritz Wildgruber
- Clinic for Radiology, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital LMU, Munich, Munich, Germany
| | - Philipp Schindler
- Clinic for Radiology, University Hospital Münster, Albert-Schweitzer-Campus 1, 48149, Münster, Germany.
- West German Cancer Centre (WTZ), Münster Site, Münster, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
González-Flores E, Zambudio N, Pardo-Moreno P, Gonzalez-Astorga B, de la Rúa JR, Triviño-Ibáñez EM, Navarro P, Espinoza-Cámac N, Casado MÁ, Rodríguez-Fernández A. Recommendations for the management of yttrium-90 radioembolization in the treatment of patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases: a multidisciplinary review. Clin Transl Oncol 2024; 26:851-863. [PMID: 37747636 PMCID: PMC10981623 DOI: 10.1007/s12094-023-03299-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2023] [Accepted: 07/27/2023] [Indexed: 09/26/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Strategies for the treatment of liver metastases from colon cancer (lmCRC) are constantly evolving. Radioembolization with yttrium 90 (Y-90 TARE) has made significant advancements in treating liver tumors and is now considered a potential option allowing for future resection. This study reviewed the scientific evidence and developed recommendations for using Y-90 TARE as a treatment strategy for patients with unresectable lmCRC. METHODS A multidisciplinary scientific committee, consisting of experts in medical oncology, hepatobiliary surgery, radiology, and nuclear medicine, all with extensive experience in treating patients with ImCRC with Y-90 TARE, led this project. The committee established the criteria for conducting a comprehensive literature review on Y-90 TARE in the treatment of lmCRC. The data extraction process involved addressing initial preliminary inquiries, which were consolidated into a final set of questions. RESULTS This review offers recommendations for treating patients with lmCRC using Y-90 TARE, addressing four areas covering ten common questions: 1) General issues (multidisciplinary tumor committee, indications for treatment, contraindications); 2) Previous process (predictive biomarkers for patient selection, preintervention tests, published evidence); 3) Procedure (standard procedure); and 4) Post-intervention follow-up (potential toxicity and its management, parameters for evaluation, quality of life). CONCLUSIONS Based on the insights of the multidisciplinary committee, this document offers a comprehensive overview of the technical aspects involved in the management of Y-90 TARE. It synthesizes recommendations for applying Y-90 TARE across various phases of the treatment process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Encarna González-Flores
- Medical Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain
- Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria IBS, Granada, Spain
| | - Natalia Zambudio
- Surgery Department, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain
| | - Pedro Pardo-Moreno
- Radiodiagnostic Department, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain
| | | | | | - Eva M Triviño-Ibáñez
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain
| | - Pablo Navarro
- Radiodiagnostic Department, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain
| | - Nataly Espinoza-Cámac
- Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Iberia (PORIB), Paseo Joaquín Rodrigo 4-I, Pozuelo de Alarcón, 28224, Madrid, Spain.
| | - Miguel Ángel Casado
- Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Iberia (PORIB), Paseo Joaquín Rodrigo 4-I, Pozuelo de Alarcón, 28224, Madrid, Spain
| | - Antonio Rodríguez-Fernández
- Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria IBS, Granada, Spain
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Busse NC, Al‐Ghazi MSAL, Abi‐Jaoudeh N, Alvarez D, Ayan AS, Chen E, Chuong MD, Dezarn WA, Enger SA, Graves SA, Hobbs RF, Jafari ME, Kim SP, Maughan NM, Polemi AM, Stickel JR. AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 14.a: Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolization. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2024; 25:e14157. [PMID: 37820316 PMCID: PMC10860558 DOI: 10.1002/acm2.14157] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/13/2023] [Revised: 06/19/2023] [Accepted: 08/25/2023] [Indexed: 10/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Radioembolization using Yttrium-90 (90 Y) microspheres is widely used to treat primary and metastatic liver tumors. The present work provides minimum practice guidelines for establishing and supporting such a program. Medical physicists play a key role in patient and staff safety during these procedures. Products currently available are identified and their properties and suppliers summarized. Appropriateness for use is the domain of the treating physician. Patient work up starts with pre-treatment imaging. First, a mapping study using Technetium-99m (Tc-99m ) is carried out to quantify the lung shunt fraction (LSF) and to characterize the vascular supply of the liver. An MRI, CT, or a PET-CT scan is used to obtain information on the tumor burden. The tumor volume, LSF, tumor histology, and other pertinent patient characteristics are used to decide the type and quantity of 90 Y to be ordered. On the day of treatment, the appropriate dose is assayed using a dose calibrator with a calibration traceable to a national standard. In the treatment suite, the care team led by an interventional radiologist delivers the dose using real-time image guidance. The treatment suite is posted as a radioactive area during the procedure and staff wear radiation dosimeters. The treatment room, patient, and staff are surveyed post-procedure. The dose delivered to the patient is determined from the ratio of pre-treatment and residual waste exposure rate measurements. Establishing such a treatment modality is a major undertaking requiring an institutional radioactive materials license amendment complying with appropriate federal and state radiation regulations and appropriate staff training commensurate with their respective role and function in the planning and delivery of the procedure. Training, documentation, and areas for potential failure modes are identified and guidance is provided to ameliorate them.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Nadine Abi‐Jaoudeh
- Department of Radiological SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaIrvineCaliforniaUSA
| | - Diane Alvarez
- Baptist HospitalMiami Cancer InstituteMiamiFloridaUSA
| | - Ahmet S. Ayan
- Department of Radiation OncologyOhio State UniversityColumbusOhioUSA
| | - Erli Chen
- Department of Radiation OncologyCheshire Medical CenterKeeneNew HampshireUSA
| | - Michael D. Chuong
- Department of Radiation OncologyMiami Cancer InstituteMiamiFloridaUSA
| | - William A. Dezarn
- Department of Radiation OncologyWake Forest University School of MedicineWinston‐SalemNorth CarolinaUSA
| | | | | | - Robert F. Hobbs
- Department of Radiation OncologyJohns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreMarylandUSA
| | - Mary Ellen Jafari
- Diagnostic Physics, Atlantic Health SystemMorristown Medical CenterMorristownNew JerseyUSA
| | - S. Peter Kim
- Medical Physics UnitMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
| | - Nichole M. Maughan
- Department of Radiation OncologyWashington University in St. LouisSaint LouisMissouriUSA
| | - Andrew M. Polemi
- Department of RadiologyUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesvilleVirginiaUSA
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Filoni E, Musci V, Di Rito A, Inchingolo R, Memeo R, Mannavola F. Multimodal Management of Colorectal Liver Metastases: State of the Art. Oncol Rev 2024; 17:11799. [PMID: 38239856 PMCID: PMC10794467 DOI: 10.3389/or.2023.11799] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2023] [Accepted: 12/13/2023] [Indexed: 01/22/2024] Open
Abstract
Liver is the most common site of colorectal cancer (CRC) metastases. Treatment of CRC liver metastases (CRLM) includes different strategies, prevalently based on the clinical and oncological intent. Valid approaches in liver-limited or liver-prevalent disease include surgery, percutaneous ablative procedures (radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation), intra-arterial perfusional techniques (chemo-embolization, radio-embolization) as well as stereotactic radiotherapy. Systemic treatments, including chemotherapy, immunotherapy and other biological agents, are the only options for patients with no chance of locoregional approaches. The use of chemotherapy in other settings, such as neoadjuvant, adjuvant or conversion therapy of CRLM, is commonly accepted in the clinical practice, although data from several clinical trials have been mostly inconclusive. The optimal integration of all these strategies, when applicable and clinically indicated, should be ever considered in patients affected by CRLM based on clinical evidence and multidisciplinary experience. Here we revised in detail all the possible therapeutic approaches of CRLM focusing on the current evidences, the studies still in progress and the often contradictory data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elisabetta Filoni
- Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy
- Division of Medical Oncology, A.O.U. Consorziale Policlinico di Bari, Bari, Italy
| | - Vittoria Musci
- Interdisciplinary Department of Medicine, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy
- Division of Medical Oncology, A.O.U. Consorziale Policlinico di Bari, Bari, Italy
| | - Alessia Di Rito
- Radiotherapy Unit, P.O. “Mons A.R. Dimiccoli”, Barletta, Italy
| | - Riccardo Inchingolo
- Unit of Interventional Radiology, “F. Miulli” General Regional Hospital, Acquaviva delle Fonti, Italy
| | - Riccardo Memeo
- Unit of Hepato-Pancreatic-Biliary Surgery, “F. Miulli” General Regional Hospital, Acquaviva delle Fonti, Italy
| | - Francesco Mannavola
- Division of Medical Oncology, A.O.U. Consorziale Policlinico di Bari, Bari, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Naydenov N, Teplov A, Zirakchian MZ, Ruan S, Chu BP, Serencsits B, Iraca M, Talarico O, Miller B, Kunin H, Schwartz J, Kesner A, Furenlid LR, Dauer L, Yagi Y, Humm JL, Zanzonico P, Sofocleous CT, Kirov AS. Yttrium-90 Activity Quantification in PET/CT-Guided Biopsy Specimens from Colorectal Hepatic Metastases Immediately after Transarterial Radioembolization Using Micro-CT and Autoradiography. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2023; 34:1556-1564.e4. [PMID: 37201655 PMCID: PMC11163896 DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2023.05.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2022] [Revised: 04/13/2023] [Accepted: 05/08/2023] [Indexed: 05/20/2023] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the yttrium-90 (90Y) activity distribution in biopsy tissue samples of the treated liver to quantify the dose with higher spatial resolution than positron emission tomography (PET) for accurate investigation of correlations with microscopic biological effects and to evaluate the radiation safety of this procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eighty-six core biopsy specimens were obtained from 18 colorectal liver metastases (CLMs) immediately after 90Y transarterial radioembolization (TARE) with either resin or glass microspheres using real-time 90Y PET/CT guidance in 17 patients. A high-resolution micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) scanner was used to image the microspheres in part of the specimens and allow quantification of 90Y activity directly or by calibrating autoradiography (ARG) images. The mean doses to the specimens were derived from the measured specimens' activity concentrations and from the PET/CT scan at the location of the biopsy needle tip for all cases. Staff exposures were monitored. RESULTS The mean measured 90Y activity concentration in the CLM specimens at time of infusion was 2.4 ± 4.0 MBq/mL. The biopsies revealed higher activity heterogeneity than PET. Radiation exposure to the interventional radiologists during post-TARE biopsy procedures was minimal. CONCLUSIONS Counting the microspheres and measuring the activity in biopsy specimens obtained after TARE are safe and feasible and can be used to determine the administered activity and its distribution in the treated and biopsied liver tissue with high spatial resolution. Complementing 90Y PET/CT imaging with this approach promises to yield more accurate direct correlation of histopathological changes and absorbed dose in the examined specimens.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola Naydenov
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Alexei Teplov
- Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | | | - Shutian Ruan
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Bae P Chu
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Brian Serencsits
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Marisa Iraca
- University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island
| | - Olga Talarico
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | | | - Henry Kunin
- Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Jazmin Schwartz
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Adam Kesner
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | | | - Larry Dauer
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Yukako Yagi
- Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - John L Humm
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | - Pat Zanzonico
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York
| | | | - Assen S Kirov
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Vulasala SSR, Sutphin PD, Kethu S, Onteddu NK, Kalva SP. Interventional radiological therapies in colorectal hepatic metastases. Front Oncol 2023; 13:963966. [PMID: 37324012 PMCID: PMC10266282 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2023.963966] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2022] [Accepted: 05/19/2023] [Indexed: 06/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Colorectal malignancy is the third most common cancer and one of the prevalent causes of death globally. Around 20-25% of patients present with metastases at the time of diagnosis, and 50-60% of patients develop metastases in due course of the disease. Liver, followed by lung and lymph nodes, are the most common sites of colorectal cancer metastases. In such patients, the 5-year survival rate is approximately 19.2%. Although surgical resection is the primary mode of managing colorectal cancer metastases, only 10-25% of patients are competent for curative therapy. Hepatic insufficiency may be the aftermath of extensive surgical hepatectomy. Hence formal assessment of future liver remnant volume (FLR) is imperative prior to surgery to prevent hepatic failure. The evolution of minimally invasive interventional radiological techniques has enhanced the treatment algorithm of patients with colorectal cancer metastases. Studies have demonstrated that these techniques may address the limitations of curative resection, such as insufficient FLR, bi-lobar disease, and patients at higher risk for surgery. This review focuses on curative and palliative role through procedures including portal vein embolization, radioembolization, and ablation. Alongside, we deliberate various studies on conventional chemoembolization and chemoembolization with irinotecan-loaded drug-eluting beads. The radioembolization with Yttrium-90 microspheres has evolved as salvage therapy in surgically unresectable and chemo-resistant metastases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sai Swarupa R. Vulasala
- Department of Radiology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, FL, United States
| | - Patrick D. Sutphin
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
| | - Samira Kethu
- Department of Microbiology and Immunology, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, United States
| | - Nirmal K. Onteddu
- Department of Hospital Medicine, Flowers Hospital, Dothan, AL, United States
| | - Sanjeeva P. Kalva
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Alonso JC, Casans I, González FM, Fuster D, Rodríguez A, Sánchez N, Oyagüez I, Williams AO, Espinoza N. Economic evaluations of radioembolization with yttrium-90 microspheres in liver metastases of colorectal cancer: a systematic review. BMC Gastroenterol 2023; 23:181. [PMID: 37226091 PMCID: PMC10210491 DOI: 10.1186/s12876-023-02793-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/21/2022] [Accepted: 04/27/2023] [Indexed: 05/26/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Transarterial radioembolization with yttrium-90 (Y-90 TARE) microspheres therapy has demonstrated positive clinical benefits for the treatment of liver metastases from colorectal cancer (lmCRC). This study aims to conduct a systematic review of the available economic evaluations of Y-90 TARE for lmCRC. METHODS English and Spanish publications were identified from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, MEDES health technology assessment agencies, and scientific congress databases published up to May 2021. The inclusion criteria considered only economic evaluations; thus, other types of studies were excluded. Purchasing-power-parity exchange rates for the year 2020 ($US PPP) were applied for cost harmonisation. RESULTS From 423 records screened, seven economic evaluations (2 cost-analyses [CA] and 5 cost-utility-analyses [CUA]) were included (6 European and 1 USA). All included studies (n = 7) were evaluated from a payer and the social perspective (n = 1). Included studies evaluated patients with unresectable liver-predominant metastases of CRC, refractory to chemotherapy (n = 6), or chemotherapy-naïve (n = 1). Y-90 TARE was compared to best supportive care (BSC) (n = 4), an association of folinic acid, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) (n = 1), and hepatic artery infusion (HAI) (n = 2). Y-90 TARE increased life-years gained (LYG) versus BSC (1.12 and 1.35 LYG) and versus HAI (0.37 LYG). Y-90 TARE increased the quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) versus BSC (0.81 and 0.83 QALY) and versus HAI (0.35 QALY). When considering a lifetime horizon, Y-90 TARE reported incremental cost compared to BSC (range 19,225 to 25,320 $US PPP) and versus HAI (14,307 $US PPP). Y-90 TARE reported incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) between 23,875 $US PPP/QALY to 31,185 $US PPP/QALY. The probability of Y-90 TARE being cost-effective at £ 30,000/QALY threshold was between 56% and 57%. CONCLUSIONS Our review highlights that Y-90 TARE could be a cost-effective therapy either as a monotherapy or when combined with systemic therapy for treating ImCRC. However, despite the current clinical evidence on Y-90 TARE in the treatment of ImCRC, the global economic evaluation reported for Y-90 TARE in ImCRC is limited (n = 7), therefore, we recommend future economic evaluations on Y-90 TARE versus alternative options in treating ImCRC from the societal perspective.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J C Alonso
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain
| | - I Casans
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital Clínico Universitario, Valencia, Spain
| | - F M González
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital Universitario Central, Asturias, Spain
| | - D Fuster
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain
| | - A Rodríguez
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain
| | - N Sánchez
- Nuclear Medicine Department, Hospital Clinic, Barcelona, Spain
| | - I Oyagüez
- Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Iberia (PORIB), Madrid, Spain
| | - A O Williams
- Boston Scientific Marlborough, Marlborough, MA, USA
| | - N Espinoza
- Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research Iberia (PORIB), Madrid, Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Spiliopoulos S, Moschovaki-Zeiger O, Sethi A, Festas G, Reppas L, Filippiadis D, Kelekis N. An update on locoregional percutaneous treatment technologies in colorectal cancer liver metastatic disease. Expert Rev Med Devices 2023; 20:293-302. [PMID: 36825337 DOI: 10.1080/17434440.2023.2185137] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2022] [Accepted: 02/23/2023] [Indexed: 02/25/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer is noted in approximately 20%-35% of the patients. Systemic chemotherapy remains the first-line treatment for mCRC, but the prognosis is poor due to liver failure. Novel minimally invasive technologies have enabled the optimization of locoregional treatment options. AREAS COVERED This is a comprehensive review of novel locoregional treatment technologies, both percutaneous ablation and transcatheter arterial treatments, which can be used to decrease hepatic disease progression in patients with mCRC. Trans-arterial radioembolization is the most recently developed locoregional treatment for metastatic liver disease, and robust evidence has been accumulated over the past years. EXPERT OPINION Image-guided techniques, endovascular and ablative, have gained wide acceptance for the treatment of liver malignancies, in selected patients with non-resectable disease. The optimization of dosimetry and microsphere technological advancement will certainly upgrade the role of liver radioembolization segmentectomy or lobectomy in the upcoming years, due to its curative intent. Also, ablative interventions provide local curative intent, offering significant and sustained local tumor control. Standardization protocols in terms of predictability and reliability using immediate treatment assessment and ablation zone software could further ameliorate clinical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stavros Spiliopoulos
- 2nd Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon University General Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Ornella Moschovaki-Zeiger
- 2nd Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon University General Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Akshay Sethi
- Department of Interventional Radiology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary Hospital, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK
| | - George Festas
- 2nd Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon University General Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Lazaros Reppas
- 2nd Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon University General Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Dimitris Filippiadis
- 2nd Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon University General Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Nikolaos Kelekis
- 2nd Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon University General Hospital, Athens, Greece
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Ekmekcioglu O, Erdem U, Arican P, Ozvar H, Bostanci O. The value of radioembolisation therapy on metastatic liver tumours - a single centre experience. Nuklearmedizin 2023; 62:214-219. [PMID: 36854382 DOI: 10.1055/a-2026-0851] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/02/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Local treatments used in metastatic liver tumours efficiently control the disease and survival. Transarterial radioembolisation (TARE) is a safely used locoregional treatment method. We aim to investigate the impact of TARE on different kinds of metastatic liver tumours and the effect of pre-treatment clinical findings. MATERIAL AND METHODS The patients with metastatic liver tumours referred to our department for radioembolisation were retrospectively evaluated. All patients were given a Y-90 glass microsphere after being selected by the appropriate clinical and imaging criteria, lung shunt fraction levels, vascular investigation, and macro aggregated albumin (MAA) scintigraphy performed in the angiography unit. RESULTS Thirty-four (17 women, 17 men) patients were suitable for the treatment. Patients were treated with 115.88±47.84 Gy Y-90 glass Microspheres. The mean survival rate was 14.59±12.59 months after treatment. Higher survival rates were detected in patients who had higher pre-treatment serum albumin levels. The optimum cut-off value of albumin to predict response to treatment was 4 g/dl with 88.89% sensitivity, 62.50% specificity, 72.73% PPV and 83.33% NPV. Furthermore, one unit increase in age increased mortality 1.152 times in our patient group. CONCLUSION Radioembolisation is a safe and efficient method for controlling metastatic liver disease. Albumin levels significantly affect predicting response; higher albumin levels are related to higher survival rates. Furthermore, older age positively correlated with mortality rates in our patient group.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ozgul Ekmekcioglu
- Nuclear Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkiye
| | - Umut Erdem
- Interventional Radiology Department, University of Health Sciences, Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkiye
| | - Pelin Arican
- Nuclear Medicine, University of Health Sciences, Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkiye
| | - Hikmet Ozvar
- Radiation Oncology, University of Health Sciences, Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkiye
| | - Ozgur Bostanci
- Hepatobiliary and General Surgery, University of Health Sciences, Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkiye
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Evaluation of Inflammatory Scores in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Undergoing Transarterial Radioembolization. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2023; 46:209-219. [PMID: 36416916 DOI: 10.1007/s00270-022-03313-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2022] [Accepted: 10/28/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the correlation of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), aspartate aminotransferase-to-lymphocyte ratio (ALRI), systemic inflammation index (SII), and lymphocyte count to oncologic outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients undergoing transarterial radioembolization (TARE). MATERIALS AND METHODS All patients undergoing TARE for mCRC were retrospectively reviewed at a single academic institution. A receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was performed using a landmark survival point of 12 months, with an area under the curve (AUC) calculated. A cutoff point was determined by Youden's index and used to separate patients for OS and PFS analysis. Cox proportional-hazards models which included pertinent clinical factors were also created to evaluate PFS and OS. RESULTS In total, 41 patients who underwent 66 TARE treatments were included. A correlation was seen between post-treatment ALRI < 45 (HR: 0.38 (95%CI: 0.17-0.86), p = 0.02) and PFS. Patients with a pretreatment ALRI score < 20 had a significantly longer OS (HR: 0.49 (95%CI: 0.19-0.88), p = 0.02) as did those with a post-treatment lymphocyte count > 1.1 109/L (HR: 0.27 (95%CI: 0.11-0.68), p = 0.005). In multivariate analysis of PFS, post-treatment lymphocyte count (HR: 8.46 (95%CI: 1.14-62.89), p = 0.044) was the only significantly associated inflammatory marker and presence of extrahepatic disease (HR:8.46 (95%CI: 1.14-62.89, p = 0.044) also correlated. Multivariate analysis of OS showed that pretreatment PLR (HR:1.01 (95%CI:1.-1.03), p = 0.02) and post-treatment NLR (HR:0.33 (95%CI:0.14-0.76), p = 0.009), PLR (HR:0.98 (95%CI:0.97-1), p = 0.046), SII (HR:1.04 (95%CI:1.01-1.08), p = 0.014), and lymphocyte count (HR:0.07 (95%CI:0.01-0.16), p = 0.003) were significantly associated. CONCLUSION Inflammatory markers may be associated with OS and PFS in mCRC patients undergoing TARE.
Collapse
|
14
|
Welling MM, Duszenko N, van Meerbeek MP, Molenaar TJM, Buckle T, van Leeuwen FWB, Rietbergen DDD. Microspheres as a Carrier System for Therapeutic Embolization Procedures: Achievements and Advances. J Clin Med 2023; 12:918. [PMID: 36769566 PMCID: PMC9917963 DOI: 10.3390/jcm12030918] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2022] [Revised: 01/17/2023] [Accepted: 01/20/2023] [Indexed: 01/27/2023] Open
Abstract
The targeted delivery of anti-cancer drugs and isotopes is one of the most pursued goals in anti-cancer therapy. One of the prime examples of such an application is the intra-arterial injection of microspheres containing cytostatic drugs or radioisotopes during hepatic embolization procedures. Therapy based on the application of microspheres revolves around vascular occlusion, complemented with local therapy in the form of trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) or radioembolization (TARE). The broadest implementation of these embolization strategies currently lies within the treatment of untreatable hepatocellular cancer (HCC) and metastatic colorectal cancer. This review aims to describe the state-of-the-art TACE and TARE technologies investigated in the clinical setting for HCC and addresses current trials and new developments. In addition, chemical properties and advancements in microsphere carrier systems are evaluated, and possible improvements in embolization therapy based on the modification of and functionalization with therapeutical loads are explored.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mick. M. Welling
- Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Nikolas Duszenko
- Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
- Departments of Parasitology and Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten P. van Meerbeek
- Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Tom J. M. Molenaar
- Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
- Radiochemistry Facility, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Tessa Buckle
- Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Fijs W. B. van Leeuwen
- Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Daphne D. D. Rietbergen
- Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
- Section of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Schaefer N, Grözinger G, Pech M, Pfammatter T, Soydal C, Arnold D, Kolligs F, Maleux G, Munneke G, Peynircioglu B, Sangro B, Pereira H, Zeka B, de Jong N, Helmberger T. Prognostic Factors for Effectiveness Outcomes After Transarterial Radioembolization in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Results From the Multicentre Observational Study CIRT. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2022; 21:285-296. [PMID: 36270925 DOI: 10.1016/j.clcc.2022.09.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2022] [Revised: 08/31/2022] [Accepted: 09/14/2022] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Transarterial radioembolisation (TARE) with Yttrium-90 resin microspheres is a treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in the liver (mCRC). A better understanding of the prognostic factors and treatment application can improve survival outcomes. METHODS We analysed the safety and effectiveness of 237 mCRC patients included in the prospective observational study CIRSE Registry for SIR-Spheres Therapy (CIRT) for independent prognostic factors for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and hepatic progression-free survival (hPFS) using the Cox proportional-hazard model. RESULTS The median OS was 9.8 months, median PFS was 3.4 months and median hPFS was 4.2 months. Independent prognostic factors for an improved overall survival were the absence of extra-hepatic disease (P= .0391), prior locoregional procedures (P= .0037), an Aspartate transaminase to Platelet Ratio Index (APRI) value of ≤0.40 (P< .0001) and International Normalized Ratio (INR) ≤1 (P= .0078). Partition model dosimetry resulted in improved OS outcomes compared to the body surface area model (P = .0120). Independent predictors for PFS were APRI >0.40 (P = .0416) and prior ablation (P = .0323), and for hPFS these were 2 to 5 tumor nodules (P = .0148), Albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade 3 (P = .0075) and APRI >0.40 (P = .0207). During the study, 95 of 237 (40.1%) patients experienced 197 adverse events, with 28 of 237 (11.8%) patients having a grade 3 or higher adverse events. CONCLUSION Including easy-to-acquire laboratory markers INR, APRI, ALBI and using partition model dosimetry can identify mCRC patients that may benefit from TARE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Niklaus Schaefer
- Service de médecine nucléaire et imagerie moléculaire, University Hospital of Lausanne (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Gerd Grözinger
- Eberhard Karls University, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Tübingen, Germany
| | - Maciej Pech
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany
| | - Thomas Pfammatter
- Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, UniversitätsSpital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Cigdem Soydal
- Ankara University, Medical School, Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cebeci, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Dirk Arnold
- Oncology and Hematology, Asklepios Tumorzentrum Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Frank Kolligs
- Department of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, Helios Klinikum Berlin-Buch, Berlin, Germany
| | - Geert Maleux
- Radiology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Graham Munneke
- Interventional Oncology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
| | - Bora Peynircioglu
- Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
| | - Bruno Sangro
- Liver Unit and HPB Oncology Area, Clínica Universidad de Navarra and CIBEREHD, Pamplona, Spain
| | - Helena Pereira
- Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Européen Georges-Pompidou, Unité de Recherche Clinique, Paris, France; INSERM, Centre d'Investigation Clinique 1418 (CIC1418), Paris, France
| | - Bleranda Zeka
- Clinical Research Department, Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe, Vienna Austria
| | - Niels de Jong
- Clinical Research Department, Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe, Vienna Austria.
| | - Thomas Helmberger
- Department of Radiology, Neuroradiology and Minimal-Invasive Therapy, Klinikum Bogenhausen, Munich, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Role of Transhepatic Arterial Radioembolization in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2022; 45:1579-1589. [PMID: 36104632 DOI: 10.1007/s00270-022-03268-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2021] [Accepted: 08/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
17
|
Plotnikova OS, Grishchenko DN, Medkov MA, Apanasevich VI, Pankratov IV, Nevozhai VI, Polezhaev AA, Kostiv EP. Radiopaque Glass Ceramic with Calcium Tantalate Microcrystals for the Treatment of Malignant Neoplasms. RUSS J INORG CHEM+ 2022. [DOI: 10.1134/s0036023622090091] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
|
18
|
Emmons EC, Bishay S, Du L, Krebs H, Gandhi RT, Collins ZS, O'Hara R, Akhter NM, Wang EA, Grilli C, Brower JS, Peck SR, Petroziello M, Abdel Aal AK, Golzarian J, Kennedy AS, Matsuoka L, Sze DY, Brown DB. Survival and Toxicities after 90Y Transarterial Radioembolization of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the RESIN Registry. Radiology 2022; 305:228-236. [PMID: 35762890 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.220387] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
Background Patients with unresectable, chemorefractory hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer have considerable mortality. The role of transarterial radioembolization (TARE) with yttrium 90 (90Y) microspheres is not defined because most reports are from a single center with limited patient numbers. Purpose To report outcomes in participants with colorectal cancer metastases treated with resin 90Y microspheres from a prospective multicenter observational registry. Materials and Methods This study treated enrolled adult participants with TARE using resin microspheres for liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer at 42 centers, with enrollment from July 2015 through August 2020. TARE was used as the first-, second-, or third-line therapy or beyond. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity outcomes were assessed by line of therapy by using Kaplan-Meier analysis for OS and PFS and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5, for toxicities. Results A total of 498 participants (median age, 60 years [IQR, 52-69 years]; 298 men [60%]) were treated. TARE was used in first-line therapy in 74 of 442 participants (17%), second-line therapy in 180 participants (41%), and third-line therapy or beyond in 188 participants (43%). The median OS of the entire cohort was 15.0 months (95% CI: 13.3, 16.9). The median OS by line of therapy was 13.9 months for first-line therapy, 17.4 months for second-line therapy, and 12.5 months for third-line therapy (χ2 = 9.7; P = .002). Whole-group PFS was 7.4 months (95% CI: 6.4, 9.5). The median PFS by line of therapy was 7.9 months for first-line therapy, 10.0 months for second-line therapy, and 5.9 months for third-line therapy (χ2 = 8.3; P = .004). TARE-attributable grade 3 or 4 hepatic toxicities were 8.4% for bilirubin (29 of 347 participants) and 3.7% for albumin (13 of 347). Grade 3 and higher toxicities were greater with third-line therapy for bilirubin (P = .01) and albumin (P = .008). Conclusion Median overall survival (OS) after transarterial radioembolization (TARE) with yttrium 90 microspheres for liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer was 15.0 months. The longest OS was achieved when TARE was part of second-line therapy. Grade 3 or greater hepatic function toxicity rates were less than 10%. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02685631 Published under a CC BY 4.0 license. Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Liddell in this issue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Erica C Emmons
- From the Departments of Interventional Radiology (E.C.E., D.B.B.), Biostatistics (L.D.), and Transplant Surgery (L.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Ave S, CCC-1118 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn (S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Atlanta, Ga (H.K.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla (R.T.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kan (Z.S.C.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (R.O.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md (N.M.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (E.A.W.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Christiana Medical Center, Newark, Del (C.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Providence Sacred Heart, Spokane, Wash (J.S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD (S.R.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY (M.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Texas, Houston, Tex (A.K.A.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn (J.G.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn (A.S.K.); and Department of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif (D.Y.S.)
| | - Steven Bishay
- From the Departments of Interventional Radiology (E.C.E., D.B.B.), Biostatistics (L.D.), and Transplant Surgery (L.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Ave S, CCC-1118 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn (S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Atlanta, Ga (H.K.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla (R.T.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kan (Z.S.C.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (R.O.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md (N.M.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (E.A.W.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Christiana Medical Center, Newark, Del (C.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Providence Sacred Heart, Spokane, Wash (J.S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD (S.R.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY (M.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Texas, Houston, Tex (A.K.A.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn (J.G.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn (A.S.K.); and Department of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif (D.Y.S.)
| | - Liping Du
- From the Departments of Interventional Radiology (E.C.E., D.B.B.), Biostatistics (L.D.), and Transplant Surgery (L.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Ave S, CCC-1118 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn (S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Atlanta, Ga (H.K.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla (R.T.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kan (Z.S.C.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (R.O.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md (N.M.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (E.A.W.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Christiana Medical Center, Newark, Del (C.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Providence Sacred Heart, Spokane, Wash (J.S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD (S.R.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY (M.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Texas, Houston, Tex (A.K.A.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn (J.G.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn (A.S.K.); and Department of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif (D.Y.S.)
| | - Henry Krebs
- From the Departments of Interventional Radiology (E.C.E., D.B.B.), Biostatistics (L.D.), and Transplant Surgery (L.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Ave S, CCC-1118 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn (S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Atlanta, Ga (H.K.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla (R.T.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kan (Z.S.C.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (R.O.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md (N.M.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (E.A.W.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Christiana Medical Center, Newark, Del (C.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Providence Sacred Heart, Spokane, Wash (J.S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD (S.R.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY (M.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Texas, Houston, Tex (A.K.A.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn (J.G.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn (A.S.K.); and Department of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif (D.Y.S.)
| | - Ripal T Gandhi
- From the Departments of Interventional Radiology (E.C.E., D.B.B.), Biostatistics (L.D.), and Transplant Surgery (L.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Ave S, CCC-1118 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn (S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Atlanta, Ga (H.K.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla (R.T.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kan (Z.S.C.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (R.O.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md (N.M.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (E.A.W.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Christiana Medical Center, Newark, Del (C.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Providence Sacred Heart, Spokane, Wash (J.S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD (S.R.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY (M.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Texas, Houston, Tex (A.K.A.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn (J.G.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn (A.S.K.); and Department of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif (D.Y.S.)
| | - Zachary S Collins
- From the Departments of Interventional Radiology (E.C.E., D.B.B.), Biostatistics (L.D.), and Transplant Surgery (L.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Ave S, CCC-1118 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn (S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Atlanta, Ga (H.K.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla (R.T.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kan (Z.S.C.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (R.O.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md (N.M.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (E.A.W.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Christiana Medical Center, Newark, Del (C.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Providence Sacred Heart, Spokane, Wash (J.S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD (S.R.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY (M.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Texas, Houston, Tex (A.K.A.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn (J.G.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn (A.S.K.); and Department of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif (D.Y.S.)
| | - Ryan O'Hara
- From the Departments of Interventional Radiology (E.C.E., D.B.B.), Biostatistics (L.D.), and Transplant Surgery (L.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Ave S, CCC-1118 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn (S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Atlanta, Ga (H.K.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla (R.T.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kan (Z.S.C.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (R.O.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md (N.M.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (E.A.W.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Christiana Medical Center, Newark, Del (C.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Providence Sacred Heart, Spokane, Wash (J.S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD (S.R.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY (M.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Texas, Houston, Tex (A.K.A.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn (J.G.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn (A.S.K.); and Department of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif (D.Y.S.)
| | - Nabeel M Akhter
- From the Departments of Interventional Radiology (E.C.E., D.B.B.), Biostatistics (L.D.), and Transplant Surgery (L.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Ave S, CCC-1118 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn (S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Atlanta, Ga (H.K.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla (R.T.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kan (Z.S.C.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (R.O.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md (N.M.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (E.A.W.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Christiana Medical Center, Newark, Del (C.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Providence Sacred Heart, Spokane, Wash (J.S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD (S.R.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY (M.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Texas, Houston, Tex (A.K.A.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn (J.G.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn (A.S.K.); and Department of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif (D.Y.S.)
| | - Eric A Wang
- From the Departments of Interventional Radiology (E.C.E., D.B.B.), Biostatistics (L.D.), and Transplant Surgery (L.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Ave S, CCC-1118 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn (S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Atlanta, Ga (H.K.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla (R.T.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kan (Z.S.C.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (R.O.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md (N.M.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (E.A.W.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Christiana Medical Center, Newark, Del (C.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Providence Sacred Heart, Spokane, Wash (J.S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD (S.R.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY (M.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Texas, Houston, Tex (A.K.A.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn (J.G.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn (A.S.K.); and Department of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif (D.Y.S.)
| | - Christopher Grilli
- From the Departments of Interventional Radiology (E.C.E., D.B.B.), Biostatistics (L.D.), and Transplant Surgery (L.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Ave S, CCC-1118 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn (S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Atlanta, Ga (H.K.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla (R.T.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kan (Z.S.C.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (R.O.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md (N.M.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (E.A.W.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Christiana Medical Center, Newark, Del (C.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Providence Sacred Heart, Spokane, Wash (J.S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD (S.R.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY (M.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Texas, Houston, Tex (A.K.A.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn (J.G.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn (A.S.K.); and Department of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif (D.Y.S.)
| | - Jayson S Brower
- From the Departments of Interventional Radiology (E.C.E., D.B.B.), Biostatistics (L.D.), and Transplant Surgery (L.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Ave S, CCC-1118 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn (S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Atlanta, Ga (H.K.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla (R.T.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kan (Z.S.C.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (R.O.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md (N.M.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (E.A.W.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Christiana Medical Center, Newark, Del (C.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Providence Sacred Heart, Spokane, Wash (J.S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD (S.R.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY (M.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Texas, Houston, Tex (A.K.A.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn (J.G.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn (A.S.K.); and Department of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif (D.Y.S.)
| | - Shannon R Peck
- From the Departments of Interventional Radiology (E.C.E., D.B.B.), Biostatistics (L.D.), and Transplant Surgery (L.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Ave S, CCC-1118 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn (S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Atlanta, Ga (H.K.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla (R.T.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kan (Z.S.C.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (R.O.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md (N.M.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (E.A.W.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Christiana Medical Center, Newark, Del (C.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Providence Sacred Heart, Spokane, Wash (J.S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD (S.R.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY (M.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Texas, Houston, Tex (A.K.A.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn (J.G.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn (A.S.K.); and Department of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif (D.Y.S.)
| | - Michael Petroziello
- From the Departments of Interventional Radiology (E.C.E., D.B.B.), Biostatistics (L.D.), and Transplant Surgery (L.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Ave S, CCC-1118 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn (S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Atlanta, Ga (H.K.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla (R.T.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kan (Z.S.C.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (R.O.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md (N.M.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (E.A.W.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Christiana Medical Center, Newark, Del (C.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Providence Sacred Heart, Spokane, Wash (J.S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD (S.R.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY (M.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Texas, Houston, Tex (A.K.A.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn (J.G.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn (A.S.K.); and Department of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif (D.Y.S.)
| | - Ahmed K Abdel Aal
- From the Departments of Interventional Radiology (E.C.E., D.B.B.), Biostatistics (L.D.), and Transplant Surgery (L.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Ave S, CCC-1118 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn (S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Atlanta, Ga (H.K.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla (R.T.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kan (Z.S.C.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (R.O.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md (N.M.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (E.A.W.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Christiana Medical Center, Newark, Del (C.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Providence Sacred Heart, Spokane, Wash (J.S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD (S.R.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY (M.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Texas, Houston, Tex (A.K.A.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn (J.G.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn (A.S.K.); and Department of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif (D.Y.S.)
| | - Jafar Golzarian
- From the Departments of Interventional Radiology (E.C.E., D.B.B.), Biostatistics (L.D.), and Transplant Surgery (L.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Ave S, CCC-1118 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn (S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Atlanta, Ga (H.K.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla (R.T.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kan (Z.S.C.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (R.O.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md (N.M.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (E.A.W.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Christiana Medical Center, Newark, Del (C.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Providence Sacred Heart, Spokane, Wash (J.S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD (S.R.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY (M.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Texas, Houston, Tex (A.K.A.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn (J.G.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn (A.S.K.); and Department of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif (D.Y.S.)
| | - Andrew S Kennedy
- From the Departments of Interventional Radiology (E.C.E., D.B.B.), Biostatistics (L.D.), and Transplant Surgery (L.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Ave S, CCC-1118 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn (S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Atlanta, Ga (H.K.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla (R.T.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kan (Z.S.C.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (R.O.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md (N.M.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (E.A.W.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Christiana Medical Center, Newark, Del (C.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Providence Sacred Heart, Spokane, Wash (J.S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD (S.R.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY (M.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Texas, Houston, Tex (A.K.A.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn (J.G.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn (A.S.K.); and Department of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif (D.Y.S.)
| | - Lea Matsuoka
- From the Departments of Interventional Radiology (E.C.E., D.B.B.), Biostatistics (L.D.), and Transplant Surgery (L.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Ave S, CCC-1118 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn (S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Atlanta, Ga (H.K.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla (R.T.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kan (Z.S.C.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (R.O.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md (N.M.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (E.A.W.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Christiana Medical Center, Newark, Del (C.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Providence Sacred Heart, Spokane, Wash (J.S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD (S.R.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY (M.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Texas, Houston, Tex (A.K.A.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn (J.G.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn (A.S.K.); and Department of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif (D.Y.S.)
| | - Daniel Y Sze
- From the Departments of Interventional Radiology (E.C.E., D.B.B.), Biostatistics (L.D.), and Transplant Surgery (L.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Ave S, CCC-1118 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn (S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Atlanta, Ga (H.K.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla (R.T.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kan (Z.S.C.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (R.O.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md (N.M.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (E.A.W.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Christiana Medical Center, Newark, Del (C.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Providence Sacred Heart, Spokane, Wash (J.S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD (S.R.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY (M.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Texas, Houston, Tex (A.K.A.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn (J.G.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn (A.S.K.); and Department of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif (D.Y.S.)
| | - Daniel B Brown
- From the Departments of Interventional Radiology (E.C.E., D.B.B.), Biostatistics (L.D.), and Transplant Surgery (L.M.), Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1161 21st Ave S, CCC-1118 Medical Center North, Nashville, TN 37232; Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tenn (S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Atlanta, Ga (H.K.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, Fla (R.T.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Kansas, Kansas City, Kan (Z.S.C.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah (R.O.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Md (N.M.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC (E.A.W.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Christiana Medical Center, Newark, Del (C.G.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Providence Sacred Heart, Spokane, Wash (J.S.B.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Sanford Health, Sioux Falls, SD (S.R.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, Roswell Park Memorial Institute, Buffalo, NY (M.P.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Texas, Houston, Tex (A.K.A.A.); Department of Interventional Radiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn (J.G.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Sarah Cannon Research Institute, Nashville, Tenn (A.S.K.); and Department of Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, Calif (D.Y.S.)
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Entezari P, Gabr A, Salem R, Lewandowski RJ. Yttrium-90 for colorectal liver metastasis - the promising role of radiation segmentectomy as an alternative local cure. Int J Hyperthermia 2022; 39:620-626. [DOI: 10.1080/02656736.2021.1933215] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Pouya Entezari
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Ahmed Gabr
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Riad Salem
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA
- Department of Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Comprehensive Transplant Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Robert J. Lewandowski
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, USA
- Department of Surgery, Division of Transplantation, Comprehensive Transplant Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Aquina CT, Eskander MF, Pawlik TM. Liver-Directed Treatment Options Following Liver Tumor Recurrence: A Review of the Literature. Front Oncol 2022; 12:832405. [PMID: 35174097 PMCID: PMC8841620 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.832405] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2021] [Accepted: 01/11/2022] [Indexed: 01/27/2023] Open
Abstract
Recurrence following curative-intent hepatectomy for colorectal cancer liver metastasis, hepatocellular carcinoma, or cholangiocarcinoma is unfortunately common with a reported incidence as high as 75%. Various treatment modalities can improve survival following disease recurrence. A review of the literature was performed using PubMed. In addition to systemic therapy, liver-directed treatment options for recurrent liver disease include repeat hepatectomy, salvage liver transplantation, radiofrequency or microwave ablation, intra-arterial therapy, and stereotactic body radiation therapy. Repeat resection can be consider for patients with limited recurrent disease that meets resection criteria, as this therapeutic approach can provide a survival benefit and is potentially curative in a subset of patients. Salvage liver transplantation for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma is another option, which has been associated with a 5-year survival of 50%. Salvage transplantation may be an option in particular for patients who are not candidates for resection due to underlying liver dysfunction but meet criteria for transplantation. Ablation is another modality to treat patients who recur with smaller tumors and are not surgical candidates due to comorbidity, liver dysfunction, or tumor location. For patients with inoperable disease, transarterial chemoembolization, or radioembolization with Yttrium-90 are liver-directed intra-arterial therapy modalities with relatively low risks that can be utilized. Stereotactic body radiation therapy is another palliative treatment option that can provide a response and local tumor control for smaller tumors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher T. Aquina
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States
- Digestive Health and Surgery Institute, AdventHealth Orlando, Orlando, FL, United States
| | - Mariam F. Eskander
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ, United States
| | - Timothy M. Pawlik
- Division of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, United States
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Wagemans ME, Braat AJ, Smits ML, Bruijnen RC, Lam MG. Side effects of therapy with radiolabelled microspheres. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-822960-6.00179-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
|
22
|
Mulcahy MF, Mahvash A, Pracht M, Montazeri AH, Bandula S, Martin RCG, Herrmann K, Brown E, Zuckerman D, Wilson G, Kim TY, Weaver A, Ross P, Harris WP, Graham J, Mills J, Yubero Esteban A, Johnson MS, Sofocleous CT, Padia SA, Lewandowski RJ, Garin E, Sinclair P, Salem R. Radioembolization With Chemotherapy for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Randomized, Open-Label, International, Multicenter, Phase III Trial. J Clin Oncol 2021; 39:3897-3907. [PMID: 34541864 PMCID: PMC8660005 DOI: 10.1200/jco.21.01839] [Citation(s) in RCA: 74] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To study the impact of transarterial Yttrium-90 radioembolization (TARE) in combination with second-line systemic chemotherapy for colorectal liver metastases (CLM). METHODS In this international, multicenter, open-label phase III trial, patients with CLM who progressed on oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based first-line therapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive second-line chemotherapy with or without TARE. The two primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) and hepatic PFS (hPFS), assessed by blinded independent central review. Random assignment was performed using a web- or voice-based system stratified by unilobar or bilobar disease, oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based first-line chemotherapy, and KRAS mutation status. RESULTS Four hundred twenty-eight patients from 95 centers in North America, Europe, and Asia were randomly assigned to chemotherapy with or without TARE; this represents the intention-to-treat population and included 215 patients in the TARE plus chemotherapy group and 213 patients in the chemotherapy alone group. The hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.88; 1-sided P = .0013), with a median PFS of 8.0 (95% CI, 7.2 to 9.2) and 7.2 (95% CI, 5.7 to 7.6) months, respectively. The HR for hPFS was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.77; 1-sided P < .0001), with a median hPFS of 9.1 (95% CI, 7.8 to 9.7) and 7.2 (95% CI, 5.7 to 7.6) months, respectively. Objective response rates were 34.0% (95% CI, 28.0 to 40.5) and 21.1% (95% CI, 16.2 to 27.1; 1-sided P = .0019) for the TARE and chemotherapy groups, respectively. Median overall survival was 14.0 (95% CI, 11.8 to 15.5) and 14.4 months (95% CI, 12.8 to 16.4; 1-sided P = .7229) with a HR of 1.07 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.32) for TARE and chemotherapy groups, respectively. Grade 3 adverse events were reported more frequently with TARE (68.4% v 49.3%). Both groups received full chemotherapy dose intensity. CONCLUSION The addition of TARE to systemic therapy for second-line CLM led to longer PFS and hPFS. Further subset analyses are needed to better define the ideal patient population that would benefit from TARE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mary F Mulcahy
- Department of Medicine, Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL
| | - Armeen Mahvash
- Department of Interventional Radiology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX
| | - Marc Pracht
- Centre Eugene Marquis, Medical Oncology, Rennes, France
| | - Amir H Montazeri
- Clatterbridge Cancer Center NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom
| | - Steve Bandula
- University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | | | | | - Ewan Brown
- Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, Scotland
| | | | - Gregory Wilson
- The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Tae-You Kim
- Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Andrew Weaver
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, United Kingdom
| | - Paul Ross
- Guy's Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Janet Graham
- Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Glasgow, United Kingdom
| | - Jamie Mills
- Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | | | | | | | | | - Robert J Lewandowski
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | - Etienne Garin
- Centre Eugene Marquis, Nuclear Medicine, Rennes, France
| | | | - Riad Salem
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL
| | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Karamchandani DM, Hammad H, Chetty R, Arnold CA. New Kids on the Block. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2021; 145:1569-1584. [PMID: 33571357 DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2020-0535-ra] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 11/24/2020] [Indexed: 12/31/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT.— With the increasing development and use of iatrogenic agents, pathologists are encountering more novel foreign materials in retrieved gastrointestinal specimens. These colorful and unusual-appearing foreign materials can pose a diagnostic dilemma to those unaware of their morphology, especially if the relevant clinical history is lacking. OBJECTIVE.— To discuss the histopathologic features, clinical scenarios and significance, and differential diagnosis of relatively recently described, yet quickly expanding, family of iatrogenic agents that can present as foreign materials in gastrointestinal specimens-pharmaceutical fillers (crospovidone and microcrystalline cellulose), submucosal lifting agents (Eleview and ORISE), lanthanum carbonate, hydrophilic polymers, OsmoPrep, yttrium 90 microspheres (SIR-Sphere and TheraSphere), and resins (sodium polystyrene sulfonate, sevelamer, and bile acid sequestrants). DATA SOURCES.— We collate the findings of published literature, including recently published research papers, and authors' personal experiences from clinical sign-out and consult cases. CONCLUSIONS.— Correct identification of these iatrogenic agents is important because the presence of some novel agents can explain the histopathologic findings seen in the background specimen, and specific novel agents can serve as diagnostic clues to prompt the pathologist to consider other important and related diagnoses. Awareness of even biologically inert agents is important for accurate diagnosis and to avoid unnecessary and expensive diagnostic studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dipti M Karamchandani
- From the Department of Pathology, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania (Karamchandani)
| | - Hazed Hammad
- The Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Hammad), University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Center, Denver
| | - Runjan Chetty
- The Histopathology Department, Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals, Brighton, United Kingdom (Chetty)
| | - Christina A Arnold
- The Department of Pathology (Arnold), University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Center, Denver
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
The Role of Ablative Radiotherapy to Liver Oligometastases from Colorectal Cancer. CURRENT COLORECTAL CANCER REPORTS 2021. [DOI: 10.1007/s11888-021-00472-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose of Review
This review describes recent data supporting locoregional ablative radiation in the treatment of oligometastatic colorectal cancer liver metastases.
Recent Findings
Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) demonstrates high rates of local control in colorectal cancer liver metastases when a biologically equivalent dose of > 100 Gy is delivered. Future innovations to improve the efficacy of SBRT include MRI-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) to enhance target accuracy, systemic immune activation to treat extrahepatic disease, and genomic customization. Selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) with y-90 is an intra-arterial therapy that delivers high doses to liver metastases internally which has shown to increase liver disease control in phase 3 trials. Advancements in transarterial radioembolization (TARE) dosimetry could improve local control and decrease toxicity.
Summary
SBRT and SIRT are both promising options in treating unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer liver metastases. Identification of oligometastatic patients who receive long-term disease control from either therapy is essential. Future advancements focusing on improving radiation design and customization could further improve efficacy and toxicity.
Collapse
|
25
|
Manchec B, Kokabi N, Narayanan G, Niekamp A, Peña C, Powell A, Schiro B, Gandhi R. Radioembolization of Secondary Hepatic Malignancies. Semin Intervent Radiol 2021; 38:445-452. [PMID: 34629712 DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1732318] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
Cancer has become the leading cause of mortality in America, and the majority of patients eventually develop hepatic metastasis. As liver metastases are frequently unresectable, the value of liver-directed therapies, such as transarterial radioembolization (TARE), has become increasingly recognized as an integral component of patient management. Outcomes after radioembolization of hepatic malignancies vary not only by location of primary malignancy but also by tumor histopathology. This article reviews the outcomes of TARE for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, metastatic breast cancer, and metastatic neuroendocrine tumors, as well as special considerations when treating metastatic disease with TARE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Barbara Manchec
- Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida.,Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida
| | - Nima Kokabi
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Govindarajan Narayanan
- Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida.,Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida
| | - Andrew Niekamp
- Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida.,Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida
| | - Constantino Peña
- Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida.,Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida
| | - Alex Powell
- Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida.,Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida
| | - Brian Schiro
- Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida.,Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida
| | - Ripal Gandhi
- Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida.,Miami Cancer Institute, Baptist Health South Florida, Miami, Florida
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Triviño-Ibáñez EM, Pardo Moreno P, Ciampi Dopazo JJ, Ramos-Font C, Ruiz Villaverde G, González-Flores E, Navarro Vergara PF, Rashki M, Gómez-Río M, Rodríguez-Fernández A. Biomarkers associated with survival and favourable outcome of radioembolization with yttrium-90 glass microspheres for colon cancer liver metastases: Single centre experience. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol 2021; 41:231-238. [PMID: 34454892 DOI: 10.1016/j.remnie.2021.08.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2021] [Accepted: 05/22/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To determine the therapeutic effectiveness and safety of transarterial radioembolization (TARE) with Yttrium-90 in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases and to evaluate the prognostic value of different biomarkers. MATERIAL AND METHODS This prospective longitudinal study enrolled consecutive patients with CRC liver metastases treated with TARE between November 2015 and june 2020. The therapeutic response at three and six months (RECIST1.1 criteria) and the relationship of biomarkers with therapeutic response, by calculating objective tumor response rates (ORR) and disease control (DCR), and overall survival (OS) and progression-free (PFS). RESULTS Thirty TAREs were performed in 23 patients (mean age, 61.61 ± 9.13 years; 56.5% male). At three months, the objective response rate (ORR) was 16.7% and the disease control rate (DCR) 53.3%. At six months, the disease progressed in 80%. The ORR and DCR were significantly associated with age at diagnosis (P = 0.047), previous bevacizumab treatment (P = 0.008), pre-TARE haemoglobin (P = 0.008), NLR (P = 0.040), pre-TARE albumin (P = 0.012), pre-TARE ALT (P = 0.023) and tumour-absorbed dose > 115 Gy (P = 0.033). Median overall survival (OS) was 12 months (95% CI, 4.75-19.25 months) and median progression-free survival (PFS) 3 months (95% CI, 2.41-3.59). OS was significantly associated with primary tumour resection (P = 0.019), KRAS mutation (HR: 5.15; P = 0.024), pre-TARE haemoglobin (HR: 0.50; p = 0.009), pre-TARE NLR (HR: 1.65; P = 0.005) and PLR (HR: 1.01; P = 0.042). CONCLUSION TARE prognosis and therapeutic response were predicted by different biomarkers, ranging from biochemical parameters to tumour dosimetrics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E M Triviño-Ibáñez
- Servicio de Medicina Nuclear, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain; IBS, Granada Bio-Health Research Institute, Granada, Spain.
| | - P Pardo Moreno
- Servicio de Radiodiagnóstico, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain
| | - J J Ciampi Dopazo
- Servicio de Radiodiagnóstico, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain
| | - C Ramos-Font
- Servicio de Medicina Nuclear, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain; IBS, Granada Bio-Health Research Institute, Granada, Spain
| | - G Ruiz Villaverde
- Servicio de Radiodiagnóstico, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain
| | - E González-Flores
- Servicio de Oncología Médica, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain
| | - P F Navarro Vergara
- Servicio de Radiodiagnóstico, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain
| | - M Rashki
- Servicio de Medicina Nuclear, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain
| | - M Gómez-Río
- Servicio de Medicina Nuclear, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain; IBS, Granada Bio-Health Research Institute, Granada, Spain
| | - A Rodríguez-Fernández
- Servicio de Medicina Nuclear, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain; IBS, Granada Bio-Health Research Institute, Granada, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Triviño-Ibáñez EM, Pardo Moreno P, Ciampi Dopazo JJ, Ramos-Font C, Ruiz Villaverde G, González-Flores E, Navarro Vergara PF, Rashki M, Gómez-Río M, Rodríguez-Fernández A. Biomarkers associated with survival and favourable outcome of radioembolization with yttrium-90 glass microspheres for colon cancer liver metastases: Single centre experience. Rev Esp Med Nucl Imagen Mol 2021; 41:S2253-654X(21)00129-3. [PMID: 34294586 DOI: 10.1016/j.remn.2021.05.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2021] [Revised: 05/21/2021] [Accepted: 05/22/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
OBJETIVE To determine the therapeutic effectiveness and safety of transarterial radioembolization (TARE) with Yttrium-90 in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases and to evaluate the prognostic value of different biomarkers. MATERIAL AND METHODS This prospective longitudinal study enrolled consecutive patients with CRC liver metastases treated with TARE between November 2015 and june 2020. The therapeutic response at three and six months (RECIST1.1 criteria) and the relationship of biomarkers with therapeutic response, by calculating objective tumor response rates (ORR) and disease control (DCR), and overall survival (OS) and progression-free (PFS). RESULTS Thirty TAREs were performed in 23 patients (mean age, 61,61±9,13 years; 56,5% male). At three months, the objective response rate (ORR) was 16,7% and the disease control rate (DCR) 53,3%. At six months, the disease progressed in 80%. The ORR and DCR were significantly associated with age at diagnosis (P=.047), previous bevacizumab treatment (P=.008), pre-TARE haemoglobin (P=.008), NLR (P=.040), pre-TARE albumin (P=.012), pre-TARE ALT (P=.023) and tumour-absorbed dose>115Gy (P=.033). Median overall survival (OS) was 12 months (95% CI, 4.75-19.25 months) and median progression-free survival (PFS) 3 months (95% CI, 2.41-3.59). OS was significantly associated with primary tumour resection (P=.019), KRAS mutation (HR: 5.15; P=.024), pre-TARE haemoglobin (HR: .50; p=.009), pre-TARE NLR (HR: 1.65; P=.005) and PLR (HR: 1.01; P=.042). CONCLUSION TARE prognosis and therapeutic response were predicted by different biomarkers, ranging from biochemical parameters to tumour dosimetrics.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- E M Triviño-Ibáñez
- Servicio de Medicina Nuclear, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, España; IBS, Granada Bio-Health Research Institute, Granada, España.
| | - P Pardo Moreno
- Servicio de Radiodiagnóstico, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, España
| | - J J Ciampi Dopazo
- Servicio de Radiodiagnóstico, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, España
| | - C Ramos-Font
- Servicio de Medicina Nuclear, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, España; IBS, Granada Bio-Health Research Institute, Granada, España
| | - G Ruiz Villaverde
- Servicio de Radiodiagnóstico, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, España
| | - E González-Flores
- Servicio de Oncología Médica, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, España
| | - P F Navarro Vergara
- Servicio de Radiodiagnóstico, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, España
| | - M Rashki
- Servicio de Medicina Nuclear, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, España
| | - M Gómez-Río
- Servicio de Medicina Nuclear, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, España; IBS, Granada Bio-Health Research Institute, Granada, España
| | - A Rodríguez-Fernández
- Servicio de Medicina Nuclear, Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, España; IBS, Granada Bio-Health Research Institute, Granada, España
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Kurilova I, Bendet A, Fung EK, Petre EN, Humm JL, Boas FE, Crane CH, Kemeny N, Kingham TP, Cercek A, D'Angelica MI, Beets-Tan RGH, Sofocleous CT. Radiation segmentectomy of hepatic metastases with Y-90 glass microspheres. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2021; 46:3428-3436. [PMID: 33606062 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-021-02956-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/13/2020] [Revised: 01/10/2021] [Accepted: 01/15/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate safety and efficacy of radiation segmentectomy (RS) with 90Y glass microspheres in patients with limited metastatic liver disease not amenable to resection or percutaneous ablation. METHODS Patients with ≤ 3 tumors treated with RS from 6/2015 to 12/2017 were included. Target tumor radiation dose was > 190 Gy based on medical internal radiation dose (MIRD) dosimetry. Tumor response, local tumor progression (LTP), LTP-free survival (LTPFS) and disease progression rate in the treated segment were defined using Choi and RECIST 1.1 criteria. Toxicities were evaluated using modified SIR criteria. RESULTS Ten patients with 14 tumors underwent 12 RS. Median tumor size was 3 cm (range 1.4-5.6). Median follow-up was 17.8 months (range 1.6-37.3). Response rates per Choi and RECIST 1.1 criteria were 8/8 (100%) and 4/9 (44%), respectively. Overall LTP rate was 3/14 (21%) during the study period. One-, two- and three-year LTPFS was 83%, 83% and 69%, respectively. Median LTPFS was not reached. Disease progression rate in the treated segment was 6/18 (33%). Median overall survival was 41.5 months (IQR 16.7-41.5). Median delivered tumor radiation dose was 293 Gy (range 163-1303). One major complication was recorded in a patient post-Whipple procedure who suffered anaphylactic reaction to prophylactic cefotetan and liver abscess in RS region 6.5 months post-RS. All patients were alive on last follow-up. CONCLUSION RS of ≤ 3 hepatic segments can safely provide a 2-year local tumor control rate of 83% in selected patients with limited metastatic liver disease and limited treatment options. Optimal dosimetry methodology requires further investigation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- I Kurilova
- Interventional Radiology Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA
- Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - A Bendet
- Interventional Radiology Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA
| | - E K Fung
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA
| | - E N Petre
- Interventional Radiology Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA
| | - J L Humm
- Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA
| | - F E Boas
- Interventional Radiology Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA
| | - C H Crane
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA
| | - N Kemeny
- Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA
| | - T P Kingham
- Hepatopancreatobiliary Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA
| | - A Cercek
- Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA
| | - M I D'Angelica
- Hepatopancreatobiliary Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA
| | - R G H Beets-Tan
- Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - C T Sofocleous
- Interventional Radiology Service, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
d’Abadie P, Hesse M, Louppe A, Lhommel R, Walrand S, Jamar F. Microspheres Used in Liver Radioembolization: From Conception to Clinical Effects. Molecules 2021; 26:3966. [PMID: 34209590 PMCID: PMC8271370 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26133966] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/28/2021] [Revised: 06/22/2021] [Accepted: 06/23/2021] [Indexed: 01/31/2023] Open
Abstract
Inert microspheres, labeled with several radionuclides, have been developed during the last two decades for the intra-arterial treatment of liver tumors, generally called Selective Intrahepatic radiotherapy (SIRT). The aim is to embolize microspheres into the hepatic capillaries, accessible through the hepatic artery, to deliver high levels of local radiation to primary (such as hepatocarcinoma, HCC) or secondary (metastases from several primary cancers, e.g., colorectal, melanoma, neuro-endocrine tumors) liver tumors. Several types of microspheres were designed as medical devices, using different vehicles (glass, resin, poly-lactic acid) and labeled with different radionuclides, 90Y and 166Ho. The relationship between the microspheres' properties and the internal dosimetry parameters have been well studied over the last decade. This includes data derived from the clinics, but also computational data with various millimetric dosimetry and radiobiology models. The main purpose of this paper is to define the characteristics of these radiolabeled microspheres and explain their association with the microsphere distribution in the tissues and with the clinical efficacy and toxicity. This review focuses on avenues to follow in the future to optimize such particle therapy and benefit to patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philippe d’Abadie
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1200 Brussels, Belgium; (M.H.); (A.L.); (R.L.); (S.W.); (F.J.)
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
30
|
Brown D, Krebs H, Brower J, O'Hara R, Wang E, Vaheesan K, Du L, Matsuoka L, D'Souza D, Sze DY, Golzarian J, Gandhi R, Kennedy A. Incidence and risk factors for sustained hepatic function toxicity 6 months after radioembolization: analysis of the radiation-emitting sir-spheres in non-resectable liver tumor (RESIN) registry. J Gastrointest Oncol 2021; 12:639-657. [PMID: 34012656 DOI: 10.21037/jgo-20-346] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Background To quantify rates and risk factors for toxicity after hepatic radioembolization using resin yttrium-90 microspheres. Methods Radiation-Emitting SIR-Spheres in Non-resectable liver tumor (RESIN) registry enrollees were reviewed with 614 patients included. Mean patient age was 63.1±12.5 years. The majority of patients were male (n=375, 61%) and white (n=490, 80%). Common tumor types were hepatocellular (n=197, 32%), colorectal (n=187, 30%) and neuroendocrine (n=56, 9%). Hepatotoxicity was measured using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v 5). Potential risk factors for hepatotoxicity were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis or Pearson Chi-squared tests, and multivariate linear regressions. Results At 6 months, 115 patients (18.7%) died (n=91, 14.8%), entered hospice (n=20, 3.3%) or sought treatment elsewhere (n=4, 4%). Seven (1.1%) deaths were from liver decompensation. Grade 3 toxicity rates were: bilirubin (n=85, 13.8%), albumin (n=28, 4.6%), ALT (n=26, 4.2%) and AST (n=37, 6.0%). For each of these liver function test components, baseline abnormal labs predicted Grade 3 toxicity at follow-up by Kruskal-Wallis test (P<0.001) and linear regression (all P<0.03). Other significant factors predicting toxicity at regression included elevated Body-Mass Index (albumin P=0.0056), whole liver treatment (bilirubin P=0.046), and lower tumor volume (ALT and INR, P<0.035 for both). Conclusions Baseline liver function abnormalities prior to radioembolization is the strongest predictor of post-treatment Grade 3 toxicity with rates as high as 13.8%. Toxicity rates for specific lab values are affected by large volume treatments especially with low tumor volumes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Brown
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Henry Krebs
- Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Newnan, GA, USA
| | - Jayson Brower
- Providence Sacred Heart Medical Center, Spokane, WA, USA
| | | | - Eric Wang
- Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | | | - Liping Du
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Lea Matsuoka
- Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | | | | | | | - Ripal Gandhi
- Miami Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Miami, FL, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
31
|
Kwan J, Pua U. Review of Intra-Arterial Therapies for Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastasis. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13061371. [PMID: 33803606 PMCID: PMC8003062 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13061371] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/04/2021] [Revised: 03/14/2021] [Accepted: 03/15/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Colorectal cancer liver metastasis occurs in more than 50% of patients with colorectal cancer and is thought to be the most common cause of death from this cancer. The mainstay of treatment for inoperable liver metastasis has been combination systemic chemotherapy with or without the addition of biological targeted therapy with a goal for disease downstaging, for potential curative resection, or more frequently, for disease control. For patients with dominant liver metastatic disease or limited extrahepatic disease, liver-directed intra-arterial therapies including hepatic arterial chemotherapy infusion, chemoembolization and radioembolization are alternative treatment strategies that have shown promising results, most commonly in the salvage setting in patients with chemo-refractory disease. In recent years, their role in the first-line setting in conjunction with concurrent systemic chemotherapy has also been explored. This review aims to provide an update on the current evidence regarding liver-directed intra-arterial treatment strategies and to discuss potential trends for the future. Abstract The liver is frequently the most common site of metastasis in patients with colorectal cancer, occurring in more than 50% of patients. While surgical resection remains the only potential curative option, it is only eligible in 15–20% of patients at presentation. In the past two decades, major advances in modern chemotherapy and personalized biological agents have improved overall survival in patients with unresectable liver metastasis. For patients with dominant liver metastatic disease or limited extrahepatic disease, liver-directed intra-arterial therapies such as hepatic arterial chemotherapy infusion, chemoembolization and radioembolization are treatment strategies which are increasingly being considered to improve local tumor response and to reduce systemic side effects. Currently, these therapies are mostly used in the salvage setting in patients with chemo-refractory disease. However, their use in the first-line setting in conjunction with systemic chemotherapy as well as to a lesser degree, in a neoadjuvant setting, for downstaging to resection have also been investigated. Furthermore, some clinicians have considered these therapies as a temporizing tool for local disease control in patients undergoing a chemotherapy ‘holiday’ or acting as a bridge in patients between different lines of systemic treatment. This review aims to provide an update on the current evidence regarding liver-directed intra-arterial treatment strategies and to discuss potential trends for the future.
Collapse
|
32
|
Yttrium-90 Hepatic Radioembolization for Advanced Chemorefractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Survival Outcomes Based on Right- Versus Left-Sided Primary Tumor Location. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2021; 217:1141-1152. [PMID: 33594907 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.20.25315] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND. Primary colon cancer location affects survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Outcomes based on primary tumor location after salvage hepatic radioembolization with 90Y resin microspheres are not well studied. OBJECTIVE. The objectives of this study are to assess the survival outcomes of patients with advanced chemorefractory mCRC treated with 90Y radioembolization, as stratified by primary tumor location, and to explore potential factors that are predictive of survival. METHODS. A total of 99 patients who had progressive mCRC liver metastases while receiving systemic therapy and who were treated with 90Y radioembolization at a single center were retrospectively analyzed. For 89 patients, tumor response on the first imaging follow-up examination (CT or MRI performed at a mean [± SD] of 1.9 ± 0.9 months after 90Y radioembolization) was evaluated using RECIST. Overall survival (OS), OS after 90Y radioembolization, and hepatic progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Outcomes and associations of outcomes with tumor response were compared between patients with left- and right-sided tumors. RESULTS. A total of 74 patients had left-sided colon cancer, and 25 patients had right-sided colon cancer. Median OS from the time of mCRC diagnosis was 37.2 months, median OS after 90Y radioembolization was 5.8 months, and median hepatic PFS was 3.3 months. Based on RECIST, progressive disease on first imaging follow-up was observed in 38 patients (43%) after 90Y radioembolization and was associated with shorter OS after 90Y radioembolization compared with observation of disease control on first imaging follow-up (4.0 vs 10.5 months; p < .001). Patients with right-sided primary tumors showed decreased median OS after 90Y radioembolization compared with patients with left-sided primary tumors (5.4 vs 6.2 months; p = .03). Right- and left-sided primary tumors showed no significant difference in RECIST tumor response, hepatic PFS, or extrahepatic disease progression (p > .05). Median survival after 90Y radioembolization was significantly lower among patients with progressive disease than among those with disease control in the group with left-sided primary tumors (4.2 vs 13.9 months; p < .001); however, this finding was not observed in the group with right-sided primary tumors (3.3 vs 7.2 months; p = .05). CONCLUSION. Right-sided primary tumors were independently associated with decreased survival among patients with chemorefractory mCRC after 90Y radioembolization, despite these patients having a similar RECIST tumor response, hepatic PFS, and extrahepatic disease progression compared with patients with left-sided primary tumors. CLINICAL IMPACT. Primary colon cancer location impacts outcomes after salvage 90Y radioembolization and may help guide patient selection.
Collapse
|
33
|
Sutphin PD, Ganguli S. Interventional Treatment of Hepatic Metastases from Colorectal Cancer. Semin Intervent Radiol 2020; 37:492-498. [PMID: 33328705 PMCID: PMC7732570 DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-171919] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
Modern systemic therapies provide a significant survival benefit in metastatic colorectal cancer. Despite these advances, the durability of response remains limited and nearly all patients progress on systemic treatment. Colorectal liver metastases (CLM) develop in approximately half of patients with metastatic disease and contribute to mortality in most patients. In selected patients, surgical resection of hepatic metastases prolongs survival, indicating the benefits of the targeted treatment of CLM through alternate means. Minimally invasive interventional treatments offer the promise of treating CLM in a wider range of patients than those eligible for surgical resection. Thermal ablation and intra-arterial therapies, including chemoembolization and radioembolization, are commonly used in the treatment of CLM. Each of these treatment modalities will be discussed in detail with an emphasis on the available clinical data for each interventional treatment for CLM.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patrick D. Sutphin
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Suvranu Ganguli
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Boston Medical Center, Boston University Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
O'Leary C, Soulen MC, Shamimi-Noori S. Interventional Oncology Approach to Hepatic Metastases. Semin Intervent Radiol 2020; 37:484-491. [PMID: 33328704 PMCID: PMC7732560 DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1719189] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Metastatic liver disease is one of the major causes of cancer-related morbidity and mortality. Locoregional therapies offered by interventional oncologists alleviate cancer-related morbidity and in some cases improve survival. Locoregional therapies are often palliative in nature but occasionally can be used with curative intent. This review will discuss important factors to consider prior to palliative and curative intent treatment of metastatic liver disease with locoregional therapy. These factors include those specific to the tumor, liver function, liver reserve, differences between treatment modalities, and patient-specific considerations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cathal O'Leary
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Michael C. Soulen
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Susan Shamimi-Noori
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Ranieri G, Laface C, Laforgia M, De Summa S, Porcelli M, Macina F, Ammendola M, Molinari P, Lauletta G, Di Palo A, Rubini G, Ferrari C, Gadaleta CD. Bevacizumab Plus FOLFOX-4 Combined With Deep Electro-Hyperthermia as First-line Therapy in Metastatic Colon Cancer: A Pilot Study. Front Oncol 2020; 10:590707. [PMID: 33224885 PMCID: PMC7670056 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.590707] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2020] [Accepted: 10/08/2020] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Bevacizumab plus FOLFOX-4 regimen represents the first-line therapy in patients affected by metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Hyperthermia has been considered an effective ancillary treatment for cancer therapy through several anti-tumor mechanisms, sharing with Bevacizumab the inhibition of angiogenesis. Up to now, scientific literature offers very few clinical data on the combination of bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy with deep electro-hyperthermia (DEHY) for metastatic colon cancer (mCC) patients. Therefore, we aimed at evaluating the efficacy of this combination based on the possible interaction between the DEHY and bevacizumab anti-tumor mechanisms. We conducted a retrospective analysis on 40 patients affected by mCC treated with the combination of bevacizumab plus FOLFOX-4 (fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin) and DEHY (EHY2000), between January 2017 and May 2020. DEHY treatment was performed weekly, with capacitive electrodes at 80-110 W for 50 min, during and between subsequent bevacizumab administrations, on abdomen for liver or abdominal lymph nodes metastases and thorax for lung metastases. Treatment response assessment was performed according to the Response Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumors (RECIST). The primary endpoints were disease control rate (DCR) and progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS). DCR, counted as the percentage of patients who had the best response rating [complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD)], was assessed at 90 days (timepoint-1) and at 180 days (timepoint-2). DCR was 95% and 89.5% at timepoint-1 and timepoint-2, respectively. The median PFS was 12.1 months, whereas the median OS was 21.4 months. No major toxicity related to DEHY was registered; overall, this combination regimen was safe. Our results suggest that the combined treatment of DEHY with bevacizumab plus FOLFOX-4 as first-line therapy in mCC is feasible and effective with a favorable disease control, prolonging PFS of 2.7 months with respect to standard treatment without DEHY for mCC patients. Further studies will be required to prove its merit and explore its potentiality, especially if compared to conventional treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Girolamo Ranieri
- Interventional and Medical Oncology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Tumori “G. Paolo II”, Bari, Italy
| | - Carmelo Laface
- Interventional and Medical Oncology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Tumori “G. Paolo II”, Bari, Italy
| | | | - Simona De Summa
- Molecular Diagnostics and Pharmacogenetics Unit, IRCCS-Istituto Tumori “Giovanni Paolo II”, Bari, Italy
| | - Mariangela Porcelli
- Interventional and Medical Oncology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Tumori “G. Paolo II”, Bari, Italy
| | - Francesco Macina
- Interventional and Medical Oncology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Tumori “G. Paolo II”, Bari, Italy
| | - Michele Ammendola
- Department of Health Science, Digestive Surgery Unit, University “Magna Graecia” Medical School, Germaneto, Italy
| | - Pasquale Molinari
- Interventional and Medical Oncology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Tumori “G. Paolo II”, Bari, Italy
| | - Gianfranco Lauletta
- Department of Biomedical Sciences and Human Oncology, Section of Internal Medicine “G. Baccelli”, University of Bari Medical School, Bari, Italy
| | - Alessandra Di Palo
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, D.I.M., University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy
| | - Giuseppe Rubini
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, D.I.M., University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy
| | - Cristina Ferrari
- Nuclear Medicine Unit, D.I.M., University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, Bari, Italy
| | - Cosmo Damiano Gadaleta
- Interventional and Medical Oncology Unit, IRCCS Istituto Tumori “G. Paolo II”, Bari, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Clinical Application of Trans-Arterial Radioembolization in Hepatic Malignancies in Europe: First Results from the Prospective Multicentre Observational Study CIRSE Registry for SIR-Spheres Therapy (CIRT). Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2020; 44:21-35. [PMID: 32959085 PMCID: PMC7728645 DOI: 10.1007/s00270-020-02642-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2020] [Accepted: 09/02/2020] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
Purpose To address the lack of prospective data on the real-life clinical application of trans-arterial radioembolization (TARE) in Europe, the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) initiated the prospective observational study CIRSE Registry for SIR-Spheres® Therapy (CIRT). Materials and Methods Patients were enrolled from 1 January 2015 till 31 December 2017. Eligible patients were adult patients treated with TARE with Y90 resin microspheres for primary or metastatic liver tumours. Patients were followed up for 24 months after treatment, whereas data on the clinical context of TARE, overall survival (OS) and safety were collected. Results Totally, 1027 patients were analysed. 68.2% of the intention of treatment was palliative. Up to half of the patients received systemic therapy and/or locoregional treatments prior to TARE (53.1%; 38.3%). Median overall survival (OS) was reported per cohort and was 16.5 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 14.2–19.3) for hepatocellular carcinoma, 14.6 months (95% CI 10.9–17.9) for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. For liver metastases, median OS for colorectal cancer was 9.8 months (95% CI 8.3–12.9), 5.6 months for pancreatic cancer (95% CI 4.1–6.6), 10.6 months (95% CI 7.3–14.4) for breast cancer, 14.6 months (95% CI 7.3–21.4) for melanoma and 33.1 months (95% CI 22.1–nr) for neuroendocrine tumours. Statistically significant prognostic factors in terms of OS include the presence of ascites, cirrhosis, extra-hepatic disease, patient performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group), number of chemotherapy lines prior to TARE and tumour burden. Thirty-day mortality rate was 1.0%. 2.5% experienced adverse events grade 3 or 4 within 30 days after TARE. Conclusion In the real-life clinical setting, TARE is largely considered to be a part of a palliative treatment strategy across indications and provides an excellent safety profile. Level of evidence Level 3. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02305459. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00270-020-02642-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
|
37
|
Padia SA, Johnson GE, Agopian VG, DiNorcia J, Srinivasa RN, Sayre J, Shin DS. Yttrium-90 radiation segmentectomy for hepatic metastases: A multi-institutional study of safety and efficacy. J Surg Oncol 2020; 123:172-178. [PMID: 32944980 DOI: 10.1002/jso.26223] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2020] [Revised: 08/31/2020] [Accepted: 09/05/2020] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES This study assessed the outcomes of Yttrium-90 (90 Y) radiation segmentectomy for hepatic metastases unamenable to resection or ablation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Over 6 years, 36 patients with 53 tumors underwent segmental radioembolization. Patients were not candidates for surgical resection or thermal ablation. Malignancies included metastases from colorectal cancer (31%), neuroendocrine tumors (28%), sarcoma (19%), and others (22%). Eighty-one percent of patients had undergone prior treatment with systemic chemotherapy. Ongoing systemic chemotherapy was continued. Toxicity, tumor response, tumor progression, and survival were assessed. RESULTS The median tumor size was 3.6 cm (range 1.2-6.1 cm). Adverse event rates were low, with no hepatic-related Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Grade 3 or 4 toxicity. Target tumor Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors disease control rate was 92% (28% partial response, 64% stable disease). For patients with enhancing tumors (n = 14), modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors target tumor objective response rate was 100%. During a median follow-up of 12 months, target tumor progression occurred in 28% of treated tumors. Overall survival was 96% and 83% at 6 and 12 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS 90 Y radiation segmentectomy for hepatic metastases demonstrates high rates of tumor control and minimal toxicity. Radiation segmentectomy should be considered for patients with metastatic hepatic malignancy who are not candidates for surgical resection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Siddharth A Padia
- Department of Radiology, Division of Interventional Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Guy E Johnson
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Vatche G Agopian
- Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Joseph DiNorcia
- Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Ravi N Srinivasa
- Department of Radiology, Division of Interventional Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - James Sayre
- Department of Radiology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - David S Shin
- Department of Radiology, Section of Interventional Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Ebbers SC, Kunnen B, van Nierop BJ, Bemelmans JLM, Krijger GC, Lam MGEH, Braat AJAT. Verification Study of Residual Activity Measurements After Yttrium-90 Radioembolization with Glass Microspheres. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2020; 43:1378-1383. [PMID: 32435831 PMCID: PMC7441075 DOI: 10.1007/s00270-020-02504-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/06/2020] [Accepted: 04/23/2020] [Indexed: 11/01/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Objective
After yttrium-90 (90Y) radioembolization, residual activity and its consequences for dosimetric calculations are often not reported. The manufacturer for glass microspheres prescribes standard residual activity measurements by a survey meter, but the validity lacks evidence. This study aims to verify the accuracy of the survey meter approach for measuring residual activity of glass microspheres after treatment with glass microspheres.
Methods
To validate the accuracy of the survey meter approach, the measured residual activity of glass microspheres by survey meter was compared with measurements by PET. A sample of these waste containers was also measured by dose calibrator to confirm the accuracy of the PET.
Results
Twenty-four waste containers from glass microsphere treatments were prospectively scanned with 90Y-PET/CT. Bland–Altman plots showed substantial disagreement in residual activity measured by survey meter versus the residual activity measured by PET and dose calibrator, whereas the correlation between PET and dose calibrator was excellent (ρ = 0.99).
Conclusion
This study found a significant disagreement between the residual activities measured by the survey meter, compared to measurements by PET and dose calibrator. If relatively high amounts of residual activity are encountered using the exposure rate measurement with a survey meter, additional quantification should be considered using either PET/CT or a dose calibrator measurement.
Collapse
|
39
|
van Roekel C, Bastiaannet R, Smits MLJ, Bruijnen RC, Braat AJAT, de Jong HWAM, Elias SG, Lam MGEH. Dose-Effect Relationships of 166Ho Radioembolization in Colorectal Cancer. J Nucl Med 2020; 62:272-279. [PMID: 32591491 DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.120.243832] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2020] [Accepted: 05/27/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caren van Roekel
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Remco Bastiaannet
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten L J Smits
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Rutger C Bruijnen
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Arthur J A T Braat
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Hugo W A M de Jong
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Sjoerd G Elias
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Marnix G E H Lam
- University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Calandri M, Gazzera C, Giurazza F, Yevich S, Strazzarino GA, Brino J, Marra P, Contegiacomo A, Bargellini I, Cariati M, Fonio P, Veltri A. Oligometastatic Colorectal Cancer Management: A Survey of the Italian College of Interventional Radiology. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2020; 43:1474-1483. [PMID: 32449016 DOI: 10.1007/s00270-020-02516-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/08/2019] [Accepted: 05/02/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
AIM European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines (NCCN) have recently included interventional procedures among the standard treatments for the management of colorectal cancer (CRC) oligometastatic disease (OMD). This study overviews the practice of Interventional Radiology (IR) in Italian centers. METHODS A practice focused questionnaire on locoregional treatments of CRC-OMD was submitted to all Italian IR centers to assess practice patterns. RESULTS Thirty-three IR centers completed the questionnaire. The majority reported practice was established within a tumor board (97%), which included input from hepatobiliary surgery (94%). When considering the number of percutaneous ablation and liver-directed trans-arterial therapies performed for all tumor types, 33.5% and 13.4% were performed to specifically treat CRC-OMD. Lung ablations for CRC OMD were performed in 45.5% of centers. Regarding liver ablation, The most common technology was the microwave ablation (68.1%), which was typically performed under US guidance (78%) with conscious sedation used as the most common anaesthesia method (81%). While indication for percutaneous IR treatments was heterogeneous, 51% were performed in combination with chemotherapy in unresectable OMD. Despite new ESMO and NCCN guidelines, 59% of centers did not subjectively appreciate any change in the perception of IR treatments by other specialists; however, 63%of respondents believe that IR will have a more relevant role in the CRC-OMD management in the future. CONCLUSION CRC-OMD treatment represents a relevant part of the everyday clinical practice of the IR Italian centers with promising future prospects. Heterogeneity persists in clinical indications, requiring more robust evidence to set indications and to diffuse clinical applications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marco Calandri
- Department of Oncology, University of Torino, Regione Gonzole 10, Orbassano, TO, Italy.
- Radiology Unit, A.O.U. San Luigi Gonzaga Di Orbassano, Regione Gonzole 10, Orbassano, TO, Italy.
| | - Carlo Gazzera
- Radiology Unit, A.O.U. Città Della Salute E Della Scienza, Presidio Molinette, Via Genova 3, Torino, TO, Italy
| | - Francesco Giurazza
- Vascular and Interventional Radiology Department, Cardarelli Hospital, Via Cardarelli 9, Napoli, Italy
| | - Steven Yevich
- Division of Diagnostic Imaging, Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Giulio Antonino Strazzarino
- Radiology Unit, A.O.U. Città Della Salute E Della Scienza, Presidio Molinette, Via Genova 3, Torino, TO, Italy
| | - Jacopo Brino
- Radiology Unit, A.O.U. San Luigi Gonzaga Di Orbassano, Regione Gonzole 10, Orbassano, TO, Italy
| | - Paolo Marra
- Radiology Department, IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele E Università Vita-Salute, Via Olgettina 60, Milan, Italy
| | - Andrea Contegiacomo
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Largo Agostino Gemelli 8, 00136, Rome, Italy
| | - Irene Bargellini
- Department of Interventional Radiology, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy
| | - Maurizio Cariati
- Diagnostic-Therapeutic Advanced Technology Department, ASST Santi Paolo E Carlo, Via Pio II 3, 20153, Milan, Italy
| | - Paolo Fonio
- Radiology Unit, A.O.U. Città Della Salute E Della Scienza, Presidio Molinette, Via Genova 3, Torino, TO, Italy
- Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Torino, Via Genova 3, Torino, Italy
| | - Andrea Veltri
- Department of Oncology, University of Torino, Regione Gonzole 10, Orbassano, TO, Italy
- Radiology Unit, A.O.U. San Luigi Gonzaga Di Orbassano, Regione Gonzole 10, Orbassano, TO, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Jeyarajah DR, Doyle MBM, Espat NJ, Hansen PD, Iannitti DA, Kim J, Thambi-Pillai T, Visser BC. Role of yttrium-90 selective internal radiation therapy in the treatment of liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer: an evidence-based expert consensus algorithm. J Gastrointest Oncol 2020; 11:443-460. [PMID: 32399284 DOI: 10.21037/jgo.2020.01.09] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Surgical resection of colorectal liver metastases is associated with greater survival compared with non-surgical treatment, and a meaningful possibility of cure. However, the majority of patients are not eligible for resection and may require other non-surgical interventions, such as liver-directed therapies, to be converted to surgical eligibility. Given the number of available therapies, a general framework is needed that outlines the specific roles of chemotherapy, surgery, and locoregional treatments [including selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with Y-90 microspheres]. Using a data-driven, modified Delphi process, an expert panel of surgical oncologists, transplant surgeons, and hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgeons convened to create a comprehensive, evidence-based treatment algorithm that includes appropriate treatment options for patients stratified by their eligibility for surgical treatment. The group coined a novel, more inclusive phrase for targeted locoregional tumor treatment (a blanket term for resection, ablation, and other emerging locoregional treatments): local parenchymal tumor destruction therapy. The expert panel proposed new nomenclature for 3 distinct disease categories of liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer that is consistent with other tumor types: (I) surgically treatable (resectable); (II) surgically untreatable (borderline resectable); (III) advanced surgically untreatable (unresectable) disease. Patients may present at any point in the algorithm and move between categories depending on their response to therapy. The broad intent of therapy is to transition patients toward individualized treatments where possible, given the survival advantage that resection offers in the context of a comprehensive treatment plan. This article reviews what is known about the role of SIRT with Y-90 as neoadjuvant, definitive, or palliative therapy in these different clinical situations and provides insight into when treatment with SIRT with Y-90 may be appropriate and useful, organized into distinct treatment algorithm steps.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - N Joseph Espat
- Department of Surgery, Roger Williams Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Providence, RI, USA
| | - Paul D Hansen
- HPB Surgery, Providence Portland Center, Portland, OR, USA
| | - David A Iannitti
- HPB Surgery, Atrium Health, Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC, USA
| | - Joseph Kim
- Department of Surgery, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA
| | - Thavam Thambi-Pillai
- Department of Surgery, University of South Dakota Sanford School of Medicine, Sioux Falls, SD, USA
| | - Brendan C Visser
- Department of Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Deipolyi AR, England RW, Ridouani F, Riedl CC, Kunin HS, Boas FE, Yarmohammadi H, Sofocleous CT. PET/CT Imaging Characteristics After Radioembolization of Hepatic Metastasis from Breast Cancer. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2019; 43:488-494. [PMID: 31732778 DOI: 10.1007/s00270-019-02375-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/20/2019] [Accepted: 11/06/2019] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To define positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) imaging characteristics during follow-up of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) treated with yttrium-90 (Y90) radioembolization (RE). MATERIALS AND METHODS From January 2011 to October 2017, 30 MBC patients underwent 38 Y90 glass or resin RE treatments. Pre-RE PET/CT was performed on average 51 days before RE. There were 68 PET/CTs performed after treatment. Response was assessed using modified PERCIST criteria focusing on the hepatic territory treated with RE, normalizing SUVpeak to the mean SUV of liver uninvolved by tumor. An objective response (OR) was defined as a decrease in SUVpeak by at least 30%. RESULTS Of the 68 post-RE scans, 6 were performed at 0-30 days, 15 at 31-60 days, 9 at 61-90 days, 13 at 91-120 days, 14 scans at 121-180 days, and 11 scans at > 180 days after RE. Of the 30 patients, 25 (83%) achieved OR on at least one follow-up. Median survival was 15 months after the first RE administration. Highest response rates occurred at 30-90 days, with over 75% of cases demonstrating OR at that time. After 180 days, OR was seen in only 25%. There was a median TTP of 169 days among responders. CONCLUSION In MBC, follow-up PET/CT after RE demonstrates optimal response rates at 30-90 days, with progression noted after 180 days. These results help to guide the timing of imaging and also to inform patients of expected outcomes after RE.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amy R Deipolyi
- Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
| | - Ryan W England
- Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Fourat Ridouani
- Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Christopher C Riedl
- Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Henry S Kunin
- Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - F Edward Boas
- Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | - Hooman Yarmohammadi
- Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
43
|
Lee EJ, Chung HW, Jo JH, So Y. Radioembolization for the Treatment of Primary and Metastatic Liver Cancers. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2019; 53:367-373. [PMID: 31867071 DOI: 10.1007/s13139-019-00615-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/06/2019] [Revised: 08/23/2019] [Accepted: 09/20/2019] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Radioembolization using 90Y microspheres (glass or resin) has been introduced as an effective intraarterial therapy for unresectable primary and metastatic liver cancers. Although the basic therapeutic effect of chemoembolization results from ischemia, the therapeutic efficacy of radioembolization comes from radiation. Furthermore, compared with surgical resection and local ablation therapy, radioembolization is available with less limitation on the sites or number of liver cancers. The radioisotope 90Y is a β-radiation emitter without γ-radiation, with the emission of secondary bremsstrahlung photons and small numbers of positrons. Administration of 90Y microspheres into the hepatic artery can deliver a high dose of radiation selectively to the target tumor with limited radiation exposure to the surrounding normal parenchyma, and has low systemic toxicity. In general, radioembolization has been considered for patients with unresectable primary or metastatic liver-only or liver-dominant cancers with no ascites or other clinical signs of liver failure, life expectancy of > 12 weeks, and good performance status. Here, we review the current radioactive compounds, pretreatment assessment, and indications for radioembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and liver metastases from colorectal cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eun Jeong Lee
- 1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Seoul Medical Center, 156 Sinnae-ro, Jungnang-gu, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Hyun Woo Chung
- 2Departments of Nuclear Medicine, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, 120-1 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Joon-Hyung Jo
- 2Departments of Nuclear Medicine, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, 120-1 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Young So
- 2Departments of Nuclear Medicine, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, 120-1 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, South Korea
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Wang DS, Louie JD, Sze DY. Evidence-Based Integration of Yttrium-90 Radioembolization in the Contemporary Management of Hepatic Metastases from Colorectal Cancer. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 2019; 22:74-80. [DOI: 10.1053/j.tvir.2019.02.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
|
45
|
Erinjeri JP, Fine GC, Adema GJ, Ahmed M, Chapiro J, den Brok M, Duran R, Hunt SJ, Johnson DT, Ricke J, Sze DY, Toskich BB, Wood BJ, Woodrum D, Goldberg SN. Immunotherapy and the Interventional Oncologist: Challenges and Opportunities-A Society of Interventional Oncology White Paper. Radiology 2019; 292:25-34. [PMID: 31012818 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019182326] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Interventional oncology is a subspecialty field of interventional radiology that addresses the diagnosis and treatment of cancer and cancer-related problems by using targeted minimally invasive procedures performed with image guidance. Immuno-oncology is an innovative area of cancer research and practice that seeks to help the patient's own immune system fight cancer. Both interventional oncology and immuno-oncology can potentially play a pivotal role in cancer management plans when used alongside medical, surgical, and radiation oncology in the care of cancer patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph P Erinjeri
- From the Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, H-118, New York, NY 10065 (J.P.E.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah (G.C.F.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (G.J.A., M.d.B.); Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (M.A.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (J.C.); Department of Radiodiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland (R.D.); Penn Image-Guided Interventions Laboratory and Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.J.H.); Department of Radiology, University of Colorado, Denver, Colo (D.T.J.); Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany (J.R.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (D.Y.S.); Division of Interventional Radiology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Fla (B.B.T.); Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn (D.W.); and Department of Radiology, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel (S.N.G.)
| | - Gabriel C Fine
- From the Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, H-118, New York, NY 10065 (J.P.E.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah (G.C.F.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (G.J.A., M.d.B.); Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (M.A.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (J.C.); Department of Radiodiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland (R.D.); Penn Image-Guided Interventions Laboratory and Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.J.H.); Department of Radiology, University of Colorado, Denver, Colo (D.T.J.); Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany (J.R.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (D.Y.S.); Division of Interventional Radiology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Fla (B.B.T.); Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn (D.W.); and Department of Radiology, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel (S.N.G.)
| | - Gosse J Adema
- From the Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, H-118, New York, NY 10065 (J.P.E.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah (G.C.F.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (G.J.A., M.d.B.); Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (M.A.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (J.C.); Department of Radiodiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland (R.D.); Penn Image-Guided Interventions Laboratory and Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.J.H.); Department of Radiology, University of Colorado, Denver, Colo (D.T.J.); Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany (J.R.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (D.Y.S.); Division of Interventional Radiology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Fla (B.B.T.); Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn (D.W.); and Department of Radiology, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel (S.N.G.)
| | - Muneeb Ahmed
- From the Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, H-118, New York, NY 10065 (J.P.E.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah (G.C.F.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (G.J.A., M.d.B.); Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (M.A.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (J.C.); Department of Radiodiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland (R.D.); Penn Image-Guided Interventions Laboratory and Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.J.H.); Department of Radiology, University of Colorado, Denver, Colo (D.T.J.); Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany (J.R.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (D.Y.S.); Division of Interventional Radiology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Fla (B.B.T.); Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn (D.W.); and Department of Radiology, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel (S.N.G.)
| | - Julius Chapiro
- From the Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, H-118, New York, NY 10065 (J.P.E.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah (G.C.F.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (G.J.A., M.d.B.); Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (M.A.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (J.C.); Department of Radiodiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland (R.D.); Penn Image-Guided Interventions Laboratory and Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.J.H.); Department of Radiology, University of Colorado, Denver, Colo (D.T.J.); Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany (J.R.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (D.Y.S.); Division of Interventional Radiology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Fla (B.B.T.); Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn (D.W.); and Department of Radiology, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel (S.N.G.)
| | - Martijn den Brok
- From the Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, H-118, New York, NY 10065 (J.P.E.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah (G.C.F.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (G.J.A., M.d.B.); Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (M.A.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (J.C.); Department of Radiodiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland (R.D.); Penn Image-Guided Interventions Laboratory and Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.J.H.); Department of Radiology, University of Colorado, Denver, Colo (D.T.J.); Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany (J.R.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (D.Y.S.); Division of Interventional Radiology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Fla (B.B.T.); Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn (D.W.); and Department of Radiology, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel (S.N.G.)
| | - Rafael Duran
- From the Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, H-118, New York, NY 10065 (J.P.E.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah (G.C.F.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (G.J.A., M.d.B.); Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (M.A.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (J.C.); Department of Radiodiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland (R.D.); Penn Image-Guided Interventions Laboratory and Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.J.H.); Department of Radiology, University of Colorado, Denver, Colo (D.T.J.); Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany (J.R.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (D.Y.S.); Division of Interventional Radiology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Fla (B.B.T.); Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn (D.W.); and Department of Radiology, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel (S.N.G.)
| | - Stephen J Hunt
- From the Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, H-118, New York, NY 10065 (J.P.E.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah (G.C.F.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (G.J.A., M.d.B.); Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (M.A.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (J.C.); Department of Radiodiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland (R.D.); Penn Image-Guided Interventions Laboratory and Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.J.H.); Department of Radiology, University of Colorado, Denver, Colo (D.T.J.); Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany (J.R.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (D.Y.S.); Division of Interventional Radiology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Fla (B.B.T.); Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn (D.W.); and Department of Radiology, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel (S.N.G.)
| | - D Thor Johnson
- From the Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, H-118, New York, NY 10065 (J.P.E.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah (G.C.F.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (G.J.A., M.d.B.); Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (M.A.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (J.C.); Department of Radiodiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland (R.D.); Penn Image-Guided Interventions Laboratory and Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.J.H.); Department of Radiology, University of Colorado, Denver, Colo (D.T.J.); Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany (J.R.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (D.Y.S.); Division of Interventional Radiology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Fla (B.B.T.); Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn (D.W.); and Department of Radiology, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel (S.N.G.)
| | - Jens Ricke
- From the Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, H-118, New York, NY 10065 (J.P.E.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah (G.C.F.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (G.J.A., M.d.B.); Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (M.A.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (J.C.); Department of Radiodiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland (R.D.); Penn Image-Guided Interventions Laboratory and Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.J.H.); Department of Radiology, University of Colorado, Denver, Colo (D.T.J.); Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany (J.R.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (D.Y.S.); Division of Interventional Radiology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Fla (B.B.T.); Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn (D.W.); and Department of Radiology, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel (S.N.G.)
| | - Daniel Y Sze
- From the Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, H-118, New York, NY 10065 (J.P.E.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah (G.C.F.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (G.J.A., M.d.B.); Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (M.A.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (J.C.); Department of Radiodiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland (R.D.); Penn Image-Guided Interventions Laboratory and Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.J.H.); Department of Radiology, University of Colorado, Denver, Colo (D.T.J.); Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany (J.R.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (D.Y.S.); Division of Interventional Radiology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Fla (B.B.T.); Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn (D.W.); and Department of Radiology, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel (S.N.G.)
| | - Beau Bosko Toskich
- From the Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, H-118, New York, NY 10065 (J.P.E.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah (G.C.F.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (G.J.A., M.d.B.); Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (M.A.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (J.C.); Department of Radiodiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland (R.D.); Penn Image-Guided Interventions Laboratory and Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.J.H.); Department of Radiology, University of Colorado, Denver, Colo (D.T.J.); Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany (J.R.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (D.Y.S.); Division of Interventional Radiology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Fla (B.B.T.); Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn (D.W.); and Department of Radiology, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel (S.N.G.)
| | - Bradford J Wood
- From the Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, H-118, New York, NY 10065 (J.P.E.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah (G.C.F.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (G.J.A., M.d.B.); Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (M.A.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (J.C.); Department of Radiodiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland (R.D.); Penn Image-Guided Interventions Laboratory and Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.J.H.); Department of Radiology, University of Colorado, Denver, Colo (D.T.J.); Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany (J.R.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (D.Y.S.); Division of Interventional Radiology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Fla (B.B.T.); Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn (D.W.); and Department of Radiology, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel (S.N.G.)
| | - David Woodrum
- From the Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, H-118, New York, NY 10065 (J.P.E.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah (G.C.F.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (G.J.A., M.d.B.); Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (M.A.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (J.C.); Department of Radiodiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland (R.D.); Penn Image-Guided Interventions Laboratory and Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.J.H.); Department of Radiology, University of Colorado, Denver, Colo (D.T.J.); Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany (J.R.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (D.Y.S.); Division of Interventional Radiology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Fla (B.B.T.); Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn (D.W.); and Department of Radiology, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel (S.N.G.)
| | - S Nahum Goldberg
- From the Interventional Radiology Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Ave, H-118, New York, NY 10065 (J.P.E.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah (G.C.F.); Department of Radiation Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands (G.J.A., M.d.B.); Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (M.A.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (J.C.); Department of Radiodiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland (R.D.); Penn Image-Guided Interventions Laboratory and Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa (S.J.H.); Department of Radiology, University of Colorado, Denver, Colo (D.T.J.); Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilian University, Munich, Germany (J.R.); Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif (D.Y.S.); Division of Interventional Radiology, Mayo Clinic Florida, Jacksonville, Fla (B.B.T.); Center for Interventional Oncology, National Cancer Institute, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, Bethesda, Md (B.J.W.); Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester Minn (D.W.); and Department of Radiology, Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel (S.N.G.)
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Tam SY, Wu VWC. A Review on the Special Radiotherapy Techniques of Colorectal Cancer. Front Oncol 2019; 9:208. [PMID: 31001474 PMCID: PMC6454863 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2019.00208] [Citation(s) in RCA: 39] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2019] [Accepted: 03/11/2019] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is one of the commonest cancers worldwide. Radiotherapy has been established as an indispensable component of treatment. Although conventional radiotherapy provides good local control, radiotherapy treatment side-effects, local recurrence and distant metastasis remain to be the concerns. With the recent technological advancements, various special radiotherapy treatment options have been offered. This review article discusses the recently-developed special radiotherapy treatment modalities for various conditions of colorectal cancer ranging from early stage, locally advanced stage, recurrent, and metastatic diseases. The discussion focuses on the areas of feasibility, local control, and survival benefits of the treatment modalities. This review also provides accounts of the future direction in radiotherapy of colorectal cancer with emphasis on the coming era of personalized radiotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shing Yau Tam
- Department of Health Technology and Informatics, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong
| | - Vincent W C Wu
- Department of Health Technology and Informatics, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong
| |
Collapse
|
47
|
Klimkowski S, Baker JC, Brown DB. Red Flags, Pitfalls, and Cautions in Y90 Radiotherapy. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 2019; 22:63-69. [PMID: 31079712 DOI: 10.1053/j.tvir.2019.02.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
Abstract
Radioembolization with yttrium-90 (Y90) microspheres is increasingly used to palliate patients with liver-dominant malignancy. With appropriate patient selection, this outpatient treatment is efficacious with limited toxicity profile. This article reviews common scenarios that can present in daily practice including evaluation of liver functions, evaluation of previous therapies, integrating Y90 into ongoing systemic therapy, determining performance status, and considering retreatment for patients who have already undergone Y90 who have hepatic dominant progression. Finally, we address the importance of evaluating tumors in potential watershed zones to maximize treatment response by using c-arm computed tomography. Many of these potential variables can overlap in an individual patient. By considering these factors individually, the consulting Interventional Radiologist can present a thorough treatment plan with a full description of expected outcomes and toxicities to clinic patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sergio Klimkowski
- The Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Jennifer C Baker
- The Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
| | - Daniel B Brown
- The Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN; The Department of Biomedical Engineering, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
| |
Collapse
|
48
|
Abstract
Selective internal radiation therapy with Y-TheraSphere or Y-SIRSphere is used in the treatment of unresectable hepatic malignancies. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first Y-TheraSpheres series. BTG International Canada Inc. provided nonradiated microspheres from the Nordion manufacturer. The histologic processed microspheres were colorless, refractile, polarizable, 20 to 30 μm in diameter, and an occasional internal bulls'-eye seen with the condenser out and an internal cross seen with polarized light. Identical microspheres were identified in 15 hepatectomy specimens from four centers between February 2016 and March 2018. The patients were usually male (male=10, female=5) with a mean age of 59 years. All patients had a prior diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and documented Y-TheraSphere (mean duration from last deployment=32 wk). All surgical pathology specimens in these 15 patients were reviewed, but the microspheres were only identified in the hepatectomy specimens. During manuscript preparation, one case of Y-TheraSpheres gastritis was prospectively identified from a separate patient with a history of HCC and Y-TheraSpheres. In conclusion, recognition of Y-TheraSpheres is important so that one may consider the possibility of a nearby malignancy and or establish the cause of the background inflammatory or radiation-related injury. These structures can be easy to miss because the subtle morphology is distinct from previously reported Y-SIRSphere. Clues to the diagnosis include a history of HCC and background radiation change. We report the characteristic morphology as microspheres that overlap in size with Y-SIRSphere, but can be differentiated based on Y-TheraSpheres' colorless appearance with occasional internal bulls'-eyes with the condenser out and an internal cross with polarized light.
Collapse
|
49
|
Chauhan N, Mulcahy MF, Salem R, Benson Iii AB, Boucher E, Bukovcan J, Cosgrove D, Laframboise C, Lewandowski RJ, Master F, El-Rayes B, Strosberg JR, Sze DY, Sharma RA. TheraSphere Yttrium-90 Glass Microspheres Combined With Chemotherapy Versus Chemotherapy Alone in Second-Line Treatment of Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma of the Liver: Protocol for the EPOCH Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial. JMIR Res Protoc 2019; 8:e11545. [PMID: 30664496 PMCID: PMC6354199 DOI: 10.2196/11545] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2018] [Revised: 11/09/2018] [Accepted: 11/09/2018] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Colorectal cancer is one of the most common cancers and causes of cancer-related death. Up to approximately 70% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have metastases to the liver at initial diagnosis. Second-line systemic treatment in mCRC can prolong survival after development of disease progression during or after first-line treatment and in those who are intolerant to first-line treatment. Objective The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of transarterial radioembolization (TARE) with TheraSphere yttrium-90 (90Y) glass microspheres combined with second-line therapy in patients with mCRC of the liver who had disease progression during or after first-line chemotherapy. Methods EPOCH is an open-label, prospective, multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial being conducted at up to 100 sites in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Asia. Eligible patients have mCRC of the liver and disease progression after first-line chemotherapy with either an oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based regimen and are eligible for second-line chemotherapy with the alternate regimen. Patients were randomized 1:1 to the TARE group (chemotherapy with TARE in place of the second chemotherapy infusion and subsequent resumption of chemotherapy) or the control group (chemotherapy alone). The addition of targeted agents is permitted. The primary end points are progression-free survival and hepatic progression-free survival. The study objective will be considered achieved if at least one primary end point is statistically significant. Secondary end points are overall survival, time to symptomatic progression defined as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status score of 2 or higher, objective response rate, disease control rate, quality-of-life assessment by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal Cancer questionnaire, and adverse events. The study is an adaptive trial, comprising a group sequential design with 2 interim analyses with a planned maximum of 420 patients. The study is designed to detect a 2.5-month increase in median progression-free survival, from 6 months in the control group to 8.5 months in the TARE group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71), and a 3.5-month increase in median hepatic progression-free survival time, from 6.5 months in the control group to 10 months in the TARE group (HR 0.65). On the basis of simulations, the power to detect the target difference in either progression-free survival or hepatic progression-free survival is >90%, and the power to detect the target difference in each end point alone is >80%. Results Patient enrollment ended in October 2018. The first interim analysis in June 2018 resulted in continuation of the study without any changes. Conclusions The EPOCH study may contribute toward the establishment of the role of combination therapy with TARE and oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based chemotherapy in the second-line treatment of mCRC of the liver. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01483027; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01483027 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/734A6PAYW) International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR1-10.2196/11545
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nikhil Chauhan
- Research and Development, BTG International group companies, London, United Kingdom
| | - Mary F Mulcahy
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Robert H Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Riad Salem
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Robert H Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States.,Section of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Robert H Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States.,Division of Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, Robert H Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Al B Benson Iii
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Robert H Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States.,Northwestern Medical Group, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Eveline Boucher
- Research and Development, BTG International group companies, London, United Kingdom
| | - Janet Bukovcan
- Research and Development, BTG International group companies, London, United Kingdom
| | - David Cosgrove
- Division of Medical Oncology, Vancouver Cancer Center, Compass Oncology, Vancouver, WA, United States
| | - Chantal Laframboise
- Research and Development, BTG International group companies, London, United Kingdom
| | - Robert J Lewandowski
- Division of Hematology and Oncology, Department of Medicine, Robert H Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States.,Section of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Robert H Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States.,Division of Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, Robert H Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States
| | - Fayaz Master
- Research and Development, BTG International group companies, London, United Kingdom
| | - Bassel El-Rayes
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States.,Department of Hematology and Medical Oncology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, United States
| | | | - Daniel Y Sze
- Interventional Radiology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, United States
| | - Ricky A Sharma
- National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UCL Cancer Institute, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
50
|
Welling MM, Spa SJ, van Willigen DM, Rietbergen DDD, Roestenberg M, Buckle T, van Leeuwen FWB. In vivo stability of supramolecular host-guest complexes monitored by dual-isotope multiplexing in a pre-targeting model of experimental liver radioembolization. J Control Release 2019; 293:126-134. [PMID: 30485797 DOI: 10.1016/j.jconrel.2018.11.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/03/2018] [Revised: 11/20/2018] [Accepted: 11/21/2018] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Cyclodextrin (CD)-based supramolecular interactions have been proposed as nanocarriers for drug delivery. We previously explored the use of these supramolecular interactions to perform targeted hepatic radioembolization. In a two-step procedure the appropriate location of the diagnostic pre-targeting vector can first be confirmed, after which the therapeutic vector will be targeted through multivalent host-guest interactions. Such a procedure would prevent therapeutic errors that come from a mismatch between diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. In the current study we explored the use of dual-isotope imaging to assess the in vivo stability of the formed complex and individual components. METHODS Dual-isotope imaging of the host and guest vectors was performed after labeling of the pre-targeted guest vector, being adamantane (Ad) functionalized macro-aggregated albumin (MAA) particles, with technetium-99 m (99mTc-MAA-Ad). The host vector, Cy50.5CD9PIBMA39, was labeled with indium-111 (111In-Cy50.5CD9PIBMA39). The in situ stability of both the individual vectors and the resulting [MAA-Ad-111In-Cy50.5CD9PIBMA39] complexes was studied over 44 h at 37 °C in a serum protein-containing buffer. In vivo, the host vector 111In-Cy50.5CD9PIBMA39 was administered two hours after local deposition of 99mTc-MAA-Ad in mice. Dual-isotope SPECT imaging and quantitative biodistribution studies were performed between 2 and 44 h post intravenous host vector administration. RESULTS The individual vectors portrayed <5% dissociation of the radioisotope over the course of 20 h. Dissociation of [MAA-Ad-111In-Cy50.5CD9PIBMA39] complexes remained within a 10-20% range after incubation in serum. In vivo dual-isotope SPECT imaging of host-guest interactions revealed co-localization of the tracer components. Quantitative assessment of the biodistribution revealed that the hepatic accumulation of the host vector nearly doubled between 2 h and 44 h post-injection (from 14.9 ± 6.1%ID/g to 26.2 ± 2.1%ID/g). CONCLUSIONS Assessment of intra-hepatic host-guest complexation was successfully achieved using dual isotope multiplexing, underlining the complex stability that was found in situ (up to 44 h in serum). Overall, the results obtained in this study highlight the potential of supramolecular chemistry as a versatile platform that could advance the field of nanomedicine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mick M Welling
- Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Silvia J Spa
- Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Danny M van Willigen
- Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Daphne D D Rietbergen
- Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; Section Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Meta Roestenberg
- Department of Parasitology and Department of Infectious diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Tessa Buckle
- Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Fijs W B van Leeuwen
- Interventional Molecular Imaging Laboratory, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands; Laboratory of BioNanoTechnology, Department of Agrotechnology and Food Sciences, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|