8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Automatic healthy liver segmentation for holmium-166 radioembolization dosimetry

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          For safe and effective holmium-166 ( 166Ho) liver radioembolization, dosimetry is crucial and requires accurate healthy liver definition. The current clinical standard relies on manual segmentation and registration of a separately acquired contrast enhanced CT (CECT), a prone-to-error and time-consuming task. An alternative is offered by simultaneous imaging of 166Ho and technetium-99m stannous–phytate accumulating in healthy liver cells ( 166Ho– 99mTc dual-isotope protocol). This study compares healthy liver segmentation performed with an automatic method using 99mTc images derived from a 166Ho– 99mTc dual-isotope acquisition to the manual segmentation, focusing on healthy liver dosimetry and corresponding hepatotoxicity. Data from the prospective HEPAR PLuS study were used. Automatic healthy liver segmentation was obtained by thresholding the 99mTc image (no registration step required). Manual segmentation was performed on CECT and then manually registered to the SPECT/CT and subsequently to the corresponding 166Ho SPECT to compute absorbed dose in healthy liver.

          Results

          Thirty-one patients (66 procedures) were assessed. Manual segmentation and registration took a median of 30 min per patient, while automatic segmentation was instantaneous. Mean ± standard deviation of healthy liver absorbed dose was 18 ± 7 Gy and 20 ± 8 Gy for manual and automatic segmentations, respectively. Mean difference ± coefficient of reproducibility between healthy liver absorbed doses using the automatic versus manual segmentation was 2 ± 6 Gy. No correlation was found between mean absorbed dose in the healthy liver and hepatotoxicity.

          Conclusions

          166Ho– 99mTc dual-isotope protocol can automatically segment the healthy liver without hampering the 166Ho dosimetry assessment.

          Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02067988. Registered 20 February 2014. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02067988

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13550-023-00996-1.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Personalised versus standard dosimetry approach of selective internal radiation therapy in patients with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (DOSISPHERE-01): a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 2 trial

          All randomised phase 3 studies of selective internal radiation therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma published to date have reported negative results. However, these studies did not use personalised dosimetry. We aimed to compare the efficacy of a personalised versus standard dosimetry approach of selective internal radiation therapy with yttrium-90-loaded glass microspheres in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Relationship of Tumor Radiation–absorbed Dose to Survival and Response in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Transarterial Radioembolization with 90Y in the SARAH Study

            Background Little is known about factors that influence the efficacy of transarterial radioembolization (TARE). Purpose To determine the relationship between tumor radiation-absorbed dose and survival and tumor response in locally advanced inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma treated with TARE. Materials and Methods This was a secondary analysis of prospectively acquired data (between December 2011 and March 2015) from participants who received TARE in the Sorafenib versus Radioembolization in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (SARAH) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01482442). Tumor-absorbed dose was computed using technetium 99m (99mTc) macroaggregated human albumin (MAA) SPECT/CT. Visual agreement among CT, 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT, and yttrium 90 (90Y) SPECT/CT or PET/CT was scored as optimal, suboptimal, or not optimal. Overall survival (OS) and tumor response at 6-month follow-up CT (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1) were assessed. OS was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier tests. A propensity score comparing participants receiving a tumor dose greater than or equal to 100 Gy (best cut-off according to the receiver operating characteristic curve and median tumor radiation-absorbed dose values in the study groups) with those receiving sorafenib was calculated. Results One hundred twenty-one participants (median age, 67 years; interquartile range [IQR]: 61-73 years; 110 men) were evaluated in the dose-survival group, and 109 (median age, 66 years; IQR: 61-71 years; 100 men) were evaluated in the dose-tumor response group. In the dose-survival group, median OS was 9.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.7 months, 10.7 months), and median tumor radiation-absorbed dose was 112 Gy (IQR: 68-220 Gy). Participants who received at least 100 Gy (n = 67) had longer survival than those who received less than 100 Gy (median, 14.1 months [95% CI: 9.6 months, 18.6 months] vs 6.1 months [95% CI: 4.9 months, 6.8 months], respectively; P < .001), and those with optimal agreement (n = 24) had the longest median OS (24.9 months; 95% CI: 9.6 months, 33.9 months). In the dose-tumor response group, tumor radiation-absorbed dose was higher in participants with disease control versus those with progressive disease (median, 121 Gy [IQR: 86-190 Gy] vs 85 Gy [IQR: 58-164 Gy]; P = .02). The highest disease control rate was observed in 31 of 40 participants (78%) with a tumor radiation-absorbed dose greater than or equal to 100 Gy and optimal agreement. Conclusion Higher tumor radiation-absorbed dose computed at technetium 99m macroaggregated human albumin SPECT/CT was associated with better overall survival and disease control in hepatocellular carcinoma treated with transarterial radioembolization with yttrium 90 in the Sorafenib versus Radioembolization in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma trial. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Sofocleous and Kamarinos in this issue.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

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

              Abstract Primary liver tumours (i.e. hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC)) are among the most frequent cancers worldwide. However, only 10–20% of patients are amenable to curative treatment, such as resection or transplant. Liver metastases are most frequently caused by colorectal cancer, which accounts for the second most cancer-related deaths in Europe. In both primary and secondary tumours, radioembolization has been shown to be a safe and effective treatment option. The vast potential of personalized dosimetry has also been shown, resulting in markedly increased response rates and overall survival. In a rapidly evolving therapeutic landscape, the role of radioembolization will be subject to changes. Therefore, the decision for radioembolization should be taken by a multidisciplinary tumour board in accordance with the current clinical guidelines. The purpose of this procedure guideline is to assist the nuclear medicine physician in treating and managing patients undergoing radioembolization treatment. Preamble The European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM) is a professional non-profit medical association that facilitates communication worldwide among individuals pursuing clinical and research excellence in nuclear medicine. The EANM was founded in 1985. These guidelines are intended to assist practitioners in providing appropriate nuclear medicine care for patients. They are not inflexible rules or requirements of practice and are not intended, nor should they be used, to establish a legal standard of care. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure or course of action must be made by medical professionals taking into account the unique circumstances of each case. Thus, there is no implication that an approach differing from the guidelines, standing alone, is below the standard of care. To the contrary, a conscientious practitioner may responsibly adopt a course of action different from that set out in the guidelines when, in the reasonable judgment of the practitioner, such course of action is indicated by the condition of the patient, limitations of available resources or advances in knowledge or technology subsequent to publication of the guidelines. The practice of medicine involves not only the science but also the art of dealing with the prevention, diagnosis, alleviation and treatment of disease. The variety and complexity of human conditions make it impossible to always reach the most appropriate diagnosis or to predict with certainty a particular response to treatment. Therefore, it should be recognised that adherence to these guidelines will not ensure an accurate diagnosis or a successful outcome. All that should be expected is that the practitioner will follow a reasonable course of action based on current knowledge, available resources and the needs of the patient to deliver effective and safe medical care. The sole purpose of these guidelines is to assist practitioners in achieving this objective.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                M.Stella@umcutrecht.nl
                Journal
                EJNMMI Res
                EJNMMI Res
                EJNMMI Research
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                2191-219X
                15 July 2023
                15 July 2023
                2023
                : 13
                : 68
                Affiliations
                GRID grid.7692.a, ISNI 0000000090126352, Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, , UMC Utrecht, ; Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9794-3184
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8546-8283
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4902-9790
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3000-8316
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8824-8697
                Article
                996
                10.1186/s13550-023-00996-1
                10349793
                37453996
                727d6943-a731-45bf-bd19-11ba72b61e3a
                © The Author(s) 2023

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 24 March 2023
                : 8 May 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100003246, Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek;
                Award ID: NWA.ID.17.059.
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2023

                Radiology & Imaging
                radioembolization,166holmium,99mtechnetium,segmentation,dosimetry
                Radiology & Imaging
                radioembolization, 166holmium, 99mtechnetium, segmentation, dosimetry

                Comments

                Comment on this article