Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26112387›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2015

Radioembolization of hepatocarcinoma with (90)Y glass microspheres: development of an individualized treatment planning strategy based on dosimetry and radiobiology.

C Chiesa, M Mira, M Maccauro, C Spreafico, R Romito, C Morosi, T Camerini, M Carrara, S Pellizzari, A Negri and 13 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

73 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 162 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Separation ofMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2026
    Article
  4. Effects of dose heterogeneity on response and toxicity afterEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  5. Evaluation of end-to-end 3D absorbed dose distribution inEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Radioembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma withEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Measure ofEJNMMI reports · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Dose-effect relationships in neuroendocrine tumour liver metastases treated with [European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

C ChiesaNuclear Medicine Division, Foundation IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy. carlo.chiesa@istitutotumori.mi.it.
M MiraPostgraduate Health Physics School, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
M MaccauroNuclear Medicine Division, Foundation IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
C SpreaficoRadiology 2, Foundation IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy.
R RomitoSurgery 1, Foundation IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy.
C MorosiRadiology 2, Foundation IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy.
T CameriniScientific Direction, Foundation IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy.
M CarraraHealth Physics, Foundation IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy.
S PellizzariEngineering Faculty, University La Sapienza, Rome, Italy.
A NegriPostgraduate Health Physics School, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
G AlibertiNuclear Medicine Division, Foundation IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
C SpositoSurgery 1, Foundation IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy.
S BhooriSurgery 1, Foundation IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy.
A FacciorussoSurgery 1, Foundation IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy.
E CivelliRadiology 2, Foundation IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy.
R LanocitaRadiology 2, Foundation IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy.
B PadovanoNuclear Medicine Division, Foundation IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
M MigliorisiNuclear Medicine Division, Foundation IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
M C De NilePhysics Faculty, University of Pavia, Pavia, Lombardy, Italy.
E SeregniNuclear Medicine Division, Foundation IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
A MarchianòRadiology 2, Foundation IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy.
F CrippaNuclear Medicine Division, Foundation IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Via Giacomo Venezian 1, 20133, Milan, Italy.
V MazzaferroSurgery 1, Foundation IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori · ITUniversity of Milan · ITEngineering (Italy) · ITUniversity of Pavia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this study was to optimize the dosimetric approach and to review the absorbed doses delivered, taking into account radiobiology, in order to identify the optimal methodology for an individualized treatment planning strategy based on (99m)Tc-macroaggregated albumin (MAA) single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) images.

methodsWe performed retrospective dosimetry of the standard TheraSphere® treatment on 52 intermediate (n = 17) and advanced (i.e. portal vein thrombosis, n = 35) hepatocarcinoma patients with tumour burden < 50% and without obstruction of the main portal vein trunk. Response was monitored with the densitometric radiological criterion (European Association for the Study of the Liver) and treatment-related liver decompensation was defined ad hoc with a time cut-off of 6 months. Adverse events clearly attributable to disease progression or other causes were not attributed to treatment. Voxel dosimetry was performed with the local deposition method on (99m)Tc-MAA SPECT images. The reconstruction protocol was optimized. Concordance of (99m)Tc-MAA and (90)Y bremsstrahlung microsphere biodistributions was studied in 35 sequential patients. Two segmentation methods were used, based on SPECT alone (home-made code) or on coregistered SPECT/CT images (IMALYTICS™ by Philips). STRATOS™ absorbed dose calculation was validated for (90)Y with a single time point. Radiobiology was used introducing other dosimetric variables besides the mean absorbed dose D: equivalent uniform dose (EUD), biologically effective dose averaged over voxel values (BEDave) and equivalent uniform biologically effective dose (EUBED). Two sets of radiobiological parameters, the first derived from microsphere irradiation and the second from external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), were used. A total of 16 possible methodologies were compared. Tumour control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) were derived. The area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used as a figure of merit to identify the methodology which gave the best separation in terms of dosimetry between responding and non-responding lesions and liver decompensated vs non-decompensated liver treatment.

resultsMAA and (90)Y biodistributions were not different (71% of cases), different in 23% and uncertain in 6%. Response correlated with absorbed dose (Spearman's r from 0.48 to 0.69). Responding vs non-responding lesion absorbed doses were well separated, regardless of the methodology adopted (p = 0.0001, AUC from 0.75 to 0.87). EUBED gave significantly better separation with respect to mean dose (AUC = 0.87 vs 0.80, z = 2.07). Segmentation on SPECT gave better separation than on SPECT/CT. TCP(50%) was at 250 Gy for small lesion volumes (<10 cc) and higher than 1,000 Gy for large lesions (>10 cc). Apparent radiosensitivity values from TCP were around 0.003/Gy, a factor of 3-5 lower than in EBRT, as found by other authors. The dose-rate effect was negligible: a purely linear model can be applied. Toxicity incidence was significantly larger for Child B7 patients (89 vs 14%, p < 0.0001), who were therefore excluded from dose-toxicity analysis. Child A toxic vs non-toxic treatments were significantly separated in terms of dose averaged on whole non-tumoural parenchyma (including non-irradiated regions) with AUC from 0.73 to 0.94. TD50 was ≈ 100 Gy. No methodology was superior to parenchyma mean dose, which therefore can be used for planning, with a limit of TD15 ≈ 75 Gy.

conclusionA dosimetric treatment planning criterion for Child A patients without complete obstruction of the portal vein was developed.

Indexed as

Embolization, TherapeuticMicrospheresYttrium RadioisotopesCarcinoma, HepatocellularChildDose-Response Relationship, RadiationGlassHumansLiver NeoplasmsPrecision MedicineRadiobiologyRadiometryRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedRetrospective StudiesTechnetium Tc 99m Aggregated AlbuminTomography, Emission-Computed, Single-PhotonTechnetium Tc 99m Aggregated AlbuminYttrium Radioisotopes

Identifiers

PMID26112387
OpenAlexW771228274

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.