Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42862279›Full record

ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2026

Glass versus resin microspheres in ⁹⁰Y radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: toxicity patterns under uniform voxel-based dosimetry.

Ali Dablan, Enes Mustafa Kaya, Meryem Kaya, Emrah Birol, Çağrı Erdim, Mustafa Fatih Arslan, Mehmet Cingöz, Oğuzhan Türksayar, Cihan Şin, Halil Burak Kapucu and 4 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

Ali DablanDepartment of Radiology, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, İstanbul, TR- 34488, Turkey. alidablan@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4198-4416
Enes Mustafa KayaDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, İstanbul, TR-34488, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-0646-7839
Meryem KayaDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, İstanbul, TR-34488, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3328-8173
Emrah BirolDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, İstanbul, TR-34488, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2858-0804
Çağrı ErdimDepartment of Radiology, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, İstanbul, TR- 34488, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2869-6842
Mustafa Fatih ArslanDepartment of Radiology, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, İstanbul, TR- 34488, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4361-5817
Mehmet CingözDepartment of Radiology, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, İstanbul, TR- 34488, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6937-2692
Oğuzhan TürksayarDepartment of Radiology, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, İstanbul, TR- 34488, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-7617-6125
Cihan ŞinDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, İstanbul, TR-34488, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5293-6407
Halil Burak KapucuDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, İstanbul, TR-34488, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6631-7762
İpek Kerimel ÖztürkDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, İstanbul, TR-34488, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4183-5824
İlker Mahmut KayaoğluDepartment of Radiology, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, İstanbul, TR- 34488, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-2621-5070
Tevfik GüzelbeyDepartment of Radiology, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, İstanbul, TR- 34488, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5330-169X
Burcu Esen AkkaşDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Basaksehir Cam and Sakura City Hospital, İstanbul, TR-34488, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6623-1600

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare safety outcomes and toxicity patterns of glass and resin microspheres in patients undergoing yttrium-90 (⁹⁰Y) transarterial radioembolization (TARE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), using uniform voxel-based dosimetry for both platforms and toxicity comparisons adjusted for treatment extent and tumor burden. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis retrospective single-center study included 103 consecutive patients with HCC and preserved liver function treated with ⁹⁰Y-TARE between June 2020 and June 2024 using glass-based (n = 70) or resin-based (n = 33) microspheres, selected according to routine practice and product availability. Absorbed doses for both cohorts were derived from voxel-based ⁹⁹ᵐTc-MAA SPECT/CT dosimetry. Adverse events (AEs) were graded with CTCAE version 5.0. The primary endpoint was overall AE incidence; secondary endpoints were specific toxicity patterns and dose-toxicity associations, examined with multivariable logistic regression adjusting for treatment extent and tumor volume. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared with the log-rank test.

resultsOverall AE incidence did not differ between glass and resin microspheres (glass 37.1% vs. resin 30.3%; p = 0.497), and all AEs were grade 1-2. Tumor and non-tumorous liver absorbed doses were similar. Bilirubin toxicity was more frequent with glass microspheres (glass 28.6% vs. resin 9.1%; p = 0.027), whereas hemoglobin decline was more common with resin microspheres (glass 10.0% vs. resin 30.3%; p = 0.010); both exploratory differences persisted after adjustment for treatment extent and tumor volume. Lung shunt fraction, a baseline patient-level parameter, was higher with resin (glass 2.6% vs. resin 4.1%; p = 0.043). Higher lung absorbed dose was associated with AE occurrence overall, without a significant lung dose × microsphere-type interaction (p = 0.41). Neither PFS (median, glass 9 vs. resin 12 months; p = 0.868) nor OS (glass 23 vs. resin 29 months; p = 0.929) differed significantly.

conclusionsGlass and resin microspheres showed no significant difference in overall AE incidence-without formally establishing equivalence-but differed in their patterns of mild laboratory toxicity independently of treatment extent and tumor burden. These exploratory findings support careful, individualized dosimetric assessment and require confirmation in prospective multicenter studies, but do not provide criteria for microsphere selection.

Indexed as

Adverse eventsGlass microspheresHepatocellular carcinomaResin microspheresYttrium-90 radioembolization

Identifiers

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.