Hepatic volume changes induced by radioembolization with 90Y resin microspheres. A single-centre study
- 450 Downloads
Lobar radioembolization (RE) of the liver can result in reduction in volume of the ipsilateral lobe as well as hypertrophy of the contralateral lobe. Theoretically, hypertrophy of the contralateral liver lobe after RE could increase the chance of a successful liver resection, especially in patients with limited liver function reserve. The aim of this preliminary study was to evaluate the early effects of RE with resin microspheres on the volumes of the liver lobes and spleen.
We retrospectively investigated 24 patients (12 women, 44–78 years old) with different types of cancer and liver-dominant metastatic disease who had undergone RE of the liver with resin microspheres. Changes in the volumes of the liver lobes and spleen were quantified by CT before and about 4 to 8 weeks after treatment.
Of the 24 patients, 17 suffered from metastases in both liver lobes (group A) and 7 had metastases only in the right liver lobe (group B). The patients in the group A underwent sequential treatment starting with the right liver lobe. The median administered dose was 1.75 GBq. RE was associated with a median increase in volume of the left liver lobe of 34 % (P < 0.001) and a median decrease in volume of the right liver lobe of 11 % (P = 0.03). The volume of the spleen showed a median increase of 17 % (P = 0.01). Separate analysis of the two groups showed a median increases in volume of the left liver lobe of 30 % (P = 0.001) in group A and 70 % (P = 0.01) in group B. There was no correlation between the injected dose and the volume alteration (r = 0.1–0.3).
RE of the right liver lobe with resin microspheres caused a significant increase in the volume of the left liver lobe. This may allow liver resection in patients with metastases in the right liver lobe and a small left liver lobe.
KeywordsRadioembolization Resin microspheres Liver metastases SIRT
Conflicts of interest
- 1.Salem R, Thurston KG. Radioembolization with 90Yttrium microspheres: a state-of-the-art brachytherapy treatment for primary and secondary liver malignancies. Part 1: Technical and methodologic considerations. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006;17:1251–78. doi:10.1097/01.RVI.0000233785.75257.9A.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Rhee TK, Lewandowski RJ, Liu DM, et al. 90Y radioembolization for metastatic neuroendocrine liver tumors: preliminary results from a multi-institutional experience. Ann Surg. 2008;247:1029–35. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181728a4500000658-200806000-00017.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Gulec SA, Pennington K, Hall M, Fong Y. Preoperative Y-90 microsphere selective internal radiation treatment for tumor downsizing and future liver remnant recruitment: a novel approach to improving the safety of major hepatic resections. World J Surg Oncol. 2009;7:6. doi:10.1186/1477-7819-7-6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Ahmadzadehfar H, Mohlenbruch M, Sabet A, et al. Is prophylactic embolization of the hepatic falciform artery needed before radioembolization in patients with (99m)Tc-MAA accumulation in the anterior abdominal wall? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011;38:1477–84. doi:10.1007/s00259-011-1807-z.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Ahmadzadehfar H, Muckle M, Sabet A, Wilhelm K, Kuhl C, Biermann K. The significance of bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT after yttrium-90 radioembolization treatment in the prediction of extrahepatic side effects. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2012;39:309–15. doi:10.1007/s00259-011-1940-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Salem R, Lewandowski RJ, Kulik L, Wang E, Riaz A, Ryu RK. Radioembolization results in longer time-to-progression and reduced toxicity compared with chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:497–507. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2010.10.049.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Paprottka PM, Schmidt GP, Trumm CG, Hoffmann RT, Reiser MF, Jakobs TF. Changes in normal liver and spleen volume after radioembolization with (90)Y-resin microspheres in metastatic breast cancer patients: findings and clinical significance. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2011;34:964–72. doi:10.1007/s00270-011-0217-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar