Advertisement

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 426–429 | Cite as

Superselective Internal Radiation With Yttrium-90 Microspheres in the Management of a Chemorefractory Testicular Liver Metastasis

  • Panagiotis A. Sideras
  • Constantinos T. SofocleousEmail author
  • Lynn A. Brody
  • Robert H. Siegelbaum
  • Rajesh P. Shah
  • Neeta-Pandit Taskar
Case Report

Abstract

We treated a patient with biopsy-proven, chemotherapy-resistant testicular cancer liver metastasis using Y-90 selective internal radiation treatment. We chose yttrium-90 rather than surgery and ablation due to tumor location and size as well as the patient’s clinical history. The result was marked tumor response by positron emission tomography and computed tomography as well as significant improvement of the patient’s quality of life accompanied by a substantial decrease of his tumor markers.

Keywords

Interventional Oncology Intraarterial Radioembolization Hepatic Urogenital Neoplasm 

Notes

Conflict of interest

We have no personal or financial conflict of interest. All authors, with the exception of C. S., have not entered into any agreement that could interfere with our access to the data on the research or with our ability to analyze the data independently or to prepare manuscripts and to publish them. C. S. receives research grant support and is a paid consultant for Sirtex Medical, Inc.

References

  1. 1.
    Becker C et al (2011) C-arm computed tomography compared with positron emission tomography/computed tomography for treatment planning before radioembolization. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 34(3):550–556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paprottka PM et al (2011) Practical vascular anatomy in the preparation of radioembolization. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. doi: 10.1007/s00270-011-0169-z
  3. 3.
    Monsky WL et al (2011) Treatment planning and volumetric response assessment for yttrium-90 radioembolization: Semiautomated determination of liver volume and volume of tumor necrosis in patients with hepatic malignancy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 34(2):306–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McCaffrey JA, Bajorin DF, Motzer RJ (1998) Risk assessment for metastatic testis cancer. Urol Clin North Am 25(3):389–395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dodd PM, Motzer RJ, Bajorin DF (1998) Poor-risk germ cell tumors. Recent developments. Urol Clin North Am 25(3):485–493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schmoll HJ, Beyer J (1998) Prognostic factors in metastatic germ cell tumors. Semin Oncol 25(2):174–185PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goulet RJ Jr et al (1990) Hepatic resection for disseminated germ cell carcinoma. Ann Surg 212(3):290–294PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eastham JA et al (1994) Surgical resection in patients with nonseminomatous germ cell tumor who fail to normalize serum tumor markers after chemotherapy. Urology 43(1):74–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vogl TJ et al (1999) Therapeutic options in non-resectable liver metastases. Percutaneous radiological interventions. Chirurg 70(2):133–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Einhorn LH (1990) Treatment of testicular cancer: a new and improved model. J Clin Oncol 8(11):1777–1781PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murthy R et al (2005) Yttrium 90 resin microspheres for the treatment of unresectable colorectal hepatic metastases after failure of multiple chemotherapy regimens: Preliminary results. J Vasc Interv Radiol 16(7):937–945PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Livraghi T et al (2003) Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of liver metastases in potential candidates for resection: The “test-of-time approach.”. Cancer 97(12):3027–3035PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ito H et al (2008) Effect of postoperative morbidity on long-term survival after hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer. Ann Surg 247(6):994–1002PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sato KT et al (2008) Unresectable chemorefractory liver metastases: radioembolization with 90Y microspheres―safety, efficacy, and survival. Radiology 247(2):507–515PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Haydar AA et al (2010) (90)Y radioembolization: Embolization of the gastroduodenal artery is not always appropriate. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 33(5):1069–1071PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Panagiotis A. Sideras
    • 1
  • Constantinos T. Sofocleous
    • 1
    Email author
  • Lynn A. Brody
    • 1
  • Robert H. Siegelbaum
    • 1
  • Rajesh P. Shah
    • 1
  • Neeta-Pandit Taskar
    • 1
  1. 1.Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations