CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 295–301 | Cite as

Feasibility of Yttrium-90 Radioembolization Dose Calculation Utilizing Intra-procedural Open Trajectory Cone Beam CT

  • Paul J. O’Connor
  • Sara Diana Pasik
  • Imramsjah Martijn van der Bom
  • Vivian Bishay
  • Alessandro Radaelli
  • Edward KimEmail author
Clinical Investigation Imaging
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Imaging



Dose calculation for transarterial radioembolization (TARE) with glass yttrium-90 (Y90) labeled microspheres is based on liver lobe and tumor volumes, currently measured from preprocedural MRI or CT. The variable time between MRI and radioembolization may not account for relevant tumor progression. Advances in cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) allow for intra-procedural assessment of these volumes that avoids this factor. Liver lobe and hepatocellular carcinoma tumor volume measurements and dose calculations using intra-procedural CBCT were compared to those using preprocedural MRI in order to determine feasibility.


Retrospective analysis was performed in 20 patients with proven hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who underwent planning angiography with open trajectory CBCT acquisitions prior to radioembolization, and an MRI performed within 6 weeks prior to treatment planning. Liver lobe and tumor burden volumes were measured based on CBCT using embolization planning and guidance software and measured on preprocedural MRI using standard volume analysis software. Y90 doses were subsequently calculated using each measured volume. Comparisons of volume measurements and calculated Y90 doses between the two modalities were evaluated for significance using paired t tests.


All target liver lobes and all tumors were completely depicted on CBCT. Mean liver lobe and tumor burden volumes measured on intra-procedural CBCT and preprocedural MRI showed no significant difference (p = 0.71). Mean calculated Y90 dose based on each modality showed no significant difference (p = 0.18).


Lobar and tumor volume measurement with CBCT is a reliable alternative to measurement with preprocedural MRI. Utilization of CBCT 3D segmentation software during planning angiography may be useful to provide up-to-date volume measurements and dose calculations prior to radioembolization.


Radioembolization Cone beam CT Interventional oncology Dosing HCC Imaging 



This study was not supported by any funding.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Imramsjah Martijn van der Bom is employed by Philips Healthcare. Alessandro Radaelli is employed by Philips Healthcare. Edward Kim is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board: Boston Scientific Corp. He has also spoken for industry-sponsored lectures: BTG International Ltd. and Philips Healthcare.

Ethical Approval

For this type of study (retrospective analysis), formal consent is not required. This retrospective analysis was performed under an Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved protocol.

Informed Consent

For this type of study, informed consent is not required. This study has obtained IRB approval, and the need for informed consent was waived.


  1. 1.
    Benson AB 3rd, D’Angelica MI, Abbott DE, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: hepatobiliary cancers, version 1.2017. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2017;15(5):563–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Association For The Study Of The L, European Organisation For R, Treatment Of C. EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2012;56(4):908–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Salem R, Gabr A, Riaz A, et al. Institutional decision to adopt Y90 as primary treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma informed by a 1000-patient 15-year experience. Hepatology. 2018;68(4):1429–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sato K, Lewandowski RJ, Bui JT, et al. Treatment of unresectable primary and metastatic liver cancer with yttrium-90 microspheres (TheraSphere): assessment of hepatic arterial embolization. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2006;29(4):522–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biocompatibles, Inventor. TheraSphere.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miyayama S, Yamashiro M, Okuda M, et al. Usefulness of cone-beam computed tomography during ultraselective transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for small hepatocellular carcinomas that cannot be demonstrated on angiography. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2009;32(2):255–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Loffroy R, Lin M, Rao P, et al. Comparing the detectability of hepatocellular carcinoma by C-arm dual-phase cone-beam computed tomography during hepatic arteriography with conventional contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2012;35(1):97–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Higashihara H, Osuga K, Onishi H, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of C-arm CT during selective transcatheter angiography for hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison with intravenous contrast-enhanced, biphasic, dynamic MDCT. Eur Radiol. 2012;22(4):872–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miyayama S, Yamashiro M, Hashimoto M, et al. Identification of small hepatocellular carcinoma and tumor-feeding branches with cone-beam CT guidance technology during transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24(4):501–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bapst B, Lagadec M, Breguet R, Vilgrain V, Ronot M. Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) in the field of interventional oncology of the liver. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2016;39(1):8–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miyayama S, Yamashiro M, Ikuno M, Okumura K, Yoshida M. Ultraselective transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for small hepatocellular carcinoma guided by automated tumor-feeders detection software: technical success and short-term tumor response. Abdom Imaging. 2014;39(3):645–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Louie JD, Kothary N, Kuo WT, et al. Incorporating cone-beam CT into the treatment planning for yttrium-90 radioembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009;20(5):606–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miyayama S, Yamashiro M, Hashimoto M, et al. Comparison of local control in transcatheter arterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma </=6 cm with or without intraprocedural monitoring of the embolized area using cone-beam computed tomography. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2014;37(2):388–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bruix J, Sherman M, American Association for the Study of Liver D. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology. 2011;53(3):1020–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lewandowski RJ, Sato KT, Atassi B, et al. Radioembolization with 90Y microspheres: angiographic and technical considerations. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2007;30(4):571–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tacher V, Radaelli A, Lin M, Geschwind JF. How I do it: cone-beam CT during transarterial chemoembolization for liver cancer. Radiology. 2015;274(2):320–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tacher V, Lin M, Chao M, et al. Semiautomatic volumetric tumor segmentation for hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison between C-arm cone beam computed tomography and MRI. Acad Radiol. 2013;20(4):446–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chapiro J, Lin M, Duran R, Schernthaner RE, Geschwind JF. Assessing tumor response after loco-regional liver cancer therapies: the role of 3D MRI. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2015;15(2):199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Siegel JA, Thomas SR, Stubbs JB, et al. MIRD pamphlet no. 16: techniques for quantitative radiopharmaceutical biodistribution data acquisition and analysis for use in human radiation dose estimates. J Nucl Med. 1999;40(2):37S–61S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schernthaner RE, Chapiro J, Sahu S, et al. Feasibility of a modified cone-beam CT rotation trajectory to improve liver periphery visualization during transarterial chemoembolization. Radiology. 2015;277(3):833–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Meyer BC, Frericks BB, Voges M, et al. Visualization of hypervascular liver lesions during TACE: comparison of angiographic C-arm CT and MDCT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190(4):W263–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mount Sinai HospitalNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Icahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Image-Guided Therapy Systems, Philips HealthcareBestThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations