Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Dear Sir,
With interest, we have read the letter by Kao [1] which was written in response to our previous editorial [2]. Certainly, the author presents an interesting summary of recent advances and insights in the benefit of dosimetry-guided therapy in radioembolization. Certainly, as we are also aware, in recent years radioembolization has effectively become the first branch of therapeutic application of radionuclides where dosimetry has not only taken hold, but has become the de-facto standard of care.
However, even within radioembolization the points we brought up in our editorial [3] still hold true. There is a large heterogeneity in the clinical dose–response relationship in the target tissue, especially between different cancer entities [4], the cause of which is unknown. Certainly, even in high mean achieved doses to target tissue radioembolization may prolong life, but will not achieve complete eradication of tumor tissue as nicely shown, e.g., by Garin et al. [5]: a delivered dose of on average > 205 Gy prolonged median survival from 11 months after treatment in controls to 27 months in treated patients—however, in this same study, after 3 years only 2 patients were alive in each of these groups. This still shows that even high absorbed doses to the target tissue will leave behind a contingent of cells that for some mostly not fully understood reason did not respond adequately to a high dose of radiation.
It is exactly this heterogeneity, the cause of which remains largely unexplored, which in our opinion is one of the main limits of purely physical dosimetry procedures. Here, biodosimetry studies are still urgently needed to better understand the mechanisms of resistance to radiation, which may eventually lead to novel strategies to overcome the same.
While we agree that true radioresistance, as Kao points out, may in a purely physical sense not exist in that any cell, structure, or even every solitary chemical compound will eventually break down given sufficient radiation exposure, we do believe that in a medical sense it does exist. Even in radioembolization, there is a limit to the activity that can be administered without causing undue complications in a palliative setting—where first and foremost the retention or, preferably, improvement of quality of life is paramount.
And of course, radioembolization is not representative for radionuclide therapy at large. Radioembolization in effect functions in analogy to brachytherapy, where spheres containing radiation are targeted directly toward the target tissue through local application and will stay there for the duration of physical radiation decay. This removes a number of the previously [2] discussed variables that play an important role in cell specific entity targeted therapy, such as via receptors, where the distribution volume of the patient and renal and biliary excretion as well as tumor-related factors such as expression level of the receptor and locus of expression play a role in determining both the total uptake and effective half-life. Furthermore, non-target exposure in such therapies plays a far stronger limiting role in activity prescription than in selectively infused radioembolization. All these factors, too, are subject to research in order to improve both the delivery of radiation to target and the reduction of exposure of non-target tissue.
In that sense, whereas we do believe that the “holy gray” has a value in the total complex of dosimetry-based individualized patient care, it certainly has its limits. Many biological factors play a role which go beyond pure dosimetry which remain largely unexplored, and hence, we would here once again like to emphasize the paramount importance of further research into radiobiology into realms uncharted beyond the “holy gray.”
References
Kao YH. Yes, the Holy Gray exists. Learn from radioembolisation. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05527-5.
Verburg FA, Nonnekens J, Konijnenberg MW, de Jong M. To go where no one has gone before: the necessity of radiobiology studies for exploration beyond the limits of the “holy gray” in radionuclide therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48:2680–2.
Terry SYA, Nonnekens J, Aerts A, Baatout S, de Jong M, Cornelissen B, et al. Call to arms: need for radiobiology in molecular radionuclide therapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46:1588–90.
Kao YH, Steinberg JD, Tay YS, Lim GK, Yan J, Townsend DW, et al. Post-radioembolization yttrium-90 PET/CT - part 2: dose-response and tumor predictive dosimetry for resin microspheres. EJNMMI Res. 2013;3:57.
Garin E, Rolland Y, Pracht M, Le Sourd S, Laffont S, Mesbah H, et al. High impact of macroaggregated albumin-based tumour dose on response and overall survival in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with (90) Y-loaded glass microsphere radioembolization. Liver Int. 2017;37:101–10.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Not required for a literature-based letter.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Editorial
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Verburg, F.A., Konijnenberg, M.W. & Nonnekens, J. The limits of the “holy gray” in radioembolization and beyond. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 48, 4118–4119 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05560-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-021-05560-4