Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Practical Vascular Anatomy in the Preparation of Radioembolization

  • Review Article
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As the incidence of primary and metastatic liver cancer continues to increase, the use of minimally invasive techniques as a treatment option is becoming more common. Radioembolization, a form of intra-arterial brachytherapy, is a technique where particles of glass or resin, impregnated with the isotope 90yttrium (90Y), are infused through a catheter directly into the hepatic arteries. This modality is based on the fact that hepatic malignancies receive their blood supply from the hepatic artery, whereas normal hepatocytes are perfused mostly from the portal circulation, which allows delivery of high doses to the tumor vasculature with relative sparing of normal liver tissue. This has been shown to be effective for both primary and metastatic tumors. A variety of complications may be related to hepatic intra-arterial treatments, especially to the gastroduodenal region. These complications are known to come from inadvertent extrahepatic infusion of 90Y particles, through arteries originating from the hepatic arterial branches such as the falciform artery, cystic artery, arteries from the pancreaticoduodenal arcade, gastroduodenal artery, or right gastric artery. Surgeons and interventional radiologists rely on accurate imaging and assessment of the hepatic arterial supply. It is important to know the common anatomic variations and technical considerations before radioembolization. We recommend an aggressive occlusion of all the above-mentioned arteries; further, clinicians should watch out for any other aberrant branches, and if in doubt, they ought to be coiled.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. El-Serag HB (2004) Hepatocellular carcinoma: recent trends in the United States. Gastroenterology 127(5Suppl 1):S27–S34

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E et al (2005) Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 55:10–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Cohen AD, Kemeny NE (2003) An update on hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. Oncologist 8:553–566

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jakobs TF, Hoffmann RT, Tatsch K et al (2008) Therapy response of liver tumors after selective internal radiation therapy. Radiologe 48:839–849

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Jakobs TF, Hoffmann RT, Tatsch K et al (2007) Developments and perspectives in radioablative techniques. Radiologe 47:1083–1088

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kennedy AS, Coldwell D, Nutting C et al (2006) Resin 90Y-microsphere brachytherapy for unresectable colorectal liver metastases: modern USA experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 65:412–425

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lin M, Shon IH, Wilson R et al (2007) Treatment response in liver metastases following 90Y SIR-spheres: an evaluation with PET. Hepatogastroenterology 54:910–912

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Salem R, Lewandowski RJ, Atassi B et al (2005) Treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with use of 90Y microspheres (TheraSphere): safety, tumor response, and survival. J Vasc Interv Radiol 16:1627–1639

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Stubbs RS, O’Brien I, Correia MM (2006) Selective internal radiation therapy with 90Y microspheres for colorectal liver metastases: single-centre experience with 100 patients. ANZ J Surg 76:696–703

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Welsh JS, Kennedy AS, Thomadsen B (2006) Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) for liver metastases secondary to colorectal adenocarcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 66(2 suppl):S62–S73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Campbell KA, Burns RC, Sitzmann JV et al (1993) Regional chemotherapy devices: effect of experience and anatomy on complications. J Clin Oncol 11:822–826

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Leung TK, Lee CM, Chen HC (2005) Anatomic and technical skill factor of gastroduodenal complication in post-transarterial embolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study of 280 cases. World J Gastroenterol 11:1554–1557

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Shike M, Gillin JS, Kemeny N et al (1986) Severe gastroduodenal ulcerations complicating hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy for metastatic colon cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 81:176–179

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Mantravadi RV, Spigos DG, Tan WS, Felix EL (1982) Intraarterial yttrium 90 in the treatment of hepatic malignancy. Radiology 142:783–786

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Leung TW, Lau WY, Ho SK et al (1995) Radiation pneumonitis after selective internal radiation treatment with intraarterial 90yttrium-microspheres for inoperable hepatic tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 33:919–924

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Leung WT, Lau WY, Ho SK et al (1994) Measuring lung shunting in hepatocellular carcinoma with intrahepatic-arterial technetium-99m macroaggregated albumin. J Nucl Med 35:70–73

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Lau WY, Ho S, Leung TW et al (1998) Selective internal radiation therapy for nonresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with intraarterial infusion of 90Yttrium microspheres. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 40:583–592

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Yip D, Allen R, Ashton C, Jain S (2004) Radiation-induced ulceration of the stomach secondary to hepatic embolization with radioactive yttrium microspheres in the treatment of metastatic colon cancer. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 19:347–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hoffman RT, Bilbao JI, Jakobs TF, Diaz-Dorronsoro L et al (2008) Complications and side effects. In: Liver radioembolization with 90Y microspheres. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, p 139–146

  20. Chuang VP, Wallace S, Stroehlein J et al (1981) Hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy: gastroduodenal complications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 137:347–350

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Doria MI Jr, Doria LK, Faintuch J, Levin B (1994) Gastric mucosal injury after hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with floxuridine. A clinical and pathologic study. Cancer 73:2042–2047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fiorentini G, Poddie DB, De Giorgi U et al (2000) Global approach to hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: indication and outcome of intra-arterial chemotherapy and other hepatic-directed treatments. Med Oncol 17:163–173

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Covey AM, Brody LA, Maluccio MA et al (2002) Variant hepatic arterial anatomy revisited: digital subtraction angiography performed in 600 patients. Radiology 224:542–547

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lewandowski RJ, Sato KT, Atassi B et al (2007) Radioembolization with 90Y microspheres: angiographic and technical considerations. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 30:571–592

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hentati N, Pasco A, Fournier HD et al (2001) Double hepatomesenteric artery: a rare anatomical variant. Surg Radiol Anat 23:285–289

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Liu DM, Salem R, Bui JT et al (2005) Angiographic considerations in patients undergoing liver-directed therapy. J Vasc Interv Radiol 16:911–935

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Arora R, Soulen MC, Haskal ZJ (1999) Cutaneous complications of hepatic chemoembolization via extrahepatic collaterals. J Vasc Interv Radiol 10:1351–1356

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kubisch CH, Beigel F, Ihrler S et al (2010) Oesophageal ulceration after selective internal radiation therapy in a patient with carcinoma of unknown primary. Z Gastroenterol 48:546–550

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

There is no actual or potential conflict of interest in relation to this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, University of Munich, Campus Grosshadern, Marchioninistrasse 15, Munich, Germany

    P. M. Paprottka & M. F. Reiser

  2. Institute of Clinical Radiology, Hospital Barmherzige Brüder Munich, Romanstr. 93, 80639, Munich, Germany

    T. F. Jakobs

  3. Institute of Clinical Radiology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany

    R. T. Hoffmann

Authors
  1. P. M. Paprottka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. F. Jakobs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. F. Reiser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. T. Hoffmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. M. Paprottka.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Paprottka, P.M., Jakobs, T.F., Reiser, M.F. et al. Practical Vascular Anatomy in the Preparation of Radioembolization. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 35, 454–462 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-011-0169-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-011-0169-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation