Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Radioembolization is nowadays dominated by 99mTc MAA for pretreatment study of biodistribution and dosimetry, and by 90Y microspheres for therapy Physical properties of such radionuclide are: 64 h half-life, beta emission maximal energy 2280 keV, beta abundance 99.9%, no gamma, and 32 positron emissions per million of transformations. A new kind of medical device available for therapy recently became commercially available also for planning: polylactic acid (PLLA) microspheres labeled with 166Ho. Such radionuclide has a 26.8 h half-life, dual beta emission with maximal energy of 1770 keV (49%)–1850 keV (50%) and, new aspect, it is paramagnetic and it emits gamma photons at 81 keV, with low abundance (6.7%). Gamma photons allow SPECT/CT imaging and dosimetry (some days after therapy to avoid gammacamera saturation) [1], while paramagnetism gives the additional possibility of post-therapy MRI evaluation. Publications about the use of 166Ho in therapy are available [2, 3], but this application is not under discussion here.
We are rather focusing on the just published work by the Utrecht centre [4], which demonstrated higher accuracy of intra-liver dosimetric prediction using a tracer injection of 166Ho microspheres (the so-called 166Ho scout dose) with respect to 99mTc MAA. Scout dose consists in the angiography-guided administration of 250 MBq of 166Ho microspheres (about 3 million of particles) instead of some hundred thousand of 99mTc MAA particles. The activity was fixed on one side in order to be safe even in case of lung shunt during simulation [5], and on the other side to be sufficiently high to allow ordinary gamma camera imaging (planar + SPECT/CT scan), despite the low photon abundance. Medium energy collimators are needed to reduce the remarkable amount of bremsstrahlung photons impinging on the detector.
Readers used to simulations with MAA might argue which advantages could be provided by 166Ho scout dose. Several authors investigated the problem of accuracy of prediction with 99mTc MAA. This is obviously a crucial factor for an accurate dosimetric treatment planning. The first evidence of differences between MAA prediction and the actual microspheres biodistribution were published studying 90Y resin particles with bremsstrahlung SPECT [6, 7]. Those papers indicated the first reasons for discrepancy: bad catheter tip repositioning, above all in proximity of an arterial bifurcation. The Utrecht group confirmed this, but remarked the importance of the difference in number and size between MAA and 90Y resin spheres [8]. They further investigated the problem with a key work comparing prediction of lung absorbed dose with MAA versus 166Ho scout dose, having as gold standard the true lung absorbed dose obtained with 166Ho SPECT/CT after therapeutic infusion [9]. The lung dose overestimation with MAA was systematic, huge with planar imaging, but still large even if evaluated on fully corrected 3D 99mTc SPECT/CT images. Median lung absorbed dose was 0.2 Gy evaluated both pre-therapy (scout dose) and post-therapy with 166Ho SPECT/CT, while it was overestimated to 2.5 Gy according to 99mTc MAA SPECT/CT.
A major reason for such a large discrepancy is the difference in size and material between the simulation and therapy particles. MAA are not solid, and, above all, their size distribution extends from 10 μm to more than 100 μm [10]. The problem of the large lung shunt overestimation with MAA probably derives from the portion of MAA with small size (10 μm). These have higher penetrability in capillaries with respect any kind of therapeutic microspheres (resin, glass, and PLLA), which are more than twice larger in diameter. MAA can therefore more easily pass through arterious to venous capillaries, and reach lungs.
As a first note about methodology found in publications, correlation and concordance tests are not the best statistical tools to perform comparison between pre- and peri-therapy dosimetry. They are poor tools in pointing out individual differences, which are important in individualized treatment planning for the most aggressive and crucial therapy in nuclear medicine. Bland–Altmann developed a simple way focused on testing the agreement in individual cases between two methods of quantitative evaluation [11, 12]. In our case, this method considers the set of differences between pre- and peri-therapy evaluations. It plots each absorbed dose comparison as a dot having the difference as Y-coordinate, and their mean value as X-coordinate. The global analysis is summarized by two parameters: the bias, which is the average over all differences, and most important, the 95% C.I., i.e., the dispersion of such differences, measured as ± 1.96 times their standard deviation. The ideal simulation, and the ideal interventional radiologist, would result in the ideal Bland–Altmann plot with bias = 0 and standard deviation = 0, where all dots should lie on the X-axis, without any individual difference between prediction and therapy.
The Ssecond note about the application of Bland–Altman methodology concerns the sample size. The accurate determination of the 95% C.I. evidently requires to observe the 5% of improbable cases. Since these happens on the average in the 1/20 ratio, we cannot expect to have a good evaluation of the 95th percentile using 10 or 20 patients. A similar sample size will statistically provide only the “good” cases, i.e., those within the 95% C.I.. A rigorous statistical analysis would require to estimate the uncertainty about the extreme values of the 95% C.I.
Coming back to the reliability of MAA absorbed dose prediction, in more recent literature, dosimetric comparison exploited the more quantitatively accurate 90Y PET imaging. Gnesin et al. studied 7 patients treated with glass and 20 patient studied with resin spheres [13]. On tumors, authors obtained a ratio between MAA and 90Y PET-absorbed dose ranging from 0.6 to 2.5. These astonishing values mean that MAA prediction differed from − 40% to 250% with respect to the true absorbed dose, both for glass and resin spheres, with a median ratio 99mTc/90Y of 1.46 for glass and 1.16 for resin spheres. Jadoul et al. [14] compared MAA evaluations to resin spheres on 20 primary HCC and 20 metastatic patients, while for other 20 HCC patients they used glass spheres. They obtained bias and (95% C.I.) with resin spheres of − 11 Gy (− 68 Gy, 46 Gy) for HCC and − 8 Gy (− 69 Gy; 52 Gy) for metastases, and 16 Gy (− 144 Gy, 175 Gy) for HCC with glass spheres. Kafrouni et al. [15], with glass spheres on 24 patients, obtained lower but still important C.I., of about (− 50 Gy, + 40 Gy) for lesions. Richetta et al. [16] with 10 patients treated with resin spheres obtained − 6 Gy (− 80 Gy, 68 Gy).
According to all these studies, the situation is definitely better for normal liver, with a median (range) ratio of 0.88 (0.56, 1.00) for glass, and 0.86 (0.58, 1.35) for resin spheres according to Gnesin et al. [13], while bias and (95% C.I.) of − 1.4 Gy (− 16 Gy, 13 Gy) for HCC with glass spheres, with resin spheres 0.2 Gy (− 6 Gy, 6 Gy) for HCC, and − 1.4 Gy (− 12 Gy ; 9 Gy) for metastases according to Jadoul et al. [14], about 0 Gy (− 12 Gy, + 11 Gy) for Kafrouni et al. [15], and 1 Gy (− 7 Gy, 9 Gy) for Richetta et al. [16].
It is evident that, beyond some authors’ conclusive statements like “for HCC there is a good correlation between the predicted dose to the tumour estimated on99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT” or mentioning “good correlation and no significant differences”, their plots and 95% C.I. show for lesions indisputably marked differences between predicted and actual absorbed dose in several patients, especially for lesions. The problem was further enlightened for glass spheres by Haste et al. [17] who report for lesions of 63 patients a bias of − 14 Gy (− 355 Gy, 327 Gy), and for parenchyma, a zero bias and a 95% C.I. of 0 Gy (− 15 Gy, 15 Gy). Their data were obtained with a pure SPECT system, without CT-based attenuation correction. This is not a major limit on dosimetric accuracy, as long as the patient relative calibration method is adopted [18, 19], as authors did. With this method, the conversion from counts to activity in a VOI is based on the ratio between the intended or administered net 90Y total therapeutic activity divided by the total technecium or therapy counts in each patient.
The above reported confidence intervals (or range of ratios by Gnesin et al.), are unacceptably large for lesions and suboptimal for non tumoral liver, if compared to the thresholds of toxicity and efficacy proposed in literature, which are for resin spheres of 50–70 Gy to liver [20] and 150 Gy to lesions [21], and for glass spheres of about 75 Gy for parenchyma [22, 23] or 120 Gy to the injected volume if its fraction is larger than 70% [24], and 205 Gy for lesions [24, 25]. Beyond that, since nuclear medicine therapy is a kind of radiotherapy, it could be worth recalling that our colleagues in external beam have a limit of ± 5% on the treatment dosimetric uncertainty [26]. The above reported uncertainty of MAA prediction for lesions casts a serious shadow on the possibility of a reliable individual planning based on tumor-absorbed dose, while a more predictive MAA planning can be obtained to the non-tumoral tissue.
The above statement about poor MAA prediction for lesions should not be intended as “MAA dosimetry is totally useless.” The optimal good correlation between MAA predicted lesion absorbed dose and response, progression-free survival, overall survival [27,28,29] are explained by the low bias values reported by all authors. This means that MAA planning works on the average over many patients. Response rate, tumor control probability, progression-free survival, and overall survival are average properties of a studied cohort. We could think that for each underestimated lesion value, there is an overestimation with another, giving a balance. Therefore, 99mTc MAA dosimetry is useful indeed to optimize treatment on the average; but for instance, the choice of treating or not an individual patient depending on the MAA predicted lesion absorbed dose is debatable.
The novelty of the 166Ho scout dose in the paper under focus [4] is the demonstrated improvement in accuracy prediction with respect to 99mTc MAA. 95% C.I. for lesions were reduced from (− 164 Gy, 197 Gy) with MAA, to (− 90 Gy, 105 Gy) with 166Ho scout dose. Authors properly evaluated the uncertainty on the extreme of the 95% C.I. to assess the significance of the improvement.
The study is limited to colorectal metastases. However, on the basis of the results obtained by Jadoul et al. (better MAA prediction for HCC than for metastases), we can believe that, similarly, 166Ho scout dose could improve prediction on HCC even more than obtained on metastases [4]. The use of the same particle for simulation and therapy is in principle promising in all applications.
Accuracy of 166Ho scout dose prediction is however not free from limits. It cannot solve all problems of radioembolization, which shows the highest operator dependence among all nuclear medicine therapies, with additional problems of catheter kind, vasospasm [30], etc. Even the problem of the different number of injected particles in the two sessions is not solved. Moreover, consider that in this kind of comparison, the reproducibility of VOI positioning or an imperfect image co-registration has a role. Therefore, the Bland–Altman plot with 166Ho scout dose is still not ideal [4], i.e., differences between simulation and therapy are still present, but by sure reduced for lesions with respect to MAA. After the papers by Smits et al. [4], and by Elshot et al. [9], nobody can deny that using MAA instead of therapeutic microspheres introduces important differences between pre- and peri-therapy biodistribution and dosimetry.
As always, the diffusion in the clinical practice of 166Ho microspheres planning and therapy will be influenced by the tradeoff between pro and cons. Remember that, despite the low photon abundance, the exposure rates close to a patient after 166Ho therapeutic administration [31] make it difficult to avoid at least one night of hospitalization in a shielded room, while this is not necessary with the 10 times lower exposure rates from patients treated with 90Y microspheres [32]. Moreover, the high bremsstrahlung photon emission forces to use medium energy collimators for SPECT/CT, with unavoidable loss of spatial resolution.
Beyond the specific considerations about the use of the 166Ho scout dose, we remark the importance of this additional step forward towards personalized treatment planning by a microsphere producer. All microsphere companies are making efforts in the same direction, either reconsidering the impact of missing optimization in the failure of their phase III studies [33], or producing specific software for optimization (SimplicityTM, Velocity RapidsphereTM, QsuiteTM).
To conclude, we do not know which is “the best particle” for radioembolization [34], but by sure we now know which is the best one nowadays for individual treatment planning, both on liver and lung.
References
Elschot M, Nijsen JF, Dam AJ, de Jong HW. Quantitative evaluation of scintillation camera imaging characteristics of isotopes used in liver radioembolization. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e26174.
Smits MLJ, Nijsen JFW, van den Bosch MAAJ, Lam MGEH, Vente MAD, Mali WPTM, van het Schip AD, BA Zonnenberg. Holmium-166 radioembolisation in patients with unresectable, chemorefractory liver metastases (HEPAR trial): a phase 1, dose-escalation study. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:1025-1034.
Smits MLJ, Elschot M, van den Bosch MAAJ, van de Maat GH, van het Schip AD, Zonnenberg BA, et al. In vivo dosimetry based on SPECT and MR imaging of 166Ho-microspheres for treatment of liver malignancies. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1–8.
Smits MLJ, Dassen MG, Prince JF, Braat AJAT, Beijst C, Bruijnen RCG, et al. The superior predictive value of 166Ho-scout compared with 99mTc-macroaggregated albumin prior to 166Ho-microspheres radioembolization in patients with liver metastases. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04460-y.
Prince JF, van Rooij R, Bol GH, de Jong HWAM, van den Bosch MAAJ, Lam MGEH. Safety of a scout dose preceding hepatic radioembolization with 166Ho microspheres. J Nucl Med. 2015;56:817–23.
Knesaurek K, Machac J, Muzinic M, DaCosta M, Zhang Z, Heiba S. Quantitative comparison of yttrium-90 (90Y)-microspheres and technetium-99m (99mTc)-macroaggregated albumin SPECT images for planning 90Y therapy of liver cancer. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2010;9:253–62.
Jiang M, Fishman A, Nowakowski FS, Heiba S, Zhang Z, Knesaurek K, et al. Segmental perfusion differences on paired Tc-99m macroaggregated albumin (MAA) hepatic perfusion imaging and yttrium-90 Y-90 bremstrahlung imaging studies in SIR-spere radioembolization: associations with angiography. J Nucl Med Radiat Ther. 2012;3:1.
Wondergem M, Smits ML, Elschot M, de Jong HW, Verkooijen HM, van den Bosch MA, et al. 99mTc-macroaggregated albumin poorly predicts the intrahepatic distribution of 90Y resin microspheres in hepatic radioembolization. J Nucl Med. 2013;54:1294–301. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.112.117614.
Elschot M, Nijsen JFW, Lam MGEH, et al. 99mTc-MAA overestimates the absorbed dose to the lungs in radioembolization: a quantitative evaluation in patients treated with 166Homicrospheres. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41:1965–75.
Hunt AP, Frier M, Johnson RA, Berezenko S. A.C. Perkins Preparation of Tc-99mmacroaggregated albumin from recombinant human albumin for lung perfusion imaging. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2006;62:26–31.
Altman DG, Bland JM. Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison studies. Statistician. 1983;32:307–17 https://doi.org/10.2307/2987937.
Kopp-Schneider A, Hielscher T. How to evaluate agreement between quantitative measurements. Radiother Oncol. 2019 Sep 25. pii: S0167-8140(19)33077-33074. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radonc.2019.09.004. [Epub ahead of print]
Gnesin S, Canetti L, Adib S, Cherbuin N, Silva Monteiro M, Bize P, et al. Boubaker. A partition model-based 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT predictive dosimetry compared with 90Y TOF PET/CT posttreatment dosimetry in radioembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma: a quantitative agreement comparison. J Nucl Med. 2016 Nov;57(11):1672–8.
Jadoul A, Bernard C, Lovinfosse P, Gérard L, Lilet H, Cornet O, et al. Comparative dosimetry between 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT and 90Y PET/CT in primary and metastatic liver tumors. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Aug;6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04465-7 [Epub ahead of print].
Kafrouni M, Allimant C, Fourcade M, Vauclin S, Guiu B, Mariano-Goulart D, et al. Analysis of differences between 99mTc-MAA SPECT- and 90Y-microsphere PET-based dosimetry for hepatocellular carcinoma selective internal radiation therapy. EJNMMI Res. 2019;9:62.
Richetta E, Pasquino M, Poli M, Cutaia C, Valero C, Tabone M, et al. PET-CT post therapy dosimetry in radioembolization with resin 90Y microspheres: comparison with pre-treatment SPECT-CT 99mTc-MAA results. Phys Med. 2019;64:16–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmp.2019.05.025.
Haste P, Tann M, Persohn S, LaRoche T, Aaron V, Mauxion T, et al. Correlation of technetium-99m macroaggregated albumin and yttrium-90 glass microsphere biodistribution in hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective review of pretreatment single photon emission CT and posttreatment positron emission tomography/CT. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017;28:722–30.
Pacilio M, Ferrari M, Chiesa C, Lorenzon L, Mira M, Botta F, et al. Impact of SPECT corrections on 3Ddosimetry for liver transarterial radioembolization using the patient relative calibration methodology. Med Phys. 2016 Jul;43(7):4053.
Botta F, Ferrari M, Chiesa C, Vitali S, Guerriero F, Nile MC, et al. Impact of missing attenuation and scatter corrections on 99m Tc-MAA SPECT 3D dosimetry for liver radioembolization using the patient relative calibration methodology: a retrospective investigation on clinical images. Med Phys. 2018 Apr;45(4):1684–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.12774.
Lau WY, Kennedy AS, Kim YH, Lai HK, Lee RC, Leung TW, et al. Patient selection and activity planning guide for selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;82:401–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.08.015.
Strigari L, Sciuto R, Rea S, Carpanese L, Pizzi G, Soriani A, et al. Efficacy and toxicity related to treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with 90Y SIR spheres: radiobiologic considerations. J Nucl Med. 2010;51:1377–85.
Chiesa C, Mira M, Maccauro M, Spreafico C, Romito R, Morosi C, et al. Radioembolization of hepatocarcinoma with 90-Y glass microspheres: development of an individualized treatment planning strategy based on dosimetry and radiobiology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Im. 2015;42:1718–38.
Salem R, Padia SA, Lam M, Bell J, Chiesa C, Fowers K, et al. Clinical and dosimetric considerations for Y90: recommendations from an international multidisciplinary working group. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(8):1695–704.
Garin E, Lenoir L, Edeline J, Laffont S, Mesbah H, Porée P, et al. Boosted selective internal radiation therapy with 90Y-loaded glass microspheres (B-SIRT) for hepatocellular carcinoma patients: a new personalized promising concept. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40:1057–68.
Garin E, Lenoir L, Rolland Y, Edeline J, Mesbah H, Laffont S. Dosimetry based on 99mTcmacroaggregated albumin SPECT/CT accurately predicts tumor response and survival in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with 90Y-loaded glass microspheres: preliminary results. J Nucl Med. 2012;53:255–63.
ICRU report 24 determination of absorbed dose in a patient irradiated by beams of X or gamma rays in radiotherapy. Journal of the International Commission on Radiation Units and Measurements. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicru/os13.1.Report24.
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 90Y-loaded glass microsphere radioembolization. Liver Int. 2017;37:101–10.
Kokabi N, Galt JR, Xing M, Camacho JC, Barron BJ, Schuster DM, et al. A simple method for estimating dose delivered to hepatocellular carcinoma after yttrium-90 glass-based radioembolization therapy: preliminary results of a proof of concept study. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014;25:277–87.
Cremonesi M, Chiesa C, Strigari L, Ferrari M, Botta F, Guerriero F, et al. Radioembolization of hepatic lesions from a radiobiology and dosimetric perspective. Front Oncol. 2014;4:210. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2014.00210 eCollection 2014.
Garin E, Rolland Y, Laffont S, Edeline J. Clinical impact of (99m)Tc-MAA SPECT/CT-based dosimetry in the radioembolization of liver malignancies with (90)Y-loaded microspheres. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43(3):559–75.
Prince F, Smits MLJ, Krijger GC, Zonnenberg BA, van den Bosch MAAJ, Nijsen JFW, et al. Radiation emission from patients treated with holmium-166 radioembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014;25:1956–1963ù.
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency - Radiation Protection Series n. 4 - Recommendations for the discharge of patients undergoing treatment with radioactive substances 2002
Vilgrain V, Pereira H, Assenat E, Guiu B, Ilonca AD, Pageaux GP, et al. Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;12(18(12)):1624–36.
Van Der Gucht A, Jreige M, Denys A, Blanc-Durand P, Boubaker A, Pomoni A, et al. Resin versus glass microspheres for 90Y transarterial radioembolization: comparing survival in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma using pretreatment partition model dosimetry. J Nucl Med. 2017 Aug;58(8):1334–40.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
This paper did not involve research on humans nor on animals.
Conflict of interest
In the last three years, Carlo Chiesa and Marco Maccauro received fees as speakers from Biocompatibles Uk Ltd, producer of 90Y glass microspheres, and from TERUMO, producer of 166Ho microspheres. They received honoraria as consultant from Biocompatibles UK Ltd. Carlo Chiesa received a grant for an Investigator Initiated Study from the same Company. He is consultant of Alfasigma S.p.A.
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
Chiesa, C., Maccauro, M. 166Ho microsphere scout dose for more accurate radioembolization treatment planning. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 47, 744–747 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04617-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00259-019-04617-9