This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/authorsrights
Author's personal copy
Y90 Selective Inter n al
Radi ation T h e r apy
Edward W. Lee, MD, PhDa,*, Avnesh S. Thakor,
David M. Liu, MDb
MD, PhD
b
, Bashir A. Tafti,
MD
a
,
KEYWORDS
Y90 Selective internal radiation therapy Liver Malignancy
KEY POINTS
Multiple prospective phase II, III, and retrospective studies have demonstrated the safety,
efficacy, and tolerability of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) in hepatocellular cancer (HCC) and colorectal metastasis (CRM).
SIRT could potentially be used for downsizing of an HCC lesion to allow for definitive therapies, such as liver transplantation or resection.
SIRT has shown some survival benefit as a treatment option in patients with
chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.
SIRT has its innate complications, but it seems to be better tolerated by patients than
chemoembolization.
INTRODUCTION
Primary liver malignancies and liver metastases are affecting millions of individuals
worldwide.1–3 The definitive management of liver tumors (both primary and secondary)
remains a challenge in the unresectable patient population.4 Established treatment
modalities including surgical resection and liver transplantation have been the only
curative options offered to patients with any success but are only applicable to roughly
10% of patients.5–8 Minimally invasive treatments, such as ablation and transarterial
chemoembolization (TACE), have traditionally been used in selective patients with
early disease or as a palliative option when surgery is not possible. Even when such
options are made available, treatment paradigms vary; as a result, techniques, selection, and clinical outcomes (especially in the setting of embolic therapy) have been
limited.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
a
Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, UCLA Medical Center, David Geffen
School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA; b Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of British Columbia Medical Center, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
* Corresponding author. Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology,
Ronald Reagan Medical Center at UCLA, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, 757
Westwood Plaza, Suite 2125, Los Angeles, CA 90095-743730.
E-mail address: EdwardLee@mednet.ucla.edu
Surg Oncol Clin N Am 24 (2015) 167–185
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soc.2014.09.011
surgonc.theclinics.com
1055-3207/15/$ – see front matter Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
168
Lee et al
Author's personal copy
Hepatocellular cancer (HCC) is the sixth most common cancer in the world. Risk
factors for the development of HCC include viral hepatitis (ie, hepatitis B virus and
hepatitis C virus), alcohol abuse, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, intake of aflatoxincontaminated food, obesity, diabetes, and hereditary conditions (such as
hemochromatosis).
The efficacy of lipiodol-based TACE has been established in early stage HCC9; however, this approach remains controversial in advanced-disease patients. Furthermore,
no prospective randomized controlled comparative studies have been conducted for
the use of TACE in any metastatic condition. Neuroendocrine disease, a condition
notorious for variability in presentation and prognosis, represents the largest investigated population (in retrospective or single-arm prospective design trials). Drugeluting bead has demonstrated early favorable results with the use of irinotecan in
the CRM population, with limited prospective trials with moderate response (in varied
clinical settings).10
The implementation of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) in the HCC and
CRM setting has demonstrated a more formalized and disciplined approach, with
phase III level I data demonstrated in the CRM populations and large, prospective
as well as retrospective cohorts in the HCC population demonstrating safety, efficacy,
and tolerability.11–15
History and Evolution of Radioembolization
Although radiation therapy has proven useful in the treatment of various malignancies, this by large has not been the case with hepatic malignancies. External radiation therapy has not played a major role in the treatment of HCC secondary to the
relatively low tolerance of the liver to radiation.16 The liver is only able to tolerate between 30 and 50 Gy before patients begin experiencing significant radiation-induced
liver disease (RILD).16 However, liver tumors often need radiation doses on the order
of 90 to 100 Gy or greater for effective treatment.16,17 The limitations associated with
external beam radiation have been addressed with the development of radioembolization. Radioembolization or SIRT involves selectively injecting radioactive microparticles via a catheter into the hepatic artery branches feeding liver tumors, where the
microparticles lodge in the tumor microvasculature.18 With this technique, radiation
doses as high as 150 Gy can be delivered to a localized region in the liver, thereby
eliminating cancerous cells while sparing healthy liver and reducing the incidence
of RILD.19,20
The theory behind radioembolization fundamentally rests on the vascular anatomy
of the liver. Hepatic lesions receive most of their blood supply from the hepatic artery,
whereas normal liver parenchyma receives most of its blood supply from the portal
vein.17 In addition, hepatic tumors also have neovasculature arising from the branches
of the hepatic artery that is denser than that of the normal liver parenchyma.21 Given
this anatomic difference, treatment of liver tumors via a transarterial approach is
clearly an attractive idea, as it would limit exposure of extremely cytotoxic medications
to normal liver parenchyma.21 In the past decade, developments have made such
mechanisms safer and more efficacious in the treatment of liver disease. TACE is
now a widely used treatment option for HCC and metastatic liver cancer with proven
results but also with proven significant side effects, namely, hepatic toxicity.22,23
The mechanism of action of SIRT is fundamentally different from that of chemoembolization. During chemoembolization, blood vessels supplying the tumor are embolized/blocked to stasis, thus allowing maximum exposure of the chemotherapeutic
agent to the ischemic environment created within the tumor. In contrast, blood flow
and oxygen is required for SIRT to enable the generation of free radicals, via the
Author's personal copy
Y90 Selective Internal Radiation Therapy
ionization of water molecules from the emitted b-radiation. Clinical trials of yttrium-90
microsphere (Y-90) therapy for hepatic tumors date back to the early 1960s.24 Microspheres are embedded with Yttrium-90, an isotope of yttrium and a pure beta particle
emitter.4 Y-90 has a half-life of 63 hours, a mean energy per disintegration of
0.937 MeV, and emits beta particles, which cause cell necrosis with a mean tissue
penetrance of approximately 2.5 mm.4 These characteristics make Y-90 an excellent
isotope choice for internal radiation therapy.4
Currently, there are 2 products approved by the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) that are clinically used for radioembolization.25 TheraSphere particles (BTG
Medical, PA; FDA approved for HCC in 1999) are glass microspheres that have a
high specific activity and measure 20 to 30 mm in size.25,26 The term specific activity
means the amount of radioactivity of Y-90 per a microsphere. Because each glass
particle contains roughly 2500 Bq per sphere, only 1 to 2 million spheres (lower volume) are usually needed for each treatment.19 SIR-Sphere particles (Sirtex, Australia;
FDA approved for colorectal liver metastasis in 2002) are made of resin, have a lower
specific gravity, and measure 20 to 60 mm in size.26 Each resin microsphere contains
about 50 Bq per sphere; hence, 40 to 60 million spheres are usually needed to treat an
average patient. Although TheraSpheres do not have a significant embolic effect on
hepatic tumors, SIRSpheres are large enough that they may have a minimal embolic
effect.19,26
As more microparticles are administered with SIRSphere treatment, the result is in a
more even distribution of particles and, hence, delivery of radiation throughout the tumor. In contrast, as TheraSphere particles are administered in lower numbers because
of their higher specific activity, this predisposes them to have inhomogeneous tumoral
coverage caused by the phenomenon of microclustering (particles preferentially accumulate within the periphery of the tumor). Excessive radiation exposure as a result of
particle accumulation has been shown to result in parenchymal fissuring, lobar edema,
or compensatory hypertrophy of nontreated liver. As each microparticle has its own
dose cloud, radiation-induced treatment of tumors is the result of the collective effect
of multiple microparticles that create a cumulative isodose cloud of lethal radiation
exposure (via crossfire) in the range of 100 to 1000 Gy.
The amount of activity (ie, ionizing radiation) delivered with each type of microparticle can be estimated using either the body surface area (BSA) or the partition model.
SIRT with resin microspheres uses the BSA model, which is supported by a recent
study showing direct correlation of BSA with the volume of nontumoral liver as calculated by computed tomography (CT).27 In contrast, SIRT with glass microspheres
uses a compartmental model. Although a single compartment model is currently
advocated, whereby the size of the entire liver is used irrespective of the volume of
tumor burden, activity calculations previously used a 2-compartmental model incorporating both the tumor and normal background liver volume. The advantage of the
latter method is that it allows more accurate optimization of the amount of radiation
delivered to tumors. The compartmental model ensures that only the right amount of
radiation is given to patients to cause tumor cell death and not excessive radiation
placing patients at unnecessary risk of developing RILD. This point is particularly
important in those patients with limited background liver reserve.28,29 The empiric
method, which is usually not recommended, incorporates only tumor size based
on imaging.30
Radioembolization Technique
Generally, patients with a life expectancy of 3 months with unresectable primary or
metastatic hepatic tumors and those with tumor burden predominantly involving the
169
170
Lee et al
Author's personal copy
liver, which is considered a life-limiting factor, are considered for radioembolization.31
Patients with metastatic disease not on clinical trials should either be undergoing firstline chemotherapy concurrently or have failed first-line chemotherapy.31 Contraindications to radioembolization therapy include patients with a significant tumor burden
who have a limited amount of normal liver parenchyma that would not tolerate radioembolization.31 In addition, patients with an elevated serum total bilirubin level greater
than 2 mg/dL without a reversible source are not eligible.31 Unlike chemoembolization,
portal vein thrombosis is not contraindicated, as SIRT has a minimal embolic effect.
Before undergoing radioembolization, a laboratory evaluation should be performed
to assess the patients’ hepatic and renal function and also to establish the baseline
tumor markers (eg, alpha fetoprotein for HCC, CA 19-9 for cholangiocarcinoma, and
CEA for colorectal cancer) if not already established.31 Imaging via 3-phase contrast
CT scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis or gadolinium-enhanced MRI is then performed to identify and characterize the hepatic tumors that will be targeted as well as
the extrahepatic tumors throughout the body.31 Using the same CT or MRI data, a
3-dimensional (3D) volumetric analysis should be done before treatment to calculate
the tumor volume, total liver volume, and liver reserve (Fig. 1). After determining that
a patient’s particular tumors and clinical presentation are suitable for radioembolization, patients should undergo hepatic angiography (pre-SIRT mapping procedure) 1
to 3 weeks before the treatment (Fig. 2).31 This part is vital to the pretreatment planning phase allowing for dosimetry calculations to be made before treatment administration.31 In addition, angiography allows for the mapping of the major hepatic vessels,
the superior mesenteric artery, and the celiac artery.31 If variant anatomy is demonstrated on the angiogram that would allow for nontargeting embolization of gastroduodenal or gastric arteries, these vessels should be embolized or an antireflux catheter
system should be used to avoid potential radiation injury to other organs, including
radiation-induced pancreatitis or gastric ulcers.31 In addition to vascular mapping, a
hepatopulmonary shunt is assessed using 99mTc macroaggregated albumin (MAA)
(Fig. 3).31,32 In this nuclear medicine study, 99mTc-labelled MAA is first injected
intra-arterially and then either single-photon emission CT (SPECT) or a planar study
of the chest and abdomen are subsequently performed within few hours of the injection.33 If the scan shows that the lungs and/or gastrointestinal (GI) tract are at risk for
radiation exposure greater than 30 Gy, radioembolization is contraindicated given the
high risk for extrahepatic toxicity, especially radiation-induced pneumonitis, which
could be fatal. It is also possible to limit extrahepatic toxicity by embolizing the
observed shunts or performing pre-SIRT TACE. Another 99mTc-labelled MAA scan
should be done subsequently to confirm success of the embolization to decrease a
shunt.
On the day of SIRT treatment, a hepatic angiogram is again performed to confirm
the vascular anatomy and the optimal location of microsphere injection based on
the prior mapping. After the confirmation, the vessels feeding the lobe or segment
of the liver containing targeted liver tumors are accessed and microspheres are
then injected based on product monograph, as each company has a unique injection
apparatus and technique. Once the microspheres are injected, patients are transferred to the nuclear medicine department again for additional SPECT or a planar
study of the chest and abdomen to confirm the distribution of SIRT microspheres
within the desired location (Fig. 4). If sequential lobar treatment was planned, the other
lobe should be treated about 1 month following the first treatment to give the patients
and liver to recover from the treatment.
Following radioembolization, triple-phase CT or liver MRI with contrast agent is
often obtained in 1, 3, and 6 months to monitor any changes in the appearance of liver
Author's personal copy
Y90 Selective Internal Radiation Therapy
Fig. 1. A pre-SIRT treatment 2-dimensional and 3D volumetric analysis of (A, B) total liver
volume and (C, D) tumor volume using CT images obtained before the treatment. These
values are used for SIRT dose calculation.
and liver tumors.34,35 The most common postprocedure initial imaging finding at
1 month is decreased attenuation or intensity in the treated regions, which represents
hepatic edema, congestion, and microinfarction of tissue.34,35 Of note, early CT findings may not represent the efficacy of the radioembolization procedure because many
of these changes are reversible or partially reversible and self-limiting. Therefore, additional follow-up imaging at 3 or 6 months postprocedure is recommended to evaluate
tumor response.34,35 In addition, PET imaging may be beneficial in select patients with
hypovascular tumors to track postprocedural changes and can show decreased
metabolic activity of treated areas.36
OUTCOMES
Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Each year, more than 1.25 million new cases of HCC are diagnosed worldwide, resulting in more than 0.5 million deaths.6,37 HCC is the sixth most common malignancy
worldwide and represents the third most common cause of malignancy-related
171
172
Lee et al
Author's personal copy
Fig. 2. A pre-SIRT treatment angiogram of (A) superior mesenteric artery and (B) celiac trunk
to delineate the vascular anatomy of liver and liver tumors and to search for anatomic
variants, such as replaced right or left hepatic artery. During this angiography, the gastric
arteries and gastroduodenal artery are also identified; (C) they are prophylactically embolized to prevent any radiation-induced injury to stomach or pancreas.
morbidity.1,6 Clearly, HCC represents a disease process that is affecting the quality of
life of millions of patients worldwide. Despite new advances in medical and surgical
therapies, the treatment of HCC has largely remained unsatisfactory.4 In randomized
controlled trials, locoregional therapies have been shown to improve survival in select
patients. However, TACE and trans-arterial embolization (TAE) have also been associated with a high risk of inducing liver failure, particularly in patients with portal vein
thrombosis that compromises blood flow to the liver and also in patients with multiple,
large tumors.38 In the past decade, extensive research has been conducted to study
the effects of SIRT on HCC (Table 1). In their landmark study, Salem and colleagues39
reported a cohort of 291 patients with HCC that were treated with a total of 526 SIRT
sessions (mean of 1.8 per patient). The response rate and survival were the 2 principal
outcomes evaluated. Response rates after treatment were 42% based on the World
Health Organization (WHO) criteria and 57% based on the European Association for
Author's personal copy
Fig. 3. A planar image of whole body after injection of 99mTc MAA. Region of interest
drawn over the lung and liver to determine the lung shunt fraction.
Fig. 4. (A) An injection of SIRT microsphere in the replaced left hepatic artery via left gastric
artery. A tumor blush is noted in the angiogram, which is detected and correlated with the
post-SIRT treatment SPECT CT. (B) This post-SIRT SPECT CT can confirm successfully concentrated and distributed SIRT microspheres within the area of treatment.
173
174
Author's personal copy
Lee et al
Table 1
A summary of major studies of SIRT in HCC treatment
Investigator
N
Treatment
Overall Response Rate (%)
Survival
SIRT in first- or second-line treatment of intermediate to advanced HCC
D’Avola
35
43
SIRT
Conventional Tx
NR
NR
16 mo
8 mo
Salem
291
SIRT
42 (WHO)
57 (EASL)
17 mo (child A)
8 mo (child B)
Sangro
325
SIRT
BCLC A
BCLC B
BCLC C
Child A
Child B
NR
12.8
24.4
16.9
10.0
14.9
10.3
Inarrairaegui
72
SIRT
94
13 mo
Lau
18
SIRT (>120 Gy)
100
14 mo
Chow
35
SIRT then sorafenib
BCLC B
BCLC C
79
100
68
11.8 mo
18.3 mo
8.8 mo
Inarrairaegui
25
SIRT in PVT
67
10 mo
Sangro
183
SIRT in PVT
Main PVT
Branch PVT
NR
mo
mo
mo
mo
mo
mo
10.8 mo
7.4 mo
Abbreviations: BCLC, Barcelona clinic liver cancer; EASL, European Association for the Study of the
Liver; PVT, Portal Vein Thrombosis; WHO, World Health Organization.
the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria.39 Patients with Child-Pugh class A disease survived an average of 17.2 months after the procedure, and patients with Child-Pugh
class B disease survived an average of 7.7 months.39 The procedure itself was tolerated well with a 30-day mortality rate of 3%.39 In Europe, Sangro and Iñarrairaegui40
studied 325 patients from 8 centers. They reported the overall median survival of
12.8 months in 325 patients (82% Child A, 18% Child B, 24% solitary, and 76% multifocal). Mazzaferro and colleagues41 studied 52 patients undergoing radioembolization
for HCC and found that a complete response was seen in 9.6% of patients, whereas
an objective overall response was seen in 40.4% of patients. They also found that the
procedure was fairly well tolerated with a 30- to 90-day mortality rate of 0% to 3.8%.41
SIRT could potentially be used for downsizing of an HCC lesion to allow for definitive
therapies, such as liver transplantation or resection. Iñarrairaegui and colleagues42
studied 21 patients who initially underwent radioembolization for palliation. However,
the procedure ultimately resulted in a response significant enough for 6 patients to undergo definitive therapy. As would be expected, those responding patients demonstrated a drastic overall survival benefit.42 Similar findings were reported by Vouche
and colleagues43 in 2013 using SIRT as a method for radiation lobectomy in 83 patients.43 Five patients underwent curative right lobectomy, and 6 patients received
liver transplant after SIRT.
Several studies have attempted to compare the effectiveness of SIRT with the conventional TACE in patients with HCC. The largest series by Salem and colleagues44
studied 245 patients with HCC treated with either chemoembolization (122 patients)
or radioembolization (123 patients). The radioembolization group had a response
rate of 49%, whereas the chemoembolization group had a response rate of 36%.44
Author's personal copy
Y90 Selective Internal Radiation Therapy
Time to progression was also longer for the radioembolization group at 13.3 months
compared with 8.4 months for the chemoembolization group, but these differences
did not result in a statistically significant difference in median survival time.44 Lance
and colleagues45 also studied 73 patients with unresectable HCC who underwent
radioembolization or chemoembolization and found that there was no statistically significant difference in median survival. However, in both studies by Salem and colleagues44 and Lance and colleagues,45 severe symptoms of postembolization
syndrome requiring hospitalization were more prominent in the TACE group. These
questions of improved quality of life after radioembolization were further investigated.
Steel and colleagues46 studied the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients
with HCC who received either hepatic arterial infusion of cisplatin or SIRT. Initially,
the radioembolization group scored significantly higher on functional well-being and
overall HRQOL.46 Six months out from treatment, the SIRT group still scored dramatically higher in regard to functional well-being; but the overall HRQOL was not found to
be significantly different.46 Salem and colleagues47 also studied quality of life in 29
patients undergoing SIRT and 27 patients undergoing TACE for primary HCC. They
found that despite having more severe disease, the patients undergoing SIRT demonstrated a greater increase in their quality-of-life scores as compared with the patients
undergoing TACE.47
Metastatic Tumors of the Liver
Although HCC affects a large number of individuals, the liver is also a very common
site for metastatic disease from a variety of primary locations, including colon, neuroendocrine glands, breasts, and kidneys.14,48–51 This phenomenon can largely be
attributed to the fact that the liver has a large dual blood supply from the hepatic artery
and the portal vein draining the GI tract.52
Colorectal Cancer
Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents the third most common malignancy in the United
States and is the second leading cause of malignancy-related deaths,2 and more than
100,000 new cases of colon cancer and more than 40,000 new cases of rectal cancer
are diagnosed annually.2 In patients with CRC, liver metastasis is seen in roughly 60%
of patients because the liver serves as a blood filter between the hepatic venous system, the portal venous tract, and the GI tract.50 Notably, liver metastases are regarded
as the major cause of mortality and morbidity in patients with CRC.52
Radioembolization alone and as combined therapy with the conventional first- or
second-line chemotherapy has been extensively investigated (Table 2). Notably, in
a phase I clinical trial, Sharma and colleagues14 studied 22 patients undergoing
SIRT with systemic chemotherapy for unresectable liver metastases from colorectal
cancer. Patients received oxaliplatin/fluorouracil (FU)/leucovorin (LV) for the first cycle
and then just FU/LV for the second cycle followed by SIRT. Then, the patients received
oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (FOLFOX4) for cycles 4 through 12.14 Partial
response was seen in 18 patients, and stable disease was seen in 2 patients following
treatment. The median time to progression was 12.3 months.14 Kosmider and colleagues53 further studied the effectiveness of SIRT coupled with systemic chemotherapy. A total of 19 patients were studied with unresectable colorectal liver
metastases. Seven patients were given FU and LU in combination with radioembolization, whereas 12 patients received full FOLFOX therapy in combination with radioembolization.53 The overall response rate for both groups was 84%, with 2 patients
achieving a complete response and 14 patients receiving a partial response.53 Chua
and colleagues54 studied 140 patients with colorectal liver metastases that were
175
176
Author's personal copy
Lee et al
Table 2
A summary of major studies of SIRT in CRC liver metastasis treatment
Investigator
N
Overall
Response
Rate (%)
Survival
FOLFOX4 alone
27–59
16.2–20.7 mo
Treatment
SIRT in first-line treatment of CRC liver metastasis
Phase II/III
Gray
74
SIRT 1 HAC
HAC alone
44
18
39% (2 y)
29% (2 y)
Van Hazel
21
SIRT 1 5-FU/LV
5-FU/LV alone
91
0
29.4 mo
12.8 mo
Sharma
20
SIRT 1 FOLFOX4
90
NR
Kosmider
19
SIRT 1 FOLFOX4 5-FU/LV
84
29.4 mo
37.8 mo (L)
Tie
31
SIRT 1 FOLFOX4 5-FU/LV
91
30.7 mo (L)
Irinotecan
Irinotecan 1 cetuximab
Panitumumab
4–13
16–27
9–14
6.4–10 mo
8.6–10.7 mo
6.3–9.3
SIRT in second-line treatment of CRC liver metastasis
Phase II/III
Lim
30
SIRT 1 5-FU/LV (70%)
33
NR
Van Hazel
25
SIRT 1 irinotecan
48
12.2 mo
Cove-Smith
33
SIRT 1 FOLFIRI or FOLFOX-based
chemo
38
17.0 mo
SIRT in salvage therapy for chemorefractory CRC liver metastasis
Hedlisz
44
SIRT 1 5-FU
5-FU
86
35
10.0 mo
7.3 mo
Seidensticker
29
29
SIRT
Supportive care
58
0
8.3 mo
3.5 mo
Bester
224
29
SIRT
Conventional Tx
NR
11.9 mo
6.6 mo
Cosimelli
50
SIRT
48
12.6 mo
Sofocleous
19
SIRT
71
16 mo
Kennedy
606
SIRT
NR
9.6 mo
Coldwell
25
SIRT KRAS wt
SIRT KRAS mutant
NR
NR
NR
7.0 mo
Leoni
51
SIRT
53
10.5 mo
Cianni
41
SIRT
82
11.8 mo
Jakobs
41
SIRT
78
10.5 mo
Nace
51
SIRT
77
10.2 mo
Abbreviations: FOLFIRI, Leucovorin 1 5FU 1 Irinotecan; HAC, hepatic artery chemoinfusion; KRAS,
name of gene; NR, not reported; Tx, treatment; wt, wild-type.
treated with radioembolization therapy and systemic chemotherapy. They found that a
complete response was seen in 1% of patients, a partial response in 31%, and stable
disease was seen in 31%.54 Overall, 37% of patients experienced a progression in
their disease despite radioembolization.54 The group found that combining radioembolization with systemic chemotherapy significantly increased the efficacy of the
radioembolization compared with historical data.54
In addition, SIRT has also been studied as a treatment option in patients with
chemotherapy-refractory metastatic CRC. Cosimelli and colleagues55 conducted a
Author's personal copy
Y90 Selective Internal Radiation Therapy
phase II clinical trial investigating the utility of radioembolization in 50 patients who
previously failed systemic chemotherapy. Using RECIST (Response Evaluation
Criteria In Solid Tumor) criteria, 2% of the patients experienced a complete response,
22% experienced a partial response, and 24% had stable disease.55 Similar to the
combined group noted earlier, 44% of patients were found to have progressive disease on follow-up despite radioembolization therapy.55 The overall median survival
was 12.6 months with a 2-year survival rate of 19.6%.55 Similarly, Nace and colleagues56 treated 51 patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases that also
failed both first- and second-line chemotherapy options with SIRT. Using RECIST
criteria, 77% of patients experienced either a partial response or stable disease.56
The overall median survival was 10.2 months after treatment.56 In a phase III clinical
trial, investigators studied 46 patients undergoing SIRT combined with chemotherapy
in refractory metastatic CRC to the liver.11 All 46 patients had previously tried first-line
chemotherapy and had not responded appropriately.11 The patients were randomized
to either 5-FU alone or 5-FU combined with radioembolization.11 Although the time to
progression for liver disease was 2.1 months in the 5-FU group and 5.5 months for the
group receiving 5-FU with radioembolization, the overall survival rates were not significantly different.11 Of note, there is no consensus on which assessment criteria are
best to accurately evaluate the oncologic outcome of SIRT. However, radiologic
response criteria, such as WHO, RECIST, or RECIST with necrosis criteria, have
been frequently used. Moreover, Keppke and colleagues (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pubmed/17312067) have suggested that the RECIST with necrosis criteria may
provide more accurate assessment of SIRT.
SIRT has also been used as a salvage therapy. In 2011, Bester and colleagues57 reported the outcomes of 339 patients with chemorefractory metastatic CRC treated
with either SIRT or conservative palliative medical treatment. They reported that the patients who underwent SIRT treatment had an overall response rate of 63%. SIRT treatment also doubled the overall median survival to12 months compared with 6 months in
patients receiving conservative medical treatment.57 These findings were also seen in a
study reported by Seidensticker and colleagues.58 They also reported an overall median survival of 8.3 months in patients treated with SIRT as a salvage treatment
compared with a median survival of 3.5 months in the conservative treatment group.58
Neuroendocrine
Neuroendocrine tumors are relatively rare, with an incidence roughly between 0.002%
and 0.003%.2,59 They often arise in endocrine glands throughout the human body but
are commonly found in the GI tract and lungs.2,59 In terms of specific types, carcinoid,
pancreatic islet cell, paraganglioma, pheochromocytoma, and medullary thyroid cancers are the most common.59 These tumors often do not present with symptoms for
years until the tumor size and/or hormonal hypersecretion leads to noticeable symptoms.59 Carcinoid tumors can lead to symptoms of excess serotonin, including diarrhea,
skin flushing, and bronchospasm, particularly when they metastasize to the liver.59 In
patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumors, between 50% and 95% will ultimately
have liver metastases; of those, 80% will often die within 5 years.60 In terms of treatment
options, surgical resection has been the gold standard with a goal of removing as much
of the tumor as possible.61 However, 90% of patients present with multiple large lesions
that make surgical resection not an option.61 Even with surgical resection, the 5-year
survival rate has been reported as being between 60% and 80%.61 Liver transplantation
has also been tried in patients with neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases, with a
modest reported 5-year survival rate of 26% to 47%.62 For unresectable neuroendocrine metastases, proven treatment options have included medical therapies, such as
177
178
Author's personal copy
Lee et al
somatostatin analogues; ablative therapies, such as cryotherapy or radiofrequency
ablation (RFA); systemic chemotherapy; TAE; and TACE.63–65
SIRT has also been shown to play a potential role in the treatment of neuroendocrine
metastatic disease to the liver (Table 3). In a prospective study by Cao and colleagues,66 51 patients with neuroendocrine metastases to the liver were treated
with radioembolization. The results showed that 6 patients experienced a complete
response, 14 patients experienced a partial response, 14 patients were found to
have stable disease, and 17 patients were found to have progressed. The overall median survival was 36 months. Importantly, the 3-year survival rate was 89% at the end
of the study.66 Memon and colleagues59 achieved similar results when treating 40 patients with neuroendocrine hepatic lesions with radioembolization. The median dose
administered was 113 Gy; based on WHO criteria, 1.2% of patients achieved a complete response, whereas 62.7% achieved a partial response.59 In addition, when using
EASL criteria, the complete response rate increased to 20.5%.59 Paprottka and colleagues67 studied the effectiveness of SIRT in the treatment of 42 patients with refractory metastatic neuroendocrine hepatic tumors and showed positive results.67 Three
months following SIRT, the partial response rate was 22.5%, the stable disease rate
was 75%, and the progressive disease rate was 2.5%. Shaheen and colleagues68
studied 25 patients with neuroendocrine tumor liver metastasis (NETLM) treated
with radioembolization using glass microspheres. They found that using the RECIST
criteria, the mean percentage of necrosis following a single radioembolization session
was 48%.68 In addition, they assessed the predictors of responders and nonresponders to SIRT in NETLM. They found that the patients who had prior surgical therapies had a significantly better response to radioembolization.68 They also found that
patients with bilateral hepatic lesions or lesions involving a large percentage of the liver
did not respond as favorably to the treatment.68 In comparing glass versus resin SIRT
microspheres, Rhee and colleagues51 studied 42 patients with NETLM who were
treated with radioembolization using either glass or resin microspheres. Ninety-two
percent of the glass microsphere group demonstrated either a partial response or stable disease, whereas 94% of the resin microsphere group demonstrated either a partial response or stable disease.51
In assessing patients’ symptoms caused by hyperactive/hypersecreting neuroendocrine tumors, King and colleagues69 studied 34 patients with unresectable NETLM
that underwent radioembolization. In terms of response rate using the RECIST criteria,
18% of patients demonstrated a complete response and 32% of patients
Table 3
A summary of major studies of SIRT in treatment of NETLM
Investigator
N
Treatment
Overall Response Rate (%)
Survival
SIRT in mixed cohort in chemorefractory NETLM
Kennedy
148
SIRT
86
70 mo
King
34
SIRT 1 5-FU
64.7 (symptomatic relief 5 55%)
35 mo
Saxena
48
SIRT 1 5-FU
77
35 mo
Cao
58
SIRT 1 5-FU
66
36 mo
Rhee
42
SIRT
94
28 mo
Jakobs
25
SIRT
96 (symptomatic relief 5 92%)
96% (1 y)
Coldwell
84
SIRT
100 (symptomatic relief 5 80%)
NR
Ezziddin
23
SIRT
91 (symptomatic relief 5 80%)
29 mo
Paprottka
42
SIRT
97 (symptomatic relief 5 95%)
95% (16 mo)
Author's personal copy
Y90 Selective Internal Radiation Therapy
demonstrated a partial response.69 As for neuroendocrine symptomatic relief,
3 months after the procedure, 55% of patients had symptomatic improvement;
6 months after the procedure, 50% of patients had symptomatic improvement.69
The previously mentioned study by Memon and colleagues59 also discussed the effectiveness of SIRT embolization in improving neuroendocrine symptoms. The latter
study reported clinically significant symptomatic relief in up to 84% of patients with
existing symptoms.
Cholangiocarcinoma
Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC) is the second most common primary hepatic
malignancy.2 Although the overall incidence is rare, it has been increasing over the
past 20 years. IHCC is associated with a high mortality rate, with a median survival
of 3 to 8 months.2,70 Commonly, the patients with IHCC present with advanced disease, which is not amenable to surgical resection or liver transplantation.70 Given
IHCC’s relative radiation sensitivity,71,72 SIRT radiation embolization has been investigated to treat chemorefractory IHCC with promising results.73,74
Recently, 2 prospective, nonrandomized studies reported the effectiveness and
feasibility of treating intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with SIRT.73,74 In the study of
Mouli and colleagues,74 46 patients with unresectable IHCC were treated with SIRT.
The overall response rate was 98% using the WHO criteria (100% using EASL criteria),
with 11% of the patients being downstaged enough to be eligible for liver transplant or
resection.74 Overall, the median survival was 14.6 months. The median survival of patients with peripherally located IHCC was slightly higher at 15.6 months.74 Similar outcomes were noted by Rafi and colleagues73 with a 79% overall response rate, with the
overall median survival of 15 months in chemorefractory IHCC.
COMPLICATIONS
Although SIRT seems to be effective in the treatment of select liver tumors, there are
several complications that have been associated with its use. Postradioembolization
syndrome can manifest itself in the subsequent days and weeks following radioembolization therapy. The symptoms usually consist of mild abdominal pain, mild nausea,
vomiting, and a low-grade fever.26 Following SIRT therapy, postradioembolization
syndrome has been seen anywhere from 20% to 55% of patients.26 In a study by Mulcahy and colleagues,50 fatigue was seen in 61% of patients, nausea in 21% of patients, and abdominal pain in 25% of patients. In addition, given that the radiation
emitted from SIRT microspheres also affects normal liver parenchyma and the biliary
system, hepatic injury and biliary dysfunction are complications that are often
feared.26 In the study published by Sangro and colleagues,75 20% of 25 patients
developed complications stemming from hepatic damage, including jaundice and ascites, several weeks after treatment. This unusually high rate of complications is associated with patients treated in a whole-liver fashion. Otherwise, overall, the frequency
of RILD after SIRT therapy has been reported as being anywhere from 0% to 4%.75–77
In terms of biliary complications, Atassi and colleagues78 found that 33 out of 327
post-SIRT patients had imaging findings consistent with biliary complications. Overall,
it seems that the frequency of biliary complications after radioembolization therapy is
no more than 10%.78 Additional GI complications have been documented. Carretero
and colleagues79 found gastric and small bowel injury in 3 patients out of 78. Because
this specific injury is anticipated with angiographic control of branches, this was likely
the result of unrecognized collateral circulation to the stomach and duodenum.79
Andrews and colleagues4 demonstrated reversible gastritis and duodenitis in 4
179
180
Lee et al
Author's personal copy
patients, likely the result of deposition of microspheres near the stomach and duodenum. Another possible complication seen following radioembolization is radiation
pneumonitis, which often occurs in patients with elevated shunting of blood flow to
the lung on MAA scanning.80,81 The rate of radiation pneumonitis following SIRT therapy is thought to be well less than 1%.80,81 Radioembolization is also associated with
transient lymphopenia and a 25% or greater decrease in the lymphocyte count in most
patients.82,83 However, this decrease in lymphocyte count has not been shown to lead
to opportunistic infections in this patient population.82,83
SUMMARY
Radioembolization in select patients with unresectable liver tumors has been shown
to be efficacious in decreasing tumor size and prolonging survival. Although relatively
new, emerging evidence indicates that radioembolization may be as effective or even
more effective in comparison with other available treatments (eg, TAE, TACE, and
RFA) for this patient population and improves patients’ quality of life. With both primary HCC and hepatic metastatic cancers, SIRT may provide a potential option for
patients who are not surgical candidates and can offer the potential for better outcomes and improved survival. In certain patients, SIRT can also serve as a bridge
to surgical resection or liver transplantation by downgrading the size and/or number
of tumors so that patients who previously were not surgical candidates would now
be eligible. Specifically for metastatic CRC tumors, SIRT has shown to be efficacious
as an initial option when combined with chemotherapeutic agents, as a secondary
option for chemotherapy resistant tumors, and as a palliative option in patients
requiring salvage therapy. Lastly, SIRT has also shown favorable outcomes in the
treatment of NETLM, particularly in patients who had undergone surgical therapy
in the past and those patients with smaller tumors that involved a single lobe of
the liver.
These advantages and efficacy of SIRT come with its innate complications as
mentioned earlier. However, based on recent evidence, it is certain that SIRT will
play a significant role in the treatment of selective patients with unresectable liver
tumors in the coming years.
REFERENCES
1. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, et al. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin
2005;55:74–108.
2. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin
2013;63:11–30. Available at: http://apps.who.int/bookorders/anglais/detart1.jsp?
codlan51&codcol576&codcch531&content51.
3. Stewart BW, Wild CP. World Cancer Report 2014, vol. 13. World Health Organization; 2014.
4. Andrews JC, Walker SC, Ackermann RJ, et al. Hepatic radioembolization with
yttrium-90 containing glass microspheres: preliminary results and clinical
follow-up. J Nucl Med 1994;35:1637–44.
5. Bentrem DJ, Dematteo RP, Blumgart LH. Surgical therapy for metastatic disease
to the liver. Annu Rev Med 2005;56:139–56.
6. Bosch FX, Ribes J, Borras J. Epidemiology of primary liver cancer. Semin Liver
Dis 1999;19:271–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-1007117.
7. Chamberlain MN, Gray BN, Heggie JC, et al. Hepatic metastases–a physiological
approach to treatment. Br J Surg 1983;70:596–8.
Author's personal copy
Y90 Selective Internal Radiation Therapy
8. Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular
carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2008;359:378–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa
0708857.
9. Llovet JM, Real MI, Montana X, et al. Arterial embolisation or chemoembolisation versus symptomatic treatment in patients with unresectable hepatocellular
carcinoma: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002;359:1734–9. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08649-X.
10. Aliberti C, Tilli M, Benea G, et al. Trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) of liver
metastases from colorectal cancer using irinotecan-eluting beads: preliminary results. Anticancer Res 2006;26:3793–5.
11. Hendlisz A, Van den Eynde M, Peeters M, et al. Phase III trial comparing protracted
intravenous fluorouracil infusion alone or with yttrium-90 resin microspheres radioembolization for liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard
chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:3687–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.
2010.28.5643 JCO.2010.28.5643.
12. Kulik LM, Atassi B, van Holsbeeck L, et al. Yttrium-90 microspheres (TheraSphere) treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: downstaging to
resection, RFA and bridge to transplantation. J Surg Oncol 2006;94:572–86.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jso.20609.
13. Sangro B, Carpanese L, Cianni R, et al. Survival after yttrium-90 resin microsphere
radioembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma across Barcelona clinic liver cancer
stages: a European evaluation. Hepatology 2011;54:868–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1002/hep.24451.
14. Sharma RA, Van Hazel GA, Morgan B, et al. Radioembolization of liver metastases from colorectal cancer using yttrium-90 microspheres with concomitant systemic oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2007;
25:1099–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.08.7916.
15. Vouche M, Habib A, Ward TJ, et al. Unresectable solitary hepatocellular carcinoma not amenable to radiofrequency ablation: multicenter radiologypathology correlation and survival of radiation segmentectomy. Hepatology
2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hep.27057.
16. Dawson LA, Normolle D, Balter JM, et al. Analysis of radiation-induced liver disease
using the Lyman NTCP model. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002;58:1318–9 [author
reply: 1319–20].
17. Goin JE, et al. Treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with intrahepatic yttrium 90 microspheres: a risk-stratification analysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol
2005;16(2 Pt 1):195–203.
18. Price TJ, Townsend A. Yttrium 90 microsphere selective internal radiation treatment of hepatic colorectal metastases. Arch Surg 2007;143:675–82.
19. Kennedy AS, Nutting C, Coldwell D, et al. Pathologic response and microdosimetry of (90)Y microspheres in man: review of four explanted whole livers. Int J
Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2004;60:1552–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.
2004.09.004. pii:S0360-3016(04)02563-5.
20. Yorke ED, Jackson A, Fox RA, et al. Can current models explain the lack of liver
complications in Y-90 microsphere therapy? Clin Cancer Res 1999;5:
3024s–30s.
21. Sato KT, Omary Ra, Takehana C, et al. The role of tumor vascularity in predicting
survival after yttrium-90 radioembolization for liver metastases. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009;20:1564–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2009.08.013.
22. A comparison of lipiodol chemoembolization and conservative treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Groupe d’Etude et de Traitement du
181
182
Lee et al
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Author's personal copy
Carcinome Hepatocellulaire. N Engl J Med 1995;332:1256–61. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1056/NEJM199505113321903.
lu B, Cil B, Bozkurt F, et al. Radioembolization for the treatment of unPeynirciog
resectable liver cancer: initial experience at a single center. Diagn Interv Radiol
2010;16:70–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.4261/1305-3825.DIR.2693-09.1.
Irving A. Radioactive isotopes for cancer therapy adjuvant. Arch Surg 1964;89:
244–9.
Vente AD. Microspheres for radioembolization of liver malignancies. Expert Rev
Med Devices 2010;7:581–3.
Riaz A, Lewandowski RJ, Kulik LM, et al. Complications following radioembolization
with yttrium-90 microspheres: a comprehensive literature review. J Vasc Interv Radiol
2009;20:1121–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2009.05.030 S1051-0443(09)
00578-8 [quiz: 1131].
Urata K, Kawasaki S, Matsunami H, et al. Calculation of child and adult standard
liver volume for liver transplantation. Hepatology 1995;21:1317–21.
Ho S, Lau WY, Leung TW, et al. Partition model for estimating radiation doses from
yttrium-90 microspheres in treating hepatic tumours. Eur J Nucl Med 1996;23:
947–52.
Kao YH, Hock Tan AE, Burgmans MC, et al. Image-guided personalized predictive dosimetry by artery-specific SPECT/CT partition modeling for safe and effective 90Y radioembolization. J Nucl Med 2012;53:559–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.
2967/jnumed.111.097469.
Ackerman NB, Lien WM, Kondi ES, et al. The blood supply of experimental liver
metastases. I. The distribution of hepatic artery and portal vein blood to “small”
and “large” tumors. Surgery 1969;66:1067–72.
Kennedy A, Nag S, Salem R, et al. Recommendations for radioembolization of hepatic malignancies using yttrium-90 microsphere brachytherapy: a consensus
panel report from the radioembolization brachytherapy oncology consortium.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;68:13–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.
2006.11.060.
Ahmadzadehfar H, Sabet A, Biermann K, et al. The significance of 99mTc-MAA
SPECT/CT liver perfusion imaging in treatment planning for 90Y-microsphere selective internal radiation treatment. J Nucl Med 2010;51:1206–12. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2967/jnumed.109.074559.
Lambert B, Mertens J, Sturm EJ, et al. 99mTc-labelled macroaggregated albumin
(MAA) scintigraphy for planning treatment with 90Y microspheres. Eur J Nucl
Med Mol Imaging 2010;37:2328–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-0101566-2.
Marn CS, Andrews JC, Francis IR, et al. Hepatic parenchymal changes after intraarterial Y-90 therapy: CT findings. Radiology 1993;187:125–8.
Murthy R, Xiong H, Nunez R, et al. Yttrium 90 resin microspheres for the treatment
of unresectable colorectal hepatic metastases after failure of multiple chemotherapy regimens: preliminary results. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005;16:937–45.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000161142.12822.66. pii:16/7/937.
Lewandowski R, Thurston KG, Goin J, et al. 90Y microsphere (TheraSphere)
treatment for unresectable colorectal cancer metastases of the liver: response
to treatment at targeted doses of 135–150 gy as measured by [ 18F]Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomographic imaging.
J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005;16:1641–51.
El-Serag HB. Hepatocellular carcinoma and hepatitis C in the United States. Hepatology 2002;36:S74–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/jhep.2002.36807.
Author's personal copy
Y90 Selective Internal Radiation Therapy
38. Sangro B, Bilbao JI, Boan J, et al. Radioembolization using 90Y-resin microspheres for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys 2006;66:792–800.
39. Salem R, Lewandowski RJ, Mulcahy MF, et al. Radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma using Yttrium-90 microspheres: a comprehensive report of
long-term outcomes. Gastroenterology 2010;138:52–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1053/j.gastro.2009.09.006.
40. Sangro B, Iñarrairaegui M. Radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma:
evidence-based answers to frequently asked questions. J Nucl Med Radiat
Ther 2011;01:1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2155-9619.1000110.
41. Mazzaferro V, Sposito C, Bhoori S, et al. Yttrium-90 radioembolization for
intermediate-advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase 2 study. Hepatology
2013;57:1826–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hep.26014.
42. Iñarrairaegui M, Pardo F, Bilbao JI, et al. Response to radioembolization with
yttrium-90 resin microspheres may allow surgical treatment with curative
intent and prolonged survival in previously unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol 2012;38:594–601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.
2012.02.189.
43. Vouche M, Lewandowski RJ, Atassi R, et al. Radiation lobectomy: time-dependent
analysis of future liver remnant volume in unresectable liver cancer as a bridge to
resection. J Hepatol 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2013.06.015.
44. Salem R, Lewandowski RJ, Kulik L, et al. Radioembolization results in longer timeto-progression and reduced toxicity compared with chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2011;140:497–507.e492.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2010.10.049 S0016-5085(10)01587-8.
45. Lance C, McLennan G, Obuchowski N, et al. Comparative analysis of the safety
and efficacy of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization and yttrium-90 radioembolization in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv
Radiol 2011;22:1697–705. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2011.08.013.
46. Steel J, Baum A, Carr B. Quality of life in patients diagnosed with primary hepatocellular carcinoma: hepatic arterial infusion of Cisplatin versus 90-Yttrium microspheres (Therasphere). Psychooncology 2004;13(2):73–9.
47. Salem R, Gilbertsen M, Butt Z, et al. Increased quality of life among hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with radioembolization, compared with chemoembolization. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2013.
04.028.
48. Abdelmaksoud MH, Louie JD, Hwang GL, et al. Yttrium-90 radioembolization of
renal cell carcinoma metastatic to the liver. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2012;23:
323–30.e321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2011.11.007.
49. Jakobs TF, Hoffmann RT, Fischer T, et al. Radioembolization in patients with hepatic
metastases from breast cancer. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2008;19:683–90. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.jvir.2008.01.009.
50. Mulcahy MF, Lewandowski RJ, Ibrahim SM, et al. Radioembolization of colorectal
hepatic metastases using yttrium-90 microspheres. Cancer 2009;115:1849–58.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24224.
51. Rhee TK, Lewandowski RJ, Liu DM, et al. 90Y Radioembolization for metastatic neuroendocrine liver tumors: preliminary results from a multi-institutional
experience. Ann Surg 2008;247:1029–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SLA.
0b013e3181728a45.
52. Luna-Perez P, Rodriguez-Coria DF, Arroyo B, et al. The natural history of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Arch Med Res 1998;29:319–24.
183
184
Lee et al
Author's personal copy
53. Kosmider S, Tan TH, Yip D, et al. Radioembolization in combination with systemic
chemotherapy as first-line therapy for liver metastases from colorectal cancer.
J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011;22:780–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2011.02.023.
54. Chua TC, Bester L, Saxena A, et al. Radioembolization and systemic chemotherapy
improves response and survival for unresectable colorectal liver metastases.
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2011;137:865–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00432010-0948-y.
55. Cosimelli M, Golfieri R, Cagol PP, et al. Multi-centre phase II clinical trial of
yttrium-90 resin microspheres alone in unresectable, chemotherapy refractory
colorectal liver metastases. Br J Cancer 2010;103:324–31. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1038/sj.bjc.6605770.
56. Nace GW, Steel JL, Amesur N, et al. Yttrium-90 radioembolization for colorectal
cancer liver metastases: a single institution experience. Int J Surg Oncol 2011;
2011:571261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/571261.
57. Bester L, Meteling B, Pocock N, et al. Radioembolization versus standard care of
hepatic metastases: comparative retrospective cohort study of survival outcomes
and adverse events in salvage patients. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2012;23:96–105.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2011.09.028. pii:S1051-0443(11)01344-3.
58. Seidensticker R, Denecke T, Kraus P, et al. Matched-pair comparison of radioembolization plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone for
chemotherapy refractory liver-dominant colorectal metastases. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2012;35:1066–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00270-011-0234-7.
59. Memon K, Lewandowski RJ, Mulcahy MF, et al. Radioembolization for neuroendocrine liver metastases: safety, imaging, and long-term outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012;83:887–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.07.041.
60. Kennedy AS, Dezarn WA, McNeillie P, et al. Radioembolization for unresectable
neuroendocrine hepatic metastases using resin 90Y-microspheres: early results
in 148 patients. Am J Clin Oncol 2008;31:271–9.
61. Norton JA. Endocrine tumours of the gastrointestinal tract. Surgical treatment of
neuroendocrine metastases. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2005;19:577–83.
62. Florman S, Toure B, Kim L, et al. Liver transplantation for neuroendocrine tumors.
J Gastrointest Surg 2004;8:208–12.
63. Berber E, Senagore A, Remzi F, et al. Laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation of
liver tumors combined with colorectal procedures. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 2004;14:186–90.
64. Bilchik AJ, Sarantou T, Foshag LJ, et al. Cryosurgical palliation of metastatic
neuroendocrine tumors resistant to conventional therapy. Surgery 1997;122:
1040–7 [discussion: 1047–8]. pii:S0039-6060(97)90207-5.
65. Nijsen F, Rook D, Brandt C, et al. Targeting of liver tumour in rats by selective delivery of holmium-166 loaded microspheres: a biodistribution study. Eur J Nucl
Med 2001;28:743–9.
66. Cao CQ, Yan TD, Bester L, et al. Radioembolization with yttrium microspheres for
neuroendocrine tumour liver metastases. Br J Surg 2010;97:537–43. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/bjs.6931.
67. Paprottka PM, Hoffmann R-T, Haug A, et al. Radioembolization of symptomatic,
unresectable neuroendocrine hepatic metastases using yttrium-90 microspheres.
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2012;35:334–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00270011-0248-1.
68. Shaheen M, Hassanain M, Aljiffry M, et al. Predictors of response to radioembolization (TheraSphere) treatment of neuroendocrine liver metastasis. HPB
(Oxford) 2012;14:60–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-2574.2011.00405.x.
Author's personal copy
Y90 Selective Internal Radiation Therapy
69. King J, Quinn R, Glenn DM, et al. Radioembolization with selective internal radiation microspheres for neuroendocrine liver metastases. Cancer 2008;113:
921–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23685.
70. Park J, Kim MH, Kim KP, et al. Natural history and prognostic factors of advanced
cholangiocarcinoma without surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy: a largescale observational study. Gut Liver 2009;3:298–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.5009/
gnl.2009.3.4.298.
71. Sagawa N, Kondo S, Morikawa T, et al. Effectiveness of radiation therapy after
surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Surg Today 2005;35:548–52. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s00595-005-2989-4.
72. Metz JM. The role of radiation therapy in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Cancer J 2006;12:102–4.
73. Rafi S, Piduru SM, El-Rayes B, et al. Yttrium-90 radioembolization for unresectable standard-chemorefractory intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: survival, efficacy, and safety study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2013;36:440–8. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s00270-012-0463-4.
74. Mouli S, Memon K, Baker T, et al. Yttrium-90 radioembolization for intrahepatic
cholangiocarcinoma: safety, response, and survival analysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol
2013;24:1227–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2013.02.031. pii:S1051-0443(13)
00719-7.
75. Sangro B, Gil-Alzugaray B, Rodriguez J, et al. Liver disease induced by radioembolization of liver tumors: description and possible risk factors. Cancer 2008;112:
1538–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23339.
76. Kennedy AS, McNeillie P, Dezarn WA, et al. Treatment parameters and outcome
in 680 treatments of internal radiation with resin 90Y-microspheres for unresectable hepatic tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2009;74:1494–500.
77. Young JY, Rhee TK, Atassi B, et al. Radiation dose limits and liver toxicities resulting from multiple yttrium-90 radioembolization treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2007;18:1375–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2007.
07.016. pii:18/11/1375.
78. Atassi B, Bangash AK, Lewandowski RJ, et al. Biliary sequelae following radioembolization with Yttrium-90 microspheres. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2008;19:691–7.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2008.01.003. pii:S1051-0443(08)00092-4.
79. Carretero C, Munoz-Navas M, Betes M, et al. Gastroduodenal injury after radioembolization of hepatic tumors. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:1216–20. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01172.x. pii:AJG1172.
80. Leung TW, Lau WY, Ho SK, et al. Radiation pneumonitis after selective internal radiation treatment with intraarterial 90yttrium-microspheres for inoperable hepatic
tumors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1995;40:583–92.
81. Salem R, Parikh P, Atassi B, et al. Incidence of radiation pneumonitis after hepatic
intra-arterial radiotherapy with yttrium-90 microspheres assuming uniform lung
distribution. Am J Clin Oncol 2008;31:431–8.
82. Carr BI. Hepatic arterial 90Yttrium glass microspheres (Therasphere) for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: interim safety and survival data on 65 patients. Liver Transpl 2004;10:S107–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/lt.20036.
83. Salem R, Lewandowski RJ, Atassi B, et al. Treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with use of 90Y microspheres (TheraSphere): safety, tumor
response, and survival. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005;16:1627–39.
185