Quantitative Evaluation of 90Y-PET/CT and 90Y-SPECT/CT-Based Dosimetry Following Yttrium-90 Radioembolization

Authors

Srinivas Cheenu Kappadath
Eric Courtney Henry
Benjamin P Lopez
Armeen Mahvash

Publication Date

9-1-2024

Journal

Medical Physics

Abstract

Background: Following yttrium-90 radioembolization (90Y-RE), 90Y-PET/CT and 90Y-SPECT/CT imaging provide the means to calculate the voxelized absorbed dose distribution. Given the widespread use of the two imaging modalities and lack of well-established standardized dosimetry protocols for 90Y-RE, there is a clinical need to systematically investigate and evaluate differences in the performance of voxel-based dosimetry between 90Y-PET/CT and 90Y-SPECT/CT.

Purpose: To quantitatively analyze and compare 90Y-PET/CT and 90Y-SPECT/CT-based dosimetry following 90Y-RE.

Methods: 90Y-PET/CT and 90Y-SPECT/CT imaging was acquired for 35 patients following 90Y-RE with TheraSphere for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Dosimetry was performed using the local deposition method with known activity and the mean dose (Dmean) was calculated for perfused liver volumes (PV), tumors (T), and perfused normal livers (NL). Additionally, the absorbed dose to x% of the volume (Dx, x ∈ $ \in $" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; line-height: 0; font-size: 18.08px; font-size-adjust: none; overflow-wrap: normal; word-spacing: normal; text-wrap-mode: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0px; position: relative;">∈∈ [5%, 10%, …, 90%, 95%]) and the volume receiving y Gy (Vy, y ∈ $ \in $" role="presentation" style="box-sizing: inherit; display: inline-block; line-height: 0; font-size: 18.08px; font-size-adjust: none; overflow-wrap: normal; word-spacing: normal; text-wrap-mode: nowrap; float: none; direction: ltr; max-width: none; max-height: none; min-width: 0px; min-height: 0px; border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 1px 0px; position: relative;">∈∈ [10 Gy, 20 Gy, …, 190 Gy, 200 Gy]) were calculated for T and NL, respectively. Dose metrics were compared using linear regression, Bland-Altman analysis, and statistical testing.

Results: Both 90Y-SPECT/CT and 90Y-PET/CT-based tumor Dmean were strongly correlated (R2 ≥ 0.90) with Dx, excluding metrics on the extrema. Intra-modality comparisons of various Dx and Vy metrics yielded statistically significant differences (ANOVA, p < 0.001) for both90Y-PET/CT and 90Y-SPECT/CT. Based on statistical testing, only Dx metrics separated by greater than 20%-30% coverage, and only Vy metrics separated by greater than 40-70 Gy, reported significant differences. For PV, there was a strong correlation (R2 ≥ 0.99) between Dmean derived separately from 90Y-PET/CT and 90Y-SPECT/CT imaging. The strength of the correlation was slightly reduced for T and NL with R2 = 0.91 and R2 = 0.95, respectively. For PV, the mean bias ± standard error (SE) and 95% limits of agreement (LOA) between Dmean from the two modalities was effectively zero with -0.8 ± 0.4% (± 2.5%). For T and NL, the mean bias ± SE (± LOA) was -14.5 ± 3.7% (± 24%) and 9.4 ± 4.7% (± 27%), respectively.

Conclusion: The strong correlation between Dmean and Dx suggests information from multiple dose metrics (e.g., D70 and Dmean) is largely redundant when establishing dose-response relationships in 90Y-RE. Dmean is highly correlated between 90Y-PET/CT and 90Y-SPECT/CT-based dosimetry, for all liver VOIs. Relative to 90Y-SPECT/CT, 90Y-PET/CT, on average, yielded higher Dmean to tumors (14%) and lower Dmean to perfused normal livers (9%). Absorbed dose differences for perfused liver volumes between 90Y-SPECT/CT and 90Y-PET/CT were negligible.

Keywords

Yttrium Radioisotopes, Humans, Positron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography, Embolization, Therapeutic, Radiometry, Liver Neoplasms, Male, Female, Carcinoma, Hepatocellular, Middle Aged, Aged, Single Photon Emission Computed Tomography Computed Tomography, Radioembolization, SIRT, yttrium-90, dosimetry, PET, SPECT

DOI

10.1002/mp.17175

PMID

38781554

PMCID

PMC11731408

PubMedCentral® Posted Date

4-1-2025

PubMedCentral® Full Text Version

Author MSS

Published Open-Access

yes