Skip to main content
EJNMMI Reports
Download PDF
  • Original article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Measure of 90Y-glass microspheres residue post-TARE using PET/CT and potential impact on tumor absorbed dose in comparison 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT dosimetry

EJNMMI Reports volume 8, Article number: 26 (2024) Cite this article

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

Transarterial radio-embolization (TARE) became a routine procedure for non-resectable liver tumor mainly hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Personalized dosimetry to the index lesion increased tumor response rate. However, there is no requirement to measure the precise activity injected during TARE. We measured 90Y-glass microspheres residue (90Y-Res) in the application system after TARE and assessed its potential impact on the tumor absorbed dose (AD) previously planned with 99mTc MAA SPECT/CT.

Methods

We measured 90Y-Res using PET/CT in all patients that underwent TARE using 90Y-glass-microspheres for non-resectable liver tumors over one year.

Results

90Y-Res was measured in 34 patients (HCC n = 22) with 61 injections, 93.1 ± 94.6 MBq [2–437] that was 4.8 ± 3.5% [0.2–13.7] in comparison to the activity measured in the sealed TheraSphere™ vial (ρ = 0.697; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

We reported an average of 5% 90Y-Res using PET/CT after TARE with the strongest association to the activity in the TheraSphere™ vial. Therefore, when a high 90Y-Res is suspected on the survey meter, a 90Y-PET/CT scan of 90Y-Res might be useful as a first step to estimate if the target lesion received the recommended AD, especially in HCC patients with borderline tumor dosimetry on the pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT.

Introduction

Transarterial radio-embolization (TARE) has become a standard treatment in non-resectable primary liver tumors and liver-dominant liver metastases (HCC, Yang et al. 2020). A catheter placed in the hepatic artery feeding the tumor infuses 90Y-loaded glass or resin microspheres directly into the arterialized tumor bed with a good safety profile (Hong et al. 2021; Hilgard et al. 2010). Despite solid data in advanced disease, in early treatment settings the data is still limited, and several studies were negative on their primary endpoint (Hazel et al. 2016). Many different factors leading to negative trial results have been debated but the lack of personalized dosimetry was seen as the most relevant factor (Sposito and Mazzaferro 2018).

The recent recommendations mandated personalized dosimetry and established a relevant leap in the TARE procedure (Gnesin et al. 2016; Garin et al. 2020). Indeed, DOSISPHERE-01, a randomized multicenter open-label and phase 2 trial, investigated personalized dosimetry in HCC patients aiming at an absorbed dose (AD) of > 205 Gy on tumor lesions in comparison to the standard partition model aiming at 120 ± 20 Gy per tumor lesion. This trial showed significantly better response rate and survival outcomes for patients treated with a personalized dosimetry procedure without significant increased toxicity (Garin et al. 2021). Similarly, the recent TARGET study has shown that the implementation of a more robust, standardized dosimetric approach delivered more consistent results (Lam et al. 2022). There is much hope that future trials relying on standardized dosimetry might lead to optimal therapy planning, lower variation in dosing schemes and ultimately better trial results (Vilgrain et al. 2014; Chow et al. 2018; Mazzaferro et al. 2013).

Personalized dosimetry in TARE with 90Y-glass microspheres is routinely based on 99mTc-macroaggregated albumin single-photon emission computerized tomography 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT to predict AD in Gray (Gy) to the index lesion, healthy perfused liver tissue and lungs with the accurate definition of the tumor volume and the lung shunt fraction being essentials (Busse et al. 2023). The prescribed administered therapeutic activity is fixed to reach a threshold AD to index lesions used as a predictor of tumor response (i.e., ≥ 205 Gy for HCC patients while limiting the absorbed dose to the healthy perfused liver tissue to a safe level (Garin et al. 2021; Chiesa et al. 2021). This concept underlines the need of a complete administration of the prescribed 90Y-microspheres activity to avoid under-dosing the tumor. Various reasons could lead to an incomplete activity administration such as a technical error with incomplete voiding of the dose vial, flow phenomenon’ of glass microspheres in catheter connections, adhesion of 90Y-microspheres inside the catheter wall, among others, underlining the importance of thorough flushing of the injection system (Caine et al. 2017). Thus, in addition to a precise measurement of the 90Y activity on the day of the TARE procedure with a dose calibrator fulfilling the national standard, an accurate measurement of the residual radioactive waste (90Y-Res) is crucial to determine the dose delivered to the patient (13). Drescher et al. reported a mean residual activity in the application device of 3.4% ± 1.7 post-TARE using 90Y-glass microsphere in 18 consecutives TARE procedures using PET/CT (Drescher et al. 2020). Ebbers et al. confirmed the robustness of using 90Y-PET/CT for the measurement of the residual activity after TARE with an excellent correlation (ρ = 0.99) to the activity measured with the dose calibrator which remains the most accurate measurement method (Ebbers et al. 2020). Yet, routine measurement of the precise activity injected during TARE is not standardized and was not reported in the latest recommendations of an international working group for 90Y-glass microspheres (Salem et al. 2023). Additionally, its potential impact on the dosimetry, that is the actual tumor AD, has not been reported. In this study, we chose to focus on 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT dosimetry as it has been reported in the literature that it reflected 90Y-microspheres distribution (Lambert et al. 2010; Garin et al. 2016) whereas the literature for quantitative tumor AD using post-therapy 90Y-bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT is limited (Kim et al. 2021). Thus, we thought that it would be interesting to retrospectively input the “90Y-Res correction” consisting of the activity in TheraSphere™ vial measured before TARE minus the residual activity of 90Y-glass microspheres (90Y-Res) measured on 90Y-PET/CT on the pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT distribution simulation to have an estimate of the tumor absorbed dose. We aimed to prospectively evaluate the amount of residual activity of 90Y-Res after TARE using 90Y-PET/CT for a better understanding of potential shortcomings in the administration of the full activity of 90Y-glass microspheres. We also investigated which clinical and technical parameters could affect the amount of residual activity not administered to the patient after TARE and looked at its potential impact on the perfused tumor absorbed dose planned on the pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT.

Methods

We prospectively measured the 90Y-Res, assessed at the patient administration time, after each injection for consecutive patients that underwent TARE using 90Y-glass-microspheres in our institution for non-resectable liver tumors from February 2021 to February 2022. The setup for all TARE procedures was done in agreement with the manufacturer recommendations (TheraSphere™; BTG International, Farnham, United Kingdom).

Personalized dosimetry

Personalized dosimetry planning was performed on 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT using the Simplicit90Y™ software. This software allows for a personalised patient dosimetry based on a multi-compartment approach to define tumor absorbed dose: the whole liver volume, the perfused volume, the tumor perfused volume and the healthy liver tissue perfused volume. In case of a radiation segmentectomy, a single-compartment approach was used. Thus, the absorbed dose to the healthy liver tissue within the perfused volume was not accounted for and we aimed when possible for an absorbed dose of 400 Gy to the perfused volume. The software allowed for the fusion of the attenuation corrected 99mTc-MAA SPECT imaging with anatomical imaging to insure that the 99mTc-MAA simulation distribution within the perfused volume correspond to an optimal ratio between the anatomical tumor and the surrounding healthy liver tissue. In our institution for more accuracy we used for anatomical imaging the intra-arterial CT done in the angiography suite at the arterial position for the injection of 99mTc-MAA.

90Y-Res assessment

90Y-Res was measured in the delivery tubing used during TARE, the TheraSphere™ vial and the microcatheter used for the procedure; all placed in a sealed plastic waste container (Fig. 1). We imaged the 90Y-Res after TARE on a digital SiPM Biograph VISION 600 PET/CT (Siemens Healhineers, Knoxville TS, USA): We performed static TOF PET, 20 min long, single bed, list-mode acquisitions covering an axial field of view of 26 cm. The PET measured 90Y-Res was decay corrected at the time of the patient administration. In patients who received multiple injections during TARE, 90Y-Res was measured in a separate box for each injection. PET/CT acquisition were reconstructed with the vendor iterative reconstruction algorithm (TrueX-HD) and using 2 iterations and 5 subsets and a post reconstruction Gaussian filter with FWHM = 4 mm. The in-plane reconstruction matrix size was 220 × 220 with a pixel spacing of 3.3 mm and a slice thickness of 1.4 mm: the attenuation correction was based on a low-dose CT scan (65 mAs, 120 keV, 0.8 pitch and 2.0 mm slice thickness). The scatter correction used an absolute scaling.

Fig. 1
figure 1

CT (a) and fused 90Y-PET/CT images (b) of the 90Y-res acquired post-TARE consisting of the administration device including the TheraSphere™ 90Y glass microspheres vial (green arrow) and the microcatheter used for the intra-arterial injection during the procedure (orange arrow)

Full size image

Patients also underwent post-TARE 90Y-bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT to confirm that the distribution of 90Y-microspheres was similar to the initial 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT. 90Y-bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT acquisition parameters were as follow: Flash 3D (3D OSEM: between 20 and 120 iterative updates and 2subsets) with 60 frames of 35 s, a gaussian filter between 0 and 10 mm FWHM, 256 × 256 matrix, 2.4 × 2.4 × 2.4 mm pixel size, 100–200 keV energy window and CT-based attenuation correction.

We assessed 90Y-Res for each injection site separately as several patients received multiple injections. For each injection procedure, we also assessed the percentage of the calibrated TheraSphere™ vial activity (measured before TARE in the activimeter by our radiopharmacist and decay corrected at the planned patient administration time) present in the respective 90Y-Res. We did not account for the potential time delay between the planned patient administration time and actual patient administration time as it was not significant in comparison to the longer half-life of the 90Y isotope. We also retrospectively inputed the “90Y-Res correction” consisting of the activity in TheraSphere™ vial measured before TARE minus the residual activity of 90Y-glass microspheres (90Y-Res) measured on 90Y-PET/CT on the pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT distribution simulation in order to have an estimate of the tumor absorbed dose using the Simplicit90Y™ software using the same procedure as previously described.

Statistical analysis

We used t-test for dependent samples to compare the 90Y-glass microspheres administered activity based on 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT dosimetry and the activity measured in the sealed TheraSphere™ vial at the patient therapeutic administration time. Spearman correlation was used to assess correlation between 90Y-Res, the activity measured in the TheraSphere™ vial and the different target liver volumes (in cm3) defined on pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT: the perfused liver volume, the total perfused tumor volume and perfused healthy liver tissue obtained by Boolean subtraction of the perfused tumor volume from the perfused volume. Similar analyses were done with absorbed dose in Gy.

We used t-test for independent samples to compare 90Y-Res according to the type of TARE single-compartment versus multicompartment and the microcatheter position during TARE delivery: lobar versus non-lobar artery. 90Y-Res was compared as a function of the size of the microcatheter: Progreat 2.7Fr. microcatheter (P-cat, Terumo, Interventional Systems, Europe) versus ASAHI Masters Parkway Soft 1.98/2.8 F microcatheter (AP-cat, Asahi Intecc, Japan). To assess the impact of 90Y-Res on personalized dosimetry, we subtracted its activity to the activity of the TheraSphere™ vial and retrospectively applied this new activity value labelled “90Y-Res correction” to the dosimetry planning performed with the Simplicit90Y™ software on 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT. This new dosimetry assessment was expected to improve the estimation of perfused tumor AD, hence precisely defining patient’s specific dosimetry. We used t-test for dependent samples to compare absorbed dose between the initial and the “corrected dosimetry” previously defined for each compartment perfused volume and perfused tumor volume.

Ethics

This study was done according to the ethical standards defined by the Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. Our local ethics committee that is the “ Commission cantonale d'éthique de la recherche sur l'être humain” (CER-VD) approved this retrospective study with informed consent waiver allowing the inclusion of all patients that did not explicitly refuse their consent as per the local legislation at the time of the study (registration number: CER-VD-2018-01513).

Results

90Y-Res assessment

We measured 90Y-Res in 34 patients (HCC n = 22, cholangiocarcinoma n = 4, metastases n = 8) for a total of 61 injections sites (Table 1, Fig. 2). The mean value ± 1SD for 90Y-Res was 93.1 ± 94.6 MBq [2–437] that is a mean 4.8 ± 3.5% [0.2–13.7] of the activity measured in the TheraSphere™ vial prior to the TARE. There was a significant difference between the intended 90Y-glass microspheres activity planned on the pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT and the activity measured in the sealed TheraSphere™ vial on the day of the TARE with significantly higher values in the latter (Table 2; p < 0.001). However, when 90Y-Res was subtracted from the activity measured in the sealed TheraSphere™ vial, there was no longer a significant difference with the intended activity planned on the pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT (Table 2; p = 0.59). There were significant and positive correlations between absolute value in MBq of 90Y-Res with the planned activity (ρ = 0.689; p < 0.001) and the activity measured on the TheraSphere™ vial (ρ = 0.697; p < 0.001, Fig. 3).

Table 1 Patients’ characteristics in terms of histological types and the number of TARE procedures and injections
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Voluminous HCC tumor with extensive necrosis and viable peripheral tumor in an 81-year-old patient treated with TARE: perfused volume of 81 cm3 estimated on pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT and a subsequent 90Y-Res of 11.6% on 90Y-PET/CT acquisition post-TARE; a coronal image of intra-arterial CT during TARE with soluble contrast media injected through the microcatheter, b coronal image of fused Bremsstrahlung 90Y-SPECT/ CT with intra-arterial CT during TARE and c coronal image of Bremsstrahlung 90Y-SPECT

Full size image
Table 2 Comparison of 90Y-glass microspheres activity planned on the pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT with the ordered 90Y-microspheres activity 1, the TheraSphere™ vial and when applying the “90Y-Res correction” 2 obtained after subtraction of 90Y-Res activity to 90Y activity in the TheraSphere™ vial
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Correlation between 90Y-Res in MBq, measured using 90Y-PET/CT post-TARE and the activity in the sealed TheraSphere™ vial before TARE

Full size image

90Y-Res and TARE procedure

We analyzed a total of 48 single-compartment treatment planned as radiation segmentectomy in this cohort and 13 multi-compartment treatments. There was no significant difference in the value of 90Y-Res between single or multicompartment treatments (mean 88.4 ± 96.8 MBq versus 116.8 ± 85.6 MBq and mean 4.8% ± 3.7 versus 6.4% ± 4; p = 0.34 and p = 0.20 respectively). Similarly, there was also no significant difference for the intended therapeutic activity as a function of the treatment type (p = 0.58). There were, however, significant differences between perfused volumes with significantly smaller volumes in patients that had a single-compartment TARE when compared to multicompartment treatments with mean 342 ± 368 cm3 versus 894 ± 513 cm3, respectively (p < 0.001). Similarly, AD was significantly higher when a radiation segmentectomy was planned for both the perfused volume and perfused tumor volume: mean AD 387 ± 264 Gy versus 148 ± 87 Gy and mean AD 548 ± 486 Gy versus 223 ± 80 Gy, respectively (p < 0.001).

Parameters impacting 90Y-Res

There were 11 TARE injections at a lobar position and 50 injections at sub-lobar position including 35 injections at segmental an/or subsegmental levels. There was a significant difference in the activity of the 90Y-Res depending on the artery position for the delivery of 90Y-glass microspheres with a significantly higher 90Y-Res at a lobar position 205.6 ± 137 MBq versus 69.2 M ± 59.1 Bq for sub-lobar TARE or 6.5 ± 3.3% versus 4.6 ± 3.7% of the activity in the TheraSphere™ vial prior to the TARE for lobar and sublobar injections respectively (p = 0.008). Intended administered activity for lobar injection was also significantly higher with a mean value of 2986 ± 1551 MBq versus 1467 ± 767 MBq (p = 0.009) so as both perfused volume 911 ± 338 cm3 versus 338 ± 291 cm3 and perfused tumor volume 428 ± 306 cm3 versus 159 ± 175 cm3 respectively (p = 0.02 and p = 0.022). Additionally, healthy perfused liver AD was significantly lower for TARE injection at a lobar position 50 ± 21.9 Gy versus 801 ± 24 Gy (p = 0.046). In this cohort, 2.7Fr microcatheter was used for 23 TARE injections mainly in multi-compartment treatments (8 out of 13) and when the injection was done at a lobar position (7 out 11) whereas the smaller 1.98/2.8Fr microcatheter, which was the most frequently used, was preferred for single-compartment treatments (33 out of 38) and selective approaches (34 out of 50 treatments at sub lobar positions). We found significant differences according to the type of microcatheter with significantly higher 90Y-Res with P-cat 138.7 ± 122.9 MBq versus 66.5 ± 57 MBq for AP-cat (p = 0.013). However, intended activity on pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT was also significantly higher with a mean value of 2198.3 ± 1320.9 MBq when P-cat was used versus 1464.2 ± 863.3 MBq for AP-cat (p = 0.013). Similarly, both perfused volume and tumor perfused volume were higher when P-cat was used when compared to the smaller one, 718 ± 566 cm3 versus 292 ± 273 cm3 and 328 ± 276 cm3 versus 144 ± 169 cm3, respectively (p = 0.003 and p = 0.014 respectively).

Impact of 90Y-Res on 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT dosimetry

Looking at the impact of 90Y-Res on TARE dosimetry, we found a strong and positive correlation between 90Y-Res, the perfused volume (ρ = 0.651; p < 0.001), the tumor perfused volume (ρ = 0.608; p < 0.001) and the healthy tissue perfused volume (ρ = 0.737; p < 0.001) with higher 90Y-Res.

There were very strong positive association between AD measured in both perfused volume and perfused tumor volume calculated on pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT with the new values obtained after applying the previously mentioned “corrected activity” to pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT (Table 3). However, when comparing absorbed dose values between the pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT dosimetry and the 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT dosimetry using the “90Y-Res correction” there were no longer any significant difference (Table 3). The impact of 90Y-Res on personalized dosimetry was further investigated in a subgroup of HCC patients with borderline perfused tumor dosimetry on the initial pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT that is HCC patients with mean tumor AD within 205 Gy ± 10% for the perfused tumour volume (Table 4). In 1 out 5 patients with borderline but acceptable tumor AD on the pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT dosimetry the resulting tumor AD estimated after implementation of the “90Y-Res correction” was below the recommended threshold for HCC patients. This was interesting although a 90Y-PET/CT post-TARE imaging of the patient would have been useful to confirm this result.

Table 3 Comparison of TARE dosimetry as a function of 90Y-glass microspheres activity for each perfused volume; * t-test for dependent samples and ** Spearman correlation between AD value calculated on pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT with the ordered 90Y-microspheres activity 1 and a retrospective comparison with 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT when applying the “90Y-Res correction” 2 obtained after subtraction of 90Y-Res activity to 90Y activity in the TheraSphere™ vial; AD = Absorbed dose
Full size table
Table 4 Comparison of TARE dosimetry in HCC patients with borderline perfused tumor dosimetry (AD of 205 Gy ± 10%) on on pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT with the ordered 90Y-microspheres activity 1 and a retrospective comparison with 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT when applying the “90Y-Res correction” 2 obtained after subtraction of 90Y-Res activity to 90Y activity in the TheraSphere™ vial; in bold underlined tumor dosimetry with resulting estimated AD below the recommended threshold of 205 Gy for HCC tumor after the retrospective subtraction of 90Y-Res activity to the initial 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT; AD = Absorbed dose
Full size table

Discussion

Personalized dosimetry became the major key element in 90Y-microspheres TARE. Moreover, for an accurate calculation of absorbed doses, a precise measurement of the actual administered activity injected to the patient is essential. In our study, we reported a mean 90Y-Res below 5% (4.8 ± 3.5%, range 0.2–13.7) of the planned administered activity. This was slightly higher than the value reported by Drescher et al. (3.4 ± 1.7%, range 0.9–8.8%), which might be explained by the larger number of injections (n = 61) in our study when compared to their study (n = 18) (Drescher et al. 2020). 90Y-Res was strongly correlated to the activity in the sealed TheraSphere™ vial which might require optimizing some technical aspect of TARE such as a more thorough flushing of the TARE delivery system when higher activity is injected or additional controls of the delivery system using a survey meter during the procedure to reduce 90Y-Res. These aspects were not investigated in this work but certainly deserve further investigations. We did also find significant differences in the values of 90Y-Res according to the injection selectivity during TARE or the type of microcatheter used. These 2 parameters were also associated with significant differences in sizes for perfused volume and perfused tumor volume. There were also significant differences in the activity of the TheraSphere™ vial before TARE, indicating once again that this was the main factor associated with 90Y-Res. In cases of high 90Y-Res, the resulting tumor absorbed dose might be lower than predicted on pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT. This finding is relevant, especially in patients with borderline tumor dosimetry meaning patients with tumor predicted dosimetry equal or very close to the expected efficacy threshold on 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT. In routine practice a waste fraction of approximately 2% of the TheraSphere™ ordered activity is expected, hence a difference between the planned and the delivered activity should be expected. Nonetheless, in our series the difference was significantly higher. Indeed, though we found a mean 90Y-Res of 93.1 ± 94.6 MBq that is 4.8 ± 3.5% of the injected activity, on average 96.7 ± 72.3 MBq that is 5.8% ± 3.7 more activity was measured in the TheraSphere™ vial before the procedure in comparison to the planned therapeutic activity determined on the pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT. This might be related to our fixed days for the TARE procedure and subsequently the calibration date of the TheraSphere™ vial. Additionally, as we found that 90Y-Res was significantly correlated to the TheraSphere™ vial activity, a higher 90Y-Res should be expected in patients for which a higher 90Y-microspheres activity was ordered and it might be beneficial to adjust the ordered activity with at least 5% additional 90Y-microspheres activity for those patients. Nonetheless, though this finding was interesting, no significant difference for absorbed dose was found between the planned therapeutic activity and after the “90Y-Res correction” was applied, thus limiting the impact of 90Y-Res on perfused tumor and healthy perfused liver tissue absorbed dose. However, this was not the case for HCC patients for whom tumor dosimetry was already borderline on pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT as reported for 2 out of 22 HCC patients in this cohort that ultimately received a perfused tumor AD below the recommended 205 Gy threshold (Garin et al. 2021). Those results were an estimation with the “corrected activity” reported on pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT for each patients and a more accurate measurement of the final tumor AD with patients’ post-TARE 90Y-PET/CT should be done in addition to 90Y-Res measurement but it was not possible in our institution at the time ouf this study. Nonetheless, special attention should be given to an optimal flushing of the injection system especially when the activity in the TheraSphere™ vial is equal or slightly less than the planned activity on the initial pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT in patients with borderline tumor dosimetry. Indeed, it might prevent the recommended threshold of 205 Gy for the index lesions to be reached in these patients as an average residual activity of 5% could be expected. We did not explore the dosimetry aspect of the liver tumors outside of HCC due to the current lack of strong consensus on those tumors’ dosimetry and to the relatively smaller number of patients with cholangiocarcinoma and the various histology type of liver metastases.

The accurate calculation of post-treatment residual activity has been reported in the literature (Drescher et al. 2020; Ebbers et al. 2020). Yet, there is currently no consensus on the systematic measurement of the residual activity of 90Y-glass microspheres in patients undergoing TARE (Salem et al. 2023; Lambert et al. 2010; Garin et al. 2016). Additionally, though MIRD equations for doses calculation estimates the injected activity corrected for possible error factors it does not require an accurate measurement of post-treatment residual activity (Gulec et al. 2006; Bolch et al. 2009). However, an estimation of the final activity delivered to the patient during TARE has been recommended by The American association of physicists (Dezarn et al. 2011). The use of a dose calibrator was favored in comparison to a survey meter to measure post-TARE residual activity that should subsequently be subtracted to the patient’s planned injected activity to refine the final dosimetry (Dezarn et al. 2011). Chiesa et al. also included in their calculation for Avoxel (90Y), a correction of the activity injected in the liver Aliver(90Y) as a function of the lung shunt fraction and the residual activity in the vial though the determination of the latter is not clear and do not account for the residual activity in the delivery tubing (Chiesa et al. 2015). In TARE with 90Y-resin microspheres, it is strongly recommended to estimate the post-procedure residual activity present in the vial and delivery system, though the methodology to achieve this measurement was not specified. A survey, a dose calibrator or imaging (90Y-PET/CT or 90Y-bremsstrahlung emission CT) were all available (Levillain et al. 2021). In our study, we chose to measure the residual activity in the vial and the delivery tubing including the microcatheter in a sealed plastic waste container for radioprotection purposes. We avoided disconnecting the delivery tubing after TARE as it might have led to additional exposure for the operators and an increased risk of radioactive contamination of the angiography suite. Additionally, although it would have been interesting to have a more precise assessment of the residual activity in the microcatheter independently of the rest of the delivery tubing to assess its impact more precisely in our study, it has already been reported in the literature. Drescher et al. showed that most of the residual activity measured using the activimeter or 90Y-PET/CT after TARE injection was contained in the microcatheter and connector (Drescher et al. 2020). However, due to discrepancies reported in the literature between 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT prediction and actual distribution of 90Y microspheres resin or glass, when available 90Y-PET/CT with time-of-flight is optimal to more accurately define the actual tumor dosimetry (Chiesa et al. 2021). Unfortunately, due to reimbursement issues in Switzerland at the time of the study, 90Y-PET/CT post-TARE was not systematically available for the patient or to measure 90Y-Res. We chose not to explore 90Y-bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT imaging in this study as it was not quantitative and the vendor protocol used in our machine in routine practice uses an algorithm that adjusts reconstruction parameters to obtain an image with an acceptable noise signal, hence those parameters might vary depending on the patient. However, interesting results were reported in the literature related to the use of SPECT/imaging post-TARE (Kim et al. 2021). Nonetheless, further investigations comparing those results with 90Y-PET/CT post-TARE should be done and if confirm could benefit other institution without routine 90Y-PET/CT post-TARE available (Kim et al. 2021). Instead, we use a survey dose-rate and 90Y-PET/CT is reserved to cases where post-treatment residual activity is higher than expected. We currently use a threshold of ≥ 10% of the dose-rate measured from the TheraSphere™ vial before the injection. The comparison of 90Y-Res measurements between the survey meter and the 90Y-PET/CT was not within the spectrum of this study and has been reported in the literature (Dezarn and Kennedy 2007). Indeed, the use of a survey dose-rate meter to assess residual activity post-TARE has shown consistent results with dose calibrator measurements in the setting of 90Y-resin microspheres whereas it was not the case for 90Y-glass microspheres (Ebbers et al. 2020; Dezarn and Kennedy 2007). Nonetheless, the use of a survey dose-rate meter remains essential in routine practice and the use of 90Y-PET/CT scan diminish the risk of contamination and overall radiation exposure for the workers in comparison to the use of a dose calibrator (Ebbers et al. 2020). In our institution, the measurement of 90Y-Res using 90Y-PET/CT is also done in selected cases if the patients require an additional 90Y-PET/CT scan after conventional 90Y-bremsstrahlung emission to precisely define tumor absorbed dose in particular cases such as significant differences in 90Y-microspheres distribution in the perfused volume in comparison to pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT.

The impact of 90Y-Res on calculation of AD of the perfused tumor volume might have been underestimated in our cohort due to the clear imbalance between multi-compartment and single-compartment treatment. Indeed, there is a proportion of 79% radiation segmentectomies in our study for which the mean tumor absorbed dose was 548 Gy that is more than 2 times higher in comparison to the 223 Gy AD in multi-compartment treatment. Thus, in the case radiation segmentectomy treatments as tumor AD was very high on 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT a 90Y-Res of 5% will not have a significant impact on tumor absorbed dose according to the currently recommended threshold of 205 Gy for tumor AD in HCC patients who represent the vast majority of our population (Garin et al. 2021). AD was less likely to be affected if the activity after the “90Y-Res correction” was slightly lower than planned. Indeed, optimizing perfused tumor AD while limiting the volume of healthy perfused liver tissue within the perfused volume prompt to a radiation segmentectomy approach. Therefore, TARE with multiple injections to improve tumor targeting was preferred in our institution with at least 2 different arterial positions in 19/41 TARE procedures (49%). Additionally, in this population, 6 patients had multiple TARE procedures usually in the setting of very large or bi-lobar tumor infiltration.

A potential limitation in our study was that the influence of the day of the TARE procedure with respect to the date of the calibrated vial activity which was not investigated. The calibration date affects the number of microspheres for a matched activity, hence microsphere specific activity (Spreafico et al. 2014). In our institution we had during the time of this study significantly higher 90Y activity delivered on the day of the TARE procedure compared to the activity defined on the pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT which most likely related to our fixed days for the TARE procedure that is Thursdays and Fridays, which would automatically impact the dose calibration date for the manufacturer. Thus, as previously mentioned when we subtracted the 90Y-res to the activity measured on the TheraSphere™ vial using an activimeter calibrated to the national standard the resulting “the corrected activity” was similar to the planned activity on the pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT limiting the impact of 90Y-res in our institution but this might not be the case in other institutions without fixed days for the TARE procedure.

Another important issue affecting the accuracy of the estimated AD in target tissues was pointed out by Gnesin et al. (2023) and corroborated by Auditore et al. using Monte-Carlo simulation, Auditore et al. (2023). They measured discrepancies between the calibrated 90Y vial activities stated by the vendors and the measured activity of the same vials obtained with quantitative 90Y-PET/CT (Auditore et al. 2023). For the case of 90Y-glass microspheres, an overestimate of the vial activity by a 20% have been reported compared to PET assessment and 90Y Chloride calibrated vial. In absence of new dosimetry results at the time of analysis considering the reported discrepancies, in the present study we neglected this effect that has a direct impact in absolute quantification of the vial and though it might also affect the relative percent difference when compared to the TheraSphere™ vial measured before TARE using the activimeter it would not affect the absolute value in MBq of 90Y-Res measured using 90Y-PET/CT which showed consistent and significant differences in our study. Additionally, in this study 90Y-PET/CT provided with quantitative assessment of the 90Y activity in the acquired field of view based on its calibration with the 18F. The quantification of 90Y it is obtained from the 18F quantification based on the knowledge of the radioscopes half-lives and beta + particle emission yield. Our PET/CT had a quantitative accuracy of ~ 5% in respect to the 18F. It is expected to have a similar accuracy for the 90Y. The expected quantitative accuracy for the 90Y is also corroborated by recent publications (Gnesin et al. 2023; Auditore et al. 2023) where the 90Y-PET activity measured in vials containing a homogenous activity concentration of 90Y was in a ~ 5% agreement with the calibrated activity declared by the vial vendor. We should also mention that the measurement of the 90Y residual activity was measured with three independent methods, that was 90Y-PET/CT, a survey dose-rate and an activimeter and the results of this study will soon be published.

Despite the previously mentioned limitations we thought this study to be of value, in this era of personalized dosimetry, the accurate calculation of the perfused tumor AD is essential as it is associated with tumor response and survival outcomes as reported in the recent literature (Garin et al. 2021; Lam et al. 2022; Salem et al. 2021). Thus, prompting the implementing of a routine procedure for measuring post-TARE residual activity after each procedure to quickly determine which patient might benefit from an additional 90Y-PET/CT scan to verify if the target lesion received the recommended absorbed dose despite a higher residual 90Y-micropheres activity after the procedure. This aspect is particularly relevant in nuclear medicine services with limited availability of 90Y-PET/CT which restrict the possibility to systematically calculated the accurate perfused tumor AD though its significant association with objective response rate has been demonstrated in a prospective trial of HCC patients (Chan et al. 2018). Additionally, to consolidate the importance of personalized dosimetry, more technical developments are expected to be implemented in the future, such as 3D voxel dosimetry that could improve the quantification of 90Y-microspheres distribution (Balagopal and Kappadath 2018). Moreover, it seems reasonable that a standardization of the measurement of the residual activity should also be implemented in routine practice (Veenstra et al. 2022).

Conclusion

Our study reported original results on the measurement of 90Y-Res using 90Y-PET/CT after TARE with an average of 5% residual 90Y-glass microspheres activity not delivered to the patient. The injection selectivity and the type of microcatheter were significantly associated with 90Y-Res, but the strongest association was found with the injected activity suggesting that the higher injected activity the higher 90Y-Res value and a standardization of its measurement should be implemented in clinical practice. Therefore, when a high 90Y-Res is suspected on the survey meter, additional investigations such as a 90Y-PET/CT scan of 90Y-Res and a dedicated post-TARE 90Y-PET/CT imaging of the patient’s treatment site should be done if possible for a more accurate tumor dosimetry accounting for the 90Y-microspheres activity ultimately injected to the patient to assess if the target lesion did receive the recommended AD. This is especially important in HCC patients for whom TARE is planned as a multicompartment treatment with a borderline perfused tumor or healthy perfused tissue dosimetry on the initial pre-treatment 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Change history

  • 08 August 2024

    We have updated the journal title.

Abbreviations

90Y-Res:

90Y-glass microspheres residue

99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT:

99MTc-macroaggregated albumin single-photon emission computerized tomography/ computerized tomography

AD:

Absorbed dose

AP-cat:

ASAHI Masters Parkway Soft 1.98/2.8 F microcatheter

HCC:

Hepatocellular carcinoma

P-cat:

Progreat 2.7Fr. microcatheter

TARE:

Transarterial radio-embolization

References

  • Auditore L, Pistone D, Italiano A, Amato E, Gnesin S (2023) Monte Carlo simulations corroborate PET-measured discrepancies in activity assessments of commercial 90Y vials. J Nucl Med 64(9):1471–1477

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Balagopal A, Kappadath SC (2018) Characterization of 90Y-SPECT/CT self-calibration approaches on the quantification of voxel-level absorbed doses following 90Y-microsphere selective internal radiation therapy. Med Phys 45(2):875–883

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bolch WE, Eckerman KF, Sgouros G, Thomas SR (2009) MIRD pamphlet no. 21: a generalized schema for radiopharmaceutical dosimetry—standardization of nomenclature. J Nucl Med 50(3):477–484

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Busse NC, Al-Ghazi MS, Abi-Jaoudeh N, Alvarez D, Ayan AS, Chen E, Stickel JR (2023) AAPM medical physics practice guideline 14. a: Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolization. J Appl Clin Med Phys 25:e14157

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Caine M, McCafferty MS, McGhee S, Garcia P, Mullett WM, Zhang X, Lewis AL (2017) Impact of yttrium-90 microsphere density, flow dynamics, and administration technique on spatial distribution: analysis using an in vitro model. J Vasc Interv Radiol 28(2):260–268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chan KT, Alessio AM, Johnson GE, Vaidya S, Kwan SW, Monsky W, Padia SA (2018) Prospective trial using internal pair-production positron emission tomography to establish the yttrium-90 radioembolization dose required for response of hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 101(2):358–365

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chiesa C, Mira M, Maccauro M, Spreafico C, Romito R, Morosi C, Mazzaferro V (2015) Radioembolization of hepatocarcinoma with 90Y glass microspheres: development of an individualized treatment planning strategy based on dosimetry and radiobiology. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 42:1718–1738

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chiesa C, Sjogreen-Gleisner K, Walrand S, Strigari L, Flux G, Gear J, Konijnenberg M (2021) EANM dosimetry committee series on standard operational procedures: a unified methodology for 99mTc-MAA pre-and 90Y peri-therapy dosimetry in liver radioembolization with 90Y microspheres. EJNMMI Phys 8:1–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chow PK, Gandhi M, Tan SB, Khin MW, Khasbazar A, Ong J, Asia-Pacific Hepatocellular Carcinoma Trials Group (2018) SIRveNIB: selective internal radiation therapy versus sorafenib in Asia-Pacific patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 36(19):1913–1921

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dezarn WA, Kennedy AS (2007) Resin microsphere activity measurements for liver brachytherapy. Med Phys 34(6 part 1):1896–1900

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dezarn WA, Cessna JT, DeWerd LA, Feng W, Gates VL, Halama J, Salem R (2011) Recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine on dosimetry, imaging, and quality assurance procedures for 90Y microsphere brachytherapy in the treatment of hepatic malignancies. Med Phys 38(8):4824–4845

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Drescher R, Seifert P, Gühne F, Kühnel C, Aschenbach R, Freesmeyer M (2020) Transarterial radioembolization with yttrium-90 glass microspheres: distribution of residual activity and flow dynamics during administration. J Vasc Interv Radiol 31(9):1467–1474

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ebbers SC, Kunnen B, van Nierop BJ, Bemelmans JLM, Krijger GC, Lam MGEH, Braat AJAT (2020) Verification Study of Residual Activity Measurements After Yttrium-90 Radioembolization with Glass Microspheres. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 43:1378–1383

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Garin E, Rolland Y, Laffont S, Edeline J (2016) Clinical impact of 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT-based dosimetry in the radioembolization of liver malignancies with 90Y-loaded microspheres. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43:559–575

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garin E, Palard X, Rolland Y (2020) Personalised dosimetry in radioembolisation for HCC: impact on clinical outcome and on trial design. Cancers 12(6):1557

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Garin E, Tselikas L, Guiu B, Chalaye J, Edeline J, de Baere T, Milliner M (2021) Personalised versus standard dosimetry approach of selective internal radiation therapy in patients with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (DOSISPHERE-01): a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 2 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 6(1):17–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gnesin S, Canetti L, Adib S, Cherbuin N, Monteiro MS, Bize P, Boubaker A (2016) 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 57(11):1672–1678

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gnesin S, Mikell JK, Conti M, Prior JO, Carlier T, Lima TV, Dewaraja YK (2023) A multicenter study on observed discrepancies between vendor-stated and PET-measured 90Y activities for both glass and resin microsphere devices. J Nucl Med 64(5):825–828

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gulec SA, Mesoloras G, Stabin M (2006) Dosimetric techniques in 90Y-microsphere therapy of liver cancer: the MIRD equations for dose calculations. J Nucl Med 47(7):1209–1211

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hilgard P, Hamami M, Fouly AE, Scherag A, Müller S, Ertle J, Antoch G (2010) Radioembolization with yttrium-90 glass microspheres in hepatocellular carcinoma: European experience on safety and long-term survival. Hepatology 52(5):1741–1749

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hong K, Akinwande O, Bodei L, Chamarthy MR, Devlin PM, Elman S, Trimmer CK (2021) ACR–ABS–ACNM–ASTRO–SIR–SNMMI practice parameter for selective internal radiation therapy or radioembolization for treatment of liver malignancies. Brachytherapy 20(3):497–511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kim SP, Juneau D, Cohalan C, Enger SA (2021) Standardizing SPECT/CT dosimetry following radioembolization with yttrium-90 microspheres. EJNMMI Phys 8:1–19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lam M, Garin E, Maccauro M, Kappadath SC, Sze DY, Turkmen C, Salem R (2022) A global evaluation of advanced dosimetry in transarterial radioembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma with Yttrium-90: the TARGET study. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 49(10):3340–3352

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert B, Mertens J, Sturm EJ, Stienaers S, Defreyne L, D’Asseler Y (2010) 99mTc-labelled macroaggregated albumin (MAA) scintigraphy for planning treatment with 90Y microspheres. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 37:2328–2333

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Levillain H, Bagni O, Deroose CM, Dieudonné A, Gnesin S, Grosser OS, Flamen P (2021) International recommendations for personalised selective internal radiation therapy of primary and metastatic liver diseases with yttrium-90 resin microspheres. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 48:1570–1584

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mazzaferro V, Sposito C, Bhoori S, Romito R, Chiesa C, Morosi C, Spreafico C (2013) Yttrium-90 radioembolization for intermediate-advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase 2 study. Hepatology 57(5):1826–1837

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Salem R, Johnson GE, Kim E, Riaz A, Bishay V, Boucher E, Padia SA (2021) Yttrium-90 radioembolization for the treatment of solitary, unresectable HCC: the LEGACY study. Hepatology 74(5):2342–2352

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Salem R, Padia SA, Lam M, Chiesa C, Haste P, Sangro B, Garin E (2023) Clinical, dosimetric, and reporting considerations for Y-90 glass microspheres in hepatocellular carcinoma: updated 2022 recommendations from an international multidisciplinary working group. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 50(2):328–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sposito C, Mazzaferro V (2018) The SIRveNIB and SARAH trials, radioembolization vs. sorafenib in advanced HCC patients: reasons for a failure, and perspectives for the future. Hepatobil Surg Nutr 7(6):487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spreafico C, Maccauro M, Mazzaferro V, Chiesa C (2014) The dosimetric importance of the number of 90Y microspheres in liver transarterial radioembolization (TARE). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 41:634–638

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hazel GA, Heinemann V, Sharma NK, Peeters M (2016) SIRFLOX: randomized phase III trial comparing first-line mFOLFOX6 (plus or minus bevacizumab) versus mFOLFOX6 (plus or minus bevacizumab) plus selective internal radiation therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 34(15):1723–1731

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Veenstra EB, Ruiter SJ, de Haas RJ, Bokkers RP, de Jong KP, Noordzij W (2022) Post-treatment three-dimensional voxel-based dosimetry after Yttrium-90 resin microsphere radioembolization in HCC. EJNMMI Res 12(1):9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Vilgrain V, Abdel-Rehim M, Sibert A, Ronot M, Lebtahi R, Castéra L, Chatellier G (2014) Radioembolisation with yttrium-90 microspheres versus sorafenib for treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 15(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang B, Liang J, Qu ZY et al (2020) Transarterial strategies for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 15(2):e0227475

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Open access funding provided by University of Lausanne

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Lausanne University Hospital, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Sarah Boughdad, John O. Prior, Michael da Mota, Mélanie Mendes De Carvalho, Julien Costes, Maria Firsova & Niklaus Schaefer

  2. Department of Radiology, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Rafael Duran

  3. Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Rafael Duran, John O. Prior, Silvano Gnesin & Niklaus Schaefer

  4. Institute of Radiation Physics, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Silvano Gnesin

Authors
  1. Sarah Boughdad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rafael Duran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John O. Prior
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael da Mota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mélanie Mendes De Carvalho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Julien Costes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Maria Firsova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Silvano Gnesin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Niklaus Schaefer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors confirm contributions to the paper as follows: study conception: SB and SG; data collection: SB and SG; analysis and interpretation of results: SB. The first draft of the manuscript was written by SB and all authors are responsible for reported research and have participated in the drafting or revising and have approved this manuscript as submitted.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Boughdad.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was done according to the ethical standards defined by the Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. Our local ethics committee that is the “ Commission cantonale d'éthique de la recherche sur l'être humain” (CER-VD) approved this retrospective study with informed consent waiver allowing the inclusion of all patients that did not explicitly refuse their consent as per the local legislation at the time of the study (Registration Number: CER-VD-2018-01513).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests relating to this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boughdad, S., Duran, R., Prior, J.O. et al. Measure of 90Y-glass microspheres residue post-TARE using PET/CT and potential impact on tumor absorbed dose in comparison 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT dosimetry. EJNMMI Rep. 8, 26 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41824-024-00214-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41824-024-00214-8

Keywords