Analysis of differences between 99mTc-MAA SPECT- and 90Y-microsphere PET-based dosimetry for hepatocellular carcinoma selective internal radiation therapy

Marilyne Kafrouni; Carole Allimant; Marjolaine Fourcade; Sébastien Vauclin; Boris Guiu; Denis Mariano-Goulart; Fayçal Ben Bouallègue

doi:10.1186/s13550-019-0533-6

Analysis of differences between ^99mTc-MAA SPECT- and ⁹⁰Y-microsphere PET-based dosimetry for hepatocellular carcinoma selective internal radiation therapy

EJNMMI Res. 2019 Jul 22;9(1):62. doi: 10.1186/s13550-019-0533-6.

Authors

Marilyne Kafrouni^{1

2

3}, Carole Allimant⁴, Marjolaine Fourcade⁵, Sébastien Vauclin⁶, Boris Guiu^{7

4}, Denis Mariano-Goulart^{5

7}, Fayçal Ben Bouallègue^{5

7}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Nuclear Medicine, Montpellier University Hospital, Montpellier, France. marilyne.kafrouni@gmail.com.
² PhyMedExp, Montpellier University, INSERM, CNRS, Montpellier, France. marilyne.kafrouni@gmail.com.
³ DOSIsoft SA, Cachan, France. marilyne.kafrouni@gmail.com.
⁴ Department of Radiology, Montpellier University Hospital, Montpellier, France.
⁵ Department of Nuclear Medicine, Montpellier University Hospital, Montpellier, France.
⁶ DOSIsoft SA, Cachan, France.
⁷ PhyMedExp, Montpellier University, INSERM, CNRS, Montpellier, France.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare predictive and post-treatment dosimetry and analyze the differences, investigating factors related to activity preparation and delivery, imaging modality used, and interventional radiology.

Methods: Twenty-three HCC patients treated by selective internal radiation therapy with ⁹⁰Y glass microspheres were included in this study. Predictive and post-treatment dosimetry were calculated at the voxel level based on ^99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT and ⁹⁰Y-microsphere PET/CT respectively. Dose distribution was analyzed through mean dose, metrics extracted from dose-volume histograms, and Dice similarity coefficients applied on isodoses. Reproducibility of the radiological gesture and its influence on dose deviation was evaluated.

Results: ⁹⁰Y delivered activity was lower than expected in 67% (16/24) of the cases mainly due to the residual activity. A mean deviation of - 6 ± 11% was observed between the delivered activity and the ⁹⁰Y PET's FOV activity. In addition, a substantial difference of - 20 ± 8% was measured on ⁹⁰Y PET images between the activity in the liver and in the whole FOV. After normalization, ^99mTc-MAA SPECT dosimetry was highly correlated and concordant with ⁹⁰Y-microsphere PET dosimetry for all dose metrics evaluated (ρ = 0.87, ρ_c = 0.86, P = 3.10^-8 and ρ = 0.91, ρ_c = 0.90, P = 7.10^-10 for tumor and normal liver mean dose respectively for example). Besides, mean tumor dose deviation was lower when the catheter position was identical than when it differed (16 Gy vs. 37 Gy, P = 0.007). Concordance between predictive and post-treatment dosimetry, evaluated with Dice similarity coefficients applied on isodoses, significantly correlated with the distance of the catheter position from artery bifurcation (P = 0.04, 0.0004, and 0.05, for 50 Gy, 100 Gy, and 150 Gy isodoses respectively).

Conclusions: Discrepancies between planned activity and activity measured on ⁹⁰Y PET images were observed and seemed to be mainly related to clinical hazards and equipment issues. Predictive vs. post-treatment comparison of relative dose distributions between tumor and normal liver showed a good correlation and no significant difference highlighting the predictive value of ^99mTc MAA SPECT/CT-based dosimetry. Besides, the reproducibility of catheter tip position appears critical in the agreement between predictive and actual dose distribution.

Keywords: Dosimetry; Hepatocellular carcinoma; MAA; SIRT; Y-90 microspheres.