In EDS ansehen

Exploratory investigation of dose calculation and tumor-feeding artery identification using dual CBCT in selective internal radiation therapy with Yttrium-90 microspheres

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Titel: Exploratory investigation of dose calculation and tumor-feeding artery identification using dual CBCT in selective internal radiation therapy with Yttrium-90 microspheres
Autoren: Zhaoxiong Guo, Yuchan Liang, Tingfeng Li, Ao Li, Kangshun Zhu, Yongjian Guo, Wenxin Wang, Wensou Huang
Quelle: Frontiers in Oncology, Vol 15 (2025)
Verlagsinformationen: Frontiers Media S.A., 2025.
Publikationsjahr: 2025
Bestand: LCC:Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
Schlagwörter: cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), Yttrium-90 (90Y), interventional oncology, selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT), CTA, Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens, RC254-282
Beschreibung: AIMTo explore the preliminary application of dual cone-beam CT (CBCT) for dose calculation and tumor-feeding arteries identification in 90Y-SIRT planning.Materials and MethodsA retrospective study analyzed 27 patients with unresectable primary/metastatic liver tumors eligible for 90Y-SIRT. Prior to angiography, dual CBCT and 99mTc-MAA injection, each patient underwent CTA scan. Tumor volume (TV) and liver lobe volume (LLV) were measured from CTA and dual CBCT images (TVcta vs TVcbct and LLVcta vs LLVcbct). Liver perfusion volume (LPV) was derived from 99mTc-MAA mapping and dual CBCT (LPVmma vs LPVcbct). Additionally, analyze the differences between an average calculated 90Y dosage derived from TVcbct and LPVcbct, and dosage calculated using TVcbct combined with LPVmma, against the mean clinically administered (Radioactivity). The Paired Wilcoxon test was applied to evaluate differences between these parameters throughout the study.ResultsThere were no significant differences in liver tumor and perfusion volume measurements (p-values of 0.792 and 0.084, respectively). There was a significant difference in LVcbct compare to LVcta (2083.88 ± 744.64 vs 2187.86 ± 807.28 cm³, p = 0.024), which may be due to differences in contrast agent delivery. No significant differences were found among the three methods of calculated 90Y dosage(TVcbct + LPVcbct, TVcbct +LPVmma, radioactivity)were (1.819 ± 1.241, 1.806 ± 1.240, 1.805 ± 1.236)(all P>0.05).ConclusionDual CBCT is a reliable alternative to the conventional method, while offering real-time procedural advantages for feeder artery identification and catheter positioning during 90Y-SIRT.
Publikationsart: article
Dateibeschreibung: electronic resource
Sprache: English
ISSN: 2234-943X
Relation: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2025.1655769/full; https://doaj.org/toc/2234-943X
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1655769
Zugangs-URL: https://doaj.org/article/5288f1ec5914423fa6102e8b3eb898f9
Dokumentencode: edsdoj.5288f1ec5914423fa6102e8b3eb898f9
Datenbank: Directory of Open Access Journals
Beschreibung
Abstract:AIMTo explore the preliminary application of dual cone-beam CT (CBCT) for dose calculation and tumor-feeding arteries identification in 90Y-SIRT planning.Materials and MethodsA retrospective study analyzed 27 patients with unresectable primary/metastatic liver tumors eligible for 90Y-SIRT. Prior to angiography, dual CBCT and 99mTc-MAA injection, each patient underwent CTA scan. Tumor volume (TV) and liver lobe volume (LLV) were measured from CTA and dual CBCT images (TVcta vs TVcbct and LLVcta vs LLVcbct). Liver perfusion volume (LPV) was derived from 99mTc-MAA mapping and dual CBCT (LPVmma vs LPVcbct). Additionally, analyze the differences between an average calculated 90Y dosage derived from TVcbct and LPVcbct, and dosage calculated using TVcbct combined with LPVmma, against the mean clinically administered (Radioactivity). The Paired Wilcoxon test was applied to evaluate differences between these parameters throughout the study.ResultsThere were no significant differences in liver tumor and perfusion volume measurements (p-values of 0.792 and 0.084, respectively). There was a significant difference in LVcbct compare to LVcta (2083.88 ± 744.64 vs 2187.86 ± 807.28 cm³, p = 0.024), which may be due to differences in contrast agent delivery. No significant differences were found among the three methods of calculated 90Y dosage(TVcbct + LPVcbct, TVcbct +LPVmma, radioactivity)were (1.819 ± 1.241, 1.806 ± 1.240, 1.805 ± 1.236)(all P>0.05).ConclusionDual CBCT is a reliable alternative to the conventional method, while offering real-time procedural advantages for feeder artery identification and catheter positioning during 90Y-SIRT.
ISSN:2234943X
DOI:10.3389/fonc.2025.1655769