View in EDS

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

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Exploratory investigation of dose calculation and tumor-feeding artery identification using dual CBCT in selective internal radiation therapy with Yttrium-90 microspheres
Authors: Zhaoxiong Guo, Yuchan Liang, Tingfeng Li, Ao Li, Kangshun Zhu, Yongjian Guo, Wenxin Wang, Wensou Huang
Source: Frontiers in Oncology, Vol 15 (2025)
Publisher Information: Frontiers Media S.A., 2025.
Publication Year: 2025
Collection: LCC:Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
Subject Terms: 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
Description: 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.
Document Type: article
File Description: electronic resource
Language: 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
Access URL: https://doaj.org/article/5288f1ec5914423fa6102e8b3eb898f9
Accession Number: edsdoj.5288f1ec5914423fa6102e8b3eb898f9
Database: Directory of Open Access Journals
Description
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