Safety and efficacy of Holmium-166 selective internal radiotherapy of primary and secondary liver cancer confirmed by real-world data

Purpose: Holmium-166 has emerged as a promising option for selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) for hepatic malignancies, but data on routine clinical use are lacking. The purpose of this study was to describe the safety and effectiveness of Holmium-166 SIRT in real-world practice through retrospective analysis of a multicenter registry. Methods: Retrospective analysis was conducted on Holmium-166 SIRT procedures performed between July 15, 2019, and July 15, 2021, across seven European centers. Treatment planning, treatment realization and post-treatment follow-up were conducted according to routine local practice. Safety and effectiveness data were extracted from the patients’ health records. Primary endpoint analysis was assessed for the entire study population with separate analysis for subgroups with hepatocellular carcinoma, metastatic colorectal cancer and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Results: A total of 167 SIRT procedures in 146 patients (mean age 66 ± 11 years, 68% male) were retrospectively evaluated. Most common tumor entities were hepatocellular carcinoma (n=55), metastatic colorectal cancer (n=35), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (n=19) and metastatic neuroendocrine tumors (n=10). Nine adverse events grade ≥ 3 according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were recorded, including one fatal case of radioembolization-induced liver disease. Response rates and median overall survival for the above mentioned subgroups were comparable to results from previous Holmium-166 trials as well as to results from Yttrium-90 registries. Conclusion: This study confirms that the safety and effectiveness of Holmium-166 SIRT derived from prospective trials also applies in routine clinical practice, reinforcing its potential as a viable treatment option for primary and secondary liver cancer

The importance of left ventricular function for long-term outcome after primary percutaneous coronary intervention

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the present study we sought to determine the long-term prognostic value of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), assessed by planar radionuclide ventriculography (PRV), after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In total 925 patients underwent PRV for LVEF assessment after PPCI for myocardial infarction before discharge from the hospital. PRV was performed with a standard dose of 500 Mbq of ^99mTc-pertechnetate. Average follow-up time was 2.5 years.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Mean (± SD) age was 60 ± 12 years. Mean (± SD) LVEF was 45.7 ± 12.2 %. 1 year survival was 97.3 % and 3 year survival was 94.2 %. Killip class, multi vessel-disease, previous cardiovascular events, peak creatin kinase and its MB fraction, age and LVEF proved to be univariate predictors of mortality. When entered in a forward conditional Cox regression model age and LVEF were independent predictors of 1 and 3 year mortality.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>LVEF assessed by PRV is a powerful independent predictor of long term mortality after PPCI for STEMI.</p

Model dependence of gated blood pool SPECT ventricular function measurements

Background. Calculation differences between various gated blood pool (GBP) single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) (GBPS) algorithms may arise as a result of different modeling assumptions. Little information has been available thus far regarding differences for right ventricular (RV) function calculations, for which GBPS may be uniquely well suited. Methods and Results. Measurements of QBS (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, Calif) and BP-SPECT (Columbia University, New York, NY) algorithms were evaluated. QBS and BP-SPECT left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF) correlated strongly with conventional planar-GBP LVEF for 422 patients (r = 0.81 vs r = 0.83). QBS correlated significantly more strongly with BP-SPECT for LVEF than for RVEF (r = 0.80 vs r = 0.41). Both algorithms demonstrated significant gender differences for 31 normal subjects. BP-SPECT normal LVEF (67% +/- 9%) was significantly closer to values in the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) literature (68% +/- 5%) than QBS (58% +/- 9%), but both algorithms underestimated normal RVEF (52% +/- 7% and 50% +/- 9%) compared with the MRI literature (64% +/- 9%). For 21 patients, QBS correlated similarly to MRI as BP-SPECT for LVEF (r = 0.80 vs r = 0.85) but RVEF correlation was significantly weaker (r = 0.47 vs r = 0.81). For 16 dynamic phantom simulations, QBS LVEF correlated similarly to BP-SPECT (r = 0.81 vs r = 0.91) but QBS RVEF correlation was significantly weaker (r = 0.62 vs r = 0.82). Volumes were lower by QBS than BP-SPECT for all data types. Conclusions. Both algorithms produced LV parameters that correlated strongly with all forms of image data, but all QBS RV relationships were significantly different from BP-SPECT RV relationships. Differences between the two algorithms were attributed to differences in their underlying ventricular modeling assumptions