European Conference on Embolotherapy

June 22-25 | Nice, France

Mastering Embolisation

June 22-25 | Nice, France

Mastering Embolisation

June 22-25 | Nice, France

Mastering Embolisation

June 22-25 | Nice, France

June 22-25 | Nice, France

Slider
ProgrammeET 2022 Topic HighlightsTARE: Procedural and technical aspects

TARE: Procedural and technical aspects

Dr. Irene Bargellini

Speaker bio

Trans-arterial radioembolisation (TARE) has gained worldwide acceptance as a safe and effective treatment for primary and metastatic unresectable liver cancer [1-3]. Through selective administration of microspheres loaded with beta-emitting isotopes, the goal is to deliver a tumoricidal absorbed dose to liver tumours while sparing healthy liver tissue and limiting systemic toxicity [4].

However, the success of the procedure is strictly related to multiple clinical and technical factors:

  • Patient selection, including liver function, performance status, tumour burden and previous medical history, such as previous transarterial therapies [5-6];
  • Dosimetry, to be personalized based on tumour histology, treatment goal and type of microspheres [6-10];
  • Precise and complete tumour targeting [7];
  • Microspheres’ distribution which may vary according to several parameters, such as tumour extension and vascularisation, position and orientation of the microcatheter, injection velocity, number of administered spheres [11-13].

 

Thus, the preliminary diagnostic work-up becomes essential for planning the best strategy to enhance complete and homogeneous tumour targeting while limiting non-target embolisation.

The diagnostic work-up can be summarized in few essential steps:

 

1) Identification of all tumour arterial feeders, with evaluation of their haemodynamics

In the case of multiple feeders from different branches, it is important to assess if all feeders are able to receive a proper quantity of spheres based on their vascularisation territory. Frequently, there may be major and minor tumour feeders, and the latter may require coil embolisation at a proximal level to enable flow redistribution, reducing the number of injection points (Figure 1) [14,15].

Flow redistribution requires an in-depth knowledge of the possible intra- and extra-hepatic arterial connections, and it should be performed only when strictly needed, since it may be tricky and unpredictable, varying upon vascular anatomy, tumour type and location [16]. The success of flow redistribution has been reported to be lower when parasitized arteries are embolised proximally [17], as well as in centrally located tumours when unilobar treatment is planned [18]. Moreover, lower success rates have been reported in hypervascular bulky lesions, such as neuroendocrine metastases, which can result in unpredictable collaterals [17].

 

2) Identification of any extrahepatic vessel originating from the target area

Non-target embolisation may expose the patient to severe complications due to irradiation of nearby organs, such as the stomach, jejunum, gallbladder, and so on. The diagnostic work-up always requires at least the identification of the origin of the left and right gastric arteries and the cystic artery. When needed, these arteries require embolisation to avoid possible complications.

Whether the cystic artery can be overlooked is still a matter of debate. Our local policy is to avoid including the cystic artery in the treatment territory, placing the microcatheter distal to its origin, and even splitting doses into different injection points, if needed (Figure 2). This is particularly true when dealing with relatively hypovascular lesions, such as metastases, in which we are not able to rely on the preferential flow into the tumour feeding vessels. Permanent embolisation of the cystic artery is usually avoided, since ischaemic cholecystitis may occur.

To identify possible non-target embolisation areas, the use of cone-beam CT is highly recommended. Also, when identifying suspicious arteries during diagnostic angiography, even if the entire branch is not fully recognized, its selective catheterisation should be performed to rule out possible connections with non-target areas (Figure 3).

 

3) Optimisation of catheter position and tip orientation

Previous studies have clearly demonstrated how spheres’ distribution is strongly influenced by the catheter’s position and orientation [11-13]. For instance, when positioning the catheter close to an arterial bifurcation, a preferential flow into one of the two branches is frequently observed, which may be determined by the distal vessels’ size and their area of distribution as well as by the morphology and the orientation of the catheter’s tip. The tip’s orientation is influenced by the anatomy of the more proximal vessels, and the type and position of the supporting 5 Fr catheter. The challenge for the operator is to select the most proper position of the catheters to obtain a homogeneous flow distribution in the entire target volume. To do so, changes in position of the supporting catheter as well as of the microcatheter should be attempted until the optimal flow distribution is obtained.

 

4) Reproduction of the injection velocity

During the preliminary work-up, operators need to be aware of the striking differences in injection velocity when using power injections compared to manual injections. Considering that the treatment will be performed by slow manual injections, the final evaluation of flow distribution and the administration of the Technetium-99m-labelled Albumin MacroAggregates should always be performed by manual injections, trying to reproduce the injection velocity that will be used during the treatment dose administration.

 

Irene Bargellini

 

University Hospital of Pisa, Pisa/IT

 

Dr. Irene Bargellini is interventional radiologist at the University Hospital of Pisa in Pisa, Italy. She received her medical degree from the University of Pisa in 1999, completed her radiology residency in Pisa in 2003 and received a master degree in Interventional Radiology in 2017.

The main focus of her clinical and scientific work is on oncologic imaging and interventional oncology, with particular reference to liver imaging and liver tumors’ loco-regional and systemic therapies. Dr. Bargellini is active member of the Italian Society of Radiology (SIRM), European Society of Radiology (ESR), European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society in Europe (CIRSE) and the International Liver Cancer Association (ILCA).

She serves as reviewer of several national and international journals; she has been vice-director of Giornale Italiano di Radiologia Medica and member of the Editorial Board of European Radiology and Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology. She has authored and co-authored more than 90 articles in peer-review journals, is co-author of several book chapters, and has given over 260 invited lectures at national and international meetings.

 

References

  1. Lee EJ, Chung HW, Jo JH, So Y. Radioembolization for the Treatment of Primary and Metastatic Liver Cancers. Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2019;53(6):367-373. doi: 10.1007/s13139-019-00615-9.
  2. Reig M, Forner A, Rimola J, et al. BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update. J Hepatol. 2022 Mar;76(3):681-693. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.11.018.
  3. Mulcahy MF, Mahvash A, Pracht M, et al; EPOCH Investigators. Radioembolization With Chemotherapy for Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Randomized, Open-Label, International, Multicenter, Phase III Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(35):3897-3907. doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.01839.
  4. Bastiaannet R, van Roekel C, Smits MLJ, et al. First evidence for a dose-response relationship in patients treated with 166Ho radioembolization: A prospective study. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2020; 61(4): 608–612. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.119.232751
  5. Sangro B, Salem R, Kennedy A, Coldwell D, Wasan H. Radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: a review of the evidence and treatment recommendations. Am J Clin Oncol. 2011 Aug;34(4):422-31. doi: 10.1097/COC.0b013e3181df0a50.
  6. Salem R, Padia SA, Lam M, et al. Clinical and dosimetric considerations for Y90: recommendations from an international multidisciplinary working group. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019 Jul;46(8):1695-1704. doi: 10.1007/s00259-019-04340-5.
  7. Hermann AL, Dieudonné A, Ronot M, et al; SARAH Trial Group. Relationship of Tumor Radiation-absorbed Dose to Survival and Response in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Transarterial Radioembolization with (90)Y in the SARAH Study. Radiology. 2020 Sep;296(3):673-684. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2020191606. Epub 2020 Jun 30.
  8. Roosen J, Klaassen NJM, Westlund Gotby LEL, et al. To 1000 Gy and back again: a systematic review on dose-response evaluation in selective internal radiation therapy for primary and secondary liver cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2021;48(12):3776-3790. doi: 10.1007/s00259-021-05340-0.
  9. Garin E, Tselikas L, Guiu B, et al; DOSISPHERE-01 Study Group. 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 2021;6(1):17-29. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30290-9.
  10. Alsultan AA, van Roekel C, Barentsz MW, et al. Dose-Response and Dose-Toxicity Relationships for Glass (90)Y Radioembolization in Patients with Liver Metastases from Colorectal Cancer. J Nucl Med 2021;62(11):1616-1623. doi:10.2967/jnumed.120.255745
  11. Aramburu J, Antón R, Rivas A, Ramos JC, Sangro B, Bilbao JI. The role of angled-tip microcatheter and microsphere injection velocity in liver radioembolization: A computational particle-hemodynamics study. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2017;33(12). doi: 10.1002/cnm.2895.
  12. Aramburu J, Antón R, Rivas A, Ramos JC, Sangro B, Bilbao JI. Computational assessment of the effects of the catheter type on particle-hemodynamics during liver radioembolization. J Biomech. 2016;49(15):3705-3713. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.09.035.
  13. Aramburu J, Antón R, Rivas A, Ramos JC, Sangro B, Bilbao JI. Numerical investigation of liver radioembolization via computational particle-hemodynamics: The role of the microcatheter distal direction and microsphere injection point and velocity. J Biomech. 2016;49(15):3714-3721. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2016.09.034.
  14. Bilbao JI, Garrastachu P, Herra´iz MJ, et al. Safety and efficacy assessment of flow redistribution by occlusion of intrahepatic vessels prior to radioembolization in the treatment of liver tumors. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2010;33(3):523–31.
  15. Spreafico C, Morosi C, Maccauro M, et al. Intrahepatic flow redistribution in patients treated with radioembolization. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2015;38(2):322–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-014-0921-2
  16. Bargellini I, Lorenzoni G, Cervelli R, Boni G, Cioni R. The Efficacy of Coil Embolization to Obtain Intrahepatic Redistribution in Radioembolization: Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2020; 43(11):1733-1734. doi: 10.1007/s00270-020-02618-y.
  17. Alsultan AA, van Roekel C, Barentsz MW, et al. The efficacy of coil embolization to obtain intrahepatic redistribution in radioembolization: qualitative and quantitative analyses. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2020;43(3):391–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-019-02351-1
  18. Ezponda A, Rodrıguez-Fraile M, Morales M, et al. Hepatic flow redistribution is feasible in patients with hepatic malignancies undergoing same-day work-up angiography and yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolization. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2020;43(7):987–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-019-02371-x