Show simple item record

dc.rights.licenseopenen_US
dc.contributor.authorMARTIN, M
dc.contributor.authorHOCQUELET, A
dc.contributor.authorDEBORDEAUX, F
hal.structure.identifierBioingénierie tissulaire [BIOTIS]
dc.contributor.authorBORDENAVE, Laurence
IDREF: 057389675
dc.contributor.authorBLANC, J-F
dc.contributor.authorPAPADOPOULOS, P
dc.contributor.authorLAPUYADE, B
dc.contributor.authorTRILLAUD, H
dc.contributor.authorPINAQUY, J-B
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-21T08:42:51Z
dc.date.available2021-12-21T08:42:51Z
dc.date.issued2021-01-01
dc.identifier.issn2211-5684en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://oskar-bordeaux.fr/handle/20.500.12278/124234
dc.description.abstractEnTo compare the reliability and accuracy of the pre-treatment dosimetry predictions using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) versus Tc-labeled macroaggregated albumin (MAA) SPECT/CT for perfused volume segmentation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated by selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) using Y-glass microspheres. Fifteen patients (8 men, 7 women) with a mean age of 68.3±10.5 (SD) years (range: 47-82 years) who underwent a total of 17 SIRT procedures using Y-glass microspheres for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma were retrospectively included. Pre-treatment dosimetry data were calculated from Tc-MAA SPECT/CT using either CBCT or Tc-MAA SPECT/CT to segment the perfused volumes. Post-treatment dosimetry data were calculated using Y imaging (SPECT/CT or PET/CT). The whole liver, non-tumoral liver, and tumor volumes were segmented on CT or MRI data. The mean absorbed doses of the tumor (D), non-tumoral liver, perfused liver (D) and perfused non-tumoral liver were calculated. Intra- and interobserver reliabilities were investigated by calculating Lin's concordant correlation coefficients (ρ values). The differences (biases) between pre- and post-treatment dosimetry data were assessed using the modified Bland-Altman method (for non-normally distributed variables), and systematic bias was evaluated using Passing-Bablok regression. The intra- and interobserver reliabilities were good-to-excellent (ρ: 0.80-0.99) for all measures using both methods. Compared with 90Y imaging, the median differences were 5.8Gy (IQR: -12.7; 16.1) and 5.6Gy (IQR: -13.6; 10.2) for D-CBCT and D-Tc-MAA SPECT/CT, respectively. The median differences were 1.6Gy (IQR: -29; 7.53) and 9.8Gy (IQR: -28.4; 19.9) for D-CBCT and D-Tc-MAA SPECT/CT respectively. Passing-Bablok regression analysis showed that both CBCT and Tc-MAA SPECT/CT had proportional biases and thus tendencies to overestimate D and D at higher post-treatment doses. CBCT may be a reliable segmentation method, but it does not significantly increase the accuracy of dose prediction compared with that of Tc-MAA SPECT/CT. At higher doses both methods tend to overestimate the doses to tumors and perfused livers.
dc.language.isoENen_US
dc.subject.enAged
dc.subject.enAged
dc.subject.en80 and over
dc.subject.enAlbumins
dc.subject.enCarcinoma
dc.subject.enHepatocellular
dc.subject.enCone-Beam Computed Tomography
dc.subject.enEmbolization
dc.subject.enTherapeutic
dc.subject.enFemale
dc.subject.enHumans
dc.subject.enLiver Neoplasms
dc.subject.enMale
dc.subject.enMicrospheres
dc.subject.enMiddle Aged
dc.subject.enPositron Emission Tomography Computed Tomography
dc.subject.enReproducibility of Results
dc.subject.enRetrospective Studies
dc.subject.enTechnetium Tc 99m Aggregated Albumin
dc.subject.enTomography
dc.subject.enEmission-Computed
dc.subject.enSingle-Photon
dc.subject.enYttrium Radioisotopes
dc.title.enComparison of perfused volume segmentation between cone-beam CT and Tc-MAA SPECT/CT for treatment dosimetry before selective internal radiation therapy using Y-glass microspheres.
dc.title.alternativeDiagn Interv Imagingen_US
dc.typeArticle de revueen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.diii.2020.09.003en_US
dc.subject.halSciences du Vivant [q-bio]/Biotechnologiesen_US
dc.identifier.pubmed33032960en_US
bordeaux.journalDiagnostic and Interventional Imagingen_US
bordeaux.page45-52en_US
bordeaux.volume102en_US
bordeaux.hal.laboratoriesBioingénierie Tissulaire (BioTis) - UMR_S 1026en_US
bordeaux.issue1en_US
bordeaux.institutionUniversité de Bordeauxen_US
bordeaux.institutionCNRSen_US
bordeaux.institutionINSERMen_US
bordeaux.institutionCHU de Bordeauxen_US
bordeaux.institutionInstitut Bergoniéen_US
bordeaux.peerReviewedouien_US
bordeaux.inpressnonen_US
bordeaux.import.sourcepubmed
hal.identifierhal-03493594
hal.version1
hal.exportfalse
workflow.import.sourcepubmed
dc.rights.ccPas de Licence CCen_US
bordeaux.COinSctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.jtitle=Diagnostic%20and%20Interventional%20Imaging&rft.date=2021-01-01&rft.volume=102&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=45-52&rft.epage=45-52&rft.eissn=2211-5684&rft.issn=2211-5684&rft.au=MARTIN,%20M&HOCQUELET,%20A&DEBORDEAUX,%20F&BORDENAVE,%20Laurence&BLANC,%20J-F&rft.genre=article


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record