Treatment of Primary Liver Tumors and Liver Metastases, Part 1: Nuclear Medicine Techniques.

90Y radioembolization is an increasingly used treatment for both primary and metastatic malignancy in the liver. Understanding the biophysical properties, dosing concerns, and imaging appearance of this treatment is important for interventional radiologists and nuclear medicine physicians to provide important therapy. 90Y radioembolization is efficacious and safe, although the possibility of complications does exist. This article provides a comprehensive in-depth discussion about the indications for 90Y radioembolization, reviews the role of preprocedural angiography and 99mTc-macroaggregated albumin scans, illustrates different dosing techniques, compares and contrasts resin and glass microspheres, and describes potential complications.

Patient Radiation Exposure in Transradial versus Transfemoral Yttrium-90 Radioembolization: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare differences in patient radiation exposure (PRE) during transarterial yttrium-90 (90Y) radioembolization (TARE) between transradial access (TRA) and transfemoral access (TFA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 810 consecutive first-time TARE procedures in patients from 2013 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. A propensity score-matching (PSM) analysis matched TRA and TFA groups on the basis of patient age, sex, weight, height, cancer type, 90Y microsphere type, and number of previous procedures from the same and opposite approaches. Matched groups were then compared by PRE measures fluoroscopy time (FT), dose-area product (DAP), and cumulative air kerma (AK). Effect size for each PRE measure was calculated. RESULTS: Before PSM, TRA and TFA groups differed significantly in mean age, weight, and number of previous procedures from the same and opposite approach (all P < .05). After PSM, each group consisted of 302 procedures (overall, n = 604) and no longer differed in any procedure performed before surgery measure. TRA did not differ from the matched TFA group regarding median FT (9.50 vs 9.40 minutes, P = .095), median DAP (67,066 vs 67,219 mGy·cm2; P = .19), or median AK (323.63 vs 248.46 mGy; P = .16). Effect sizes were 0.068, 0.054, and 0.110 for FT, DAP, and AK, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: No statistical differences were found for PRE measures between the matched TRA and TFA approach groups. Furthermore, practical effect sizes were considered to be small for AK and less than small for FT and DAP, and therefore, any differences in PRE between the radial and femoral approaches for TARE are minor and unlikely to be noticeable in everyday clinical practice.