4.4 Article

90Y radioembolization of metastatic breast cancer to the liver:: Toxicity, imaging response, survival

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2007.02.019

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To present data from patients with breast cancer liver metastases who underwent radioembolization with yttrium (Y-90) microspheres. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using standard Y-90 lobar treatment protocol, 27 female patients with progressing liver metastases on standard of care polychemotherapy were treated under an open-label phase 2 protocol. After treatment, we assessed (a) tumor response using computed tomography and/or positron emission tomography, (b) biochemical toxicity, and (c) survival. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 52. Seventeen (63%) patients received 20 left lobe treatments (median radiation dose, 123 Gy; mean, 119 Gy), and 20 (74%) patients received 22 right lobe treatments (median radiation dose, 121 Gy; mean, 109 Gy) to the treatment site. No significant dose-difference was noted between the two lobes (P =.69). Tumor response on 90-day follow-up computed tomography showed (a) complete and partial response in nine (39.1%) patients, (b) stable disease in 12 (52.1%) patients, and (c) progressive disease in 2 (8.8%) patients. Positive tumor response on positron emission tomography was noted in 17 (63%) patients. Three of 27 (11%) patients (Eastern Cooperation Oncology Group 1, 2, or 3) showed bilirubin toxicity of grade 3, all of which were attributed to disease progression. Median survival for Eastern Cooperation Oncology Group 0 versus 1, 2, or 3 patients was 6.8 months and 2.6 months, respectively (P =.24) and for patients with tumor burden < 25% versus > 25% was 9.4 and 2.0 months, respectively (P =.46). CONCLUSIONS: Radioembolization with Y-90 brachytherapy device may be viable therapeutic option for the treatment of breast cancer liver metastases in patients who have progressed or failed on standard of care polychemotherapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据