Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
  • SNMMI
    • JNM
    • JNMT
    • SNMMI Journals
    • SNMMI
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Nuclear Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Past Issues
    • JNM Supplement
    • SNMMI Annual Meeting Abstracts
    • Continuing Education
    • JNM Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
    • Subscribers
    • Institutional and Non-member
    • Rates
    • Journal Claims
    • Corporate & Special Sales
  • Authors
    • Submit to JNM
    • Information for Authors
    • Assignment of Copyright
    • AQARA requirements
  • Info
    • Reviewers
    • Permissions
    • Advertisers
  • About
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Contact Information
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • SNMMI Journals
  • View or Listen to JNM Podcast
  • Visit JNM on Facebook
  • Join JNM on LinkedIn
  • Follow JNM on Twitter
  • Subscribe to our RSS feeds
Research ArticleClinical Investigations

Predictive Value of 99mTc-MAA SPECT for 90Y-Labeled Resin Microsphere Distribution in Radioembolization of Primary and Secondary Hepatic Tumors

Harun Ilhan, Anna Goritschan, Philipp Paprottka, Tobias F. Jakobs, Wolfgang P. Fendler, Andrei Todica, Peter Bartenstein, Marcus Hacker and Alexander R. Haug
Journal of Nuclear Medicine November 2015, 56 (11) 1654-1660; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.162685
Harun Ilhan
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anna Goritschan
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Philipp Paprottka
2Institute of Clinical Radiology, University of Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tobias F. Jakobs
3Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Krankenhaus Barmherzige Brüder, Munich, Germany; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wolfgang P. Fendler
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrei Todica
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Peter Bartenstein
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marcus Hacker
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Munich, Munich, Germany
4Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexander R. Haug
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, University of Munich, Munich, Germany
4Division of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • FIGURE 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 1.

    Grading of tracer accumulation in 99mTc-MAA SPECT. (A) Homogenously higher uptake than in normal liver tissue is grade 1. (B) Heterogeneously higher uptake than in normal liver tissue is grade 2. (C) Same uptake as in normal liver tissue is grade 3. (D) Lower uptake than in normal liver tissue is grade 4.

  • FIGURE 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 2.

    Scatterplot of mean TBR in 99mTc-MAA SPECT (x-axis) and mean TBR in 90Y-bremsstrahlung SPECT (y-axis).

  • FIGURE 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    FIGURE 3.

    Coregistered diagnostic CT, 99mTc-MAA SPECT, and 90Y-bremsstrahlung SPECT scans of 60-y-old woman with hepatically metastasized breast cancer who had undergone sequential lobar radioembolization. Hepatic lesion in right lobe (E and F) does not show relevant uptake on 99mTc-MAA SPECT (A and C). 90Y-bremsstrahlung SPECT (B and D), however, reveals high uptake in tumor during radioembolization.

Tables

  • Figures
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Tumor Grade on 99mTc-MAA and 90Y-Bremsstrahlung SPECT

    99mTc-MAA90Y-bremsstrahlung
    TotalGradeTotal
    PrimaryGraden%1234Graden%
    HCC11316.91021011722.1
    25875.37500125672.7
    322.60200311.3
    445.20202433.9
    CCC11421.51310012030.8
    24873.87400124467.7
    300.00000300.0
    434.60300411.5
    Breast cancer14536.64221016552.8
    26653.718480025343.1
    321.62000310.8
    4108.13304443.3
    CRC17617.2571711110223.1
    233876.53729065231972.2
    371.61420392.0
    4214.878064122.7
    NETs15731.74952118346.1
    210860.031761028748.3
    342.21120373.9
    4116.12522431.7
    Pancreatic cancer1625.033001520.8
    21458.32120021666.7
    300.00000314.2
    4416.70112428.3
    Lung cancer1330.030001330.0
    2770.007002770.0
    300.00000300.0
    400.00000400.0
    Malignant melanoma1211.102001211.1
    21583.32120121583.3
    300.00000300.0
    415.60100415.6
    Urologic tumor1516.723001310.0
    22583.31240022790.0
    300.00000300.0
    400.00000400.0
    Ear-nose-throat tumors100.000001225.0
    281000.024022450.0
    300.00000300.0
    400.000004225.0
    Non-CRC gastrointestinal tumors1212.520001637.5
    21381.3490021062.5
    300.00000300.0
    416.30100400.0
    Sarcoma1746.752001640.0
    2640.014012853.3
    300.00000300.0
    4213.30200416.7
    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Mean TBR on 99mTc-MAA and 90Y-Bremsstrahlung SPECT and Spearman Correlation Coefficient

    Mean TBR ± SD
    Primary tumorn99mTc-MAA90Y-bremsstrahlungSpearman correlation coefficientP
    HCC772.11 ± 1.251.56 ± 0.500.398<0.001
    CCC652.05 ± 0.971.41 ± 0.370.2790.024
    Breast cancer1231.65 ± 0.761.41 ± 0.470.3080.001
    CRC4421.80 ± 0.921.43 ± 0.490.22<0.001
    NETs1802.16 ± 1.211.53 ± 0.470.1970.008
    PAN241.92 ± 1.151.41 ± 0.520.3230.123
    PUL101.99 ± 0.941.66 ± 0.760.4420.2
    MM181.93 ± 1.131.53 ± 0.780.0940.711
    URO301.97 ± 0.941.71 ± 0.310.050.795
    ENT82.61 ± 0.551.63 ± 0.900.1430.736
    GI162.27 ± 1.051.81 ± 0.410.1740.52
    SAR151.73 ± 1.101.64 ± 1.240.0360.899
    Total1,0081.90 ± 1.011.48 ± 0.510.261<0.001
    • PAN = pancreatic cancer; PUL = lung cancer; MM = malignant carcinoma; URO = urologic tumor; ENT = ear-nose-throat tumor; GI = non-CRC gastrointestinal cancer; SAR = sarcoma.

    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    Mean TBR and Grade in Comparison of Highly and Moderately Hypervascularized Tumors on 99mTc-MAA and 90Y-Bremsstrahlung SPECT

    99mTc-MAA90Y-bremsstrahlung
    Hypervascularized…Graden%Mean TBR ± SDGraden%Mean TBR ± SD
    Highly (n = 322; HCC, CCC, NETs)18426.12.32 ± 1.10112037.31.54 ± 0.41
    221466.52.20 ± 1.16218758.11.54 ± 0.47
    361.91.24 ± 0.39382.50.96 ± 0.21
    4185.60.61 ± 0.24472.20.78 ± 0.17
    Moderately (n = 565; CRC, breast cancer)112121.41.91 ± 0.88116729.61.50 ± 0.52
    240471.51.81 ± 0.87237265.81.42 ± 0.46
    391.61.02 ± 0.283101.81.13 ± 0.24
    4315.50.76 ± 0.234162.80.86 ± 0.14
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 56 (11)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 56, Issue 11
November 1, 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Nuclear Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Predictive Value of 99mTc-MAA SPECT for 90Y-Labeled Resin Microsphere Distribution in Radioembolization of Primary and Secondary Hepatic Tumors
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Nuclear Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Nuclear Medicine web site.
Citation Tools
Predictive Value of 99mTc-MAA SPECT for 90Y-Labeled Resin Microsphere Distribution in Radioembolization of Primary and Secondary Hepatic Tumors
Harun Ilhan, Anna Goritschan, Philipp Paprottka, Tobias F. Jakobs, Wolfgang P. Fendler, Andrei Todica, Peter Bartenstein, Marcus Hacker, Alexander R. Haug
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Nov 2015, 56 (11) 1654-1660; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.115.162685

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Predictive Value of 99mTc-MAA SPECT for 90Y-Labeled Resin Microsphere Distribution in Radioembolization of Primary and Secondary Hepatic Tumors
Harun Ilhan, Anna Goritschan, Philipp Paprottka, Tobias F. Jakobs, Wolfgang P. Fendler, Andrei Todica, Peter Bartenstein, Marcus Hacker, Alexander R. Haug
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Nov 2015, 56 (11) 1654-1660; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.115.162685
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • DISCLOSURE
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Radioembolization of Colorectal Liver Metastases: Indications, Technique, and Outcomes
  • High Impact of Preferential Flow on 99mTc-MAA and 90Y-Loaded Microsphere Uptake Correlation
  • Reply: High Impact of Preferential Flow on 99mTc-MAA and 90Y-Loaded Microsphere Uptake Correlation
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Feasibility of Ultra-Low-Activity 18F-FDG PET/CT Imaging Using a Long–Axial-Field-of-View PET/CT System
  • Cardiac Presynaptic Sympathetic Nervous Function Evaluated by Cardiac PET in Patients with Chronotropic Incompetence Without Heart Failure
  • Validation and Evaluation of a Vendor-Provided Head Motion Correction Algorithm on the uMI Panorama PET/CT System
Show more Clinical Investigations

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • 90Y radioembolization
  • liver tumor
  • SIRT
  • SPECT/CT
  • 99mTc macroaggregated albumin
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire