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

Safety, Efficacy, and Prognostic Factors After Radioembolization of Hepatic Metastases from Breast Cancer: A Large Single-Center Experience in 81 Patients

Wolfgang P. Fendler, Hanna Lechner, Andrei Todica, Karolin J. Paprottka, Philipp M. Paprottka, Tobias F. Jakobs, Marlies Michl, Peter Bartenstein, Sebastian Lehner and Alexander R. Haug
Journal of Nuclear Medicine April 2016, 57 (4) 517-523; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.115.165050
Wolfgang P. Fendler
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hanna Lechner
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-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, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Karolin J. Paprottka
2Department of Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Philipp M. Paprottka
2Department of Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-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, Hospital Barmherzige Brueder, Munich, Germany
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marlies Michl
4Department of Hematology and Oncology, Ludwig-Maximilians-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, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany
5Comprehensive Cancer Center Munich (CCCM), Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sebastian Lehner
1Department of Nuclear Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany
  • 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, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany
6Division of Nuclear Medicine, Medical 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
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

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

    A 39-y-old female patient with new onset of ascites after radioembolization (RE) of WL in single session. Axial CT and fused 18F-FDG PET/CT images are shown at baseline (A and D) and 12 wk after radioembolization (C and F). Respective serum levels of bilirubin (Bili), AST, and ALT are given. Follow-up CT reveals signs of hepatic cirrhosis with appearance of ascites (arrow). Patient developed grade 2 toxicity for bilirubin/AST and grade 1 toxicity for ALT. Patient eventually recovered from liver toxicity but died from tumor progression at 23 wk after radioembolization. (B and E) Axial low-dose CT (E) and fused Bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT (B) after radioembolization of WL.

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

    Incidence of adverse events by treatment group (n = 81). Difference between treatment groups (i.e., incidence toxicity SL minus WL) is depicted, with those exceeding 5% marked with *.

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

    OS after radioembolization (RE) for entire study cohort (A), separated by tumor-to-liver ratio (B) and transaminase toxicity (C). Log-rank P is given. WNL = within normal limits.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Baseline Characteristics of Study Cohort

    Characteristic (n = 81)Total or median
    Age (y)61 (15)
    Time between diagnosis and radioembolization (y)6.0 (7.3)
    Prior local treatment20 (25%)
    Surgery8 (10%)
    RFA9 (11%)
    TACE4 (5%)
    LITT1 (1%)
    Multiple2 (2%)
    UICC stage at initial diagnosis
     14 (5%)
     2a29 (36%)
     2b13 (16%)
     3a11 (14%)
     3b8 (10%)
     416 (20%)
    Tumor expression profile
     PR+40 (49%)
     ER+60 (74%)
     Her2/neu+28 (35%)
    CA15-3 (U/mL)137 (395)
    Carcinoembryonic antigen (ng/mL)12 (28)
    Tumor-to-liver ratio
     <25%49 (60%)
     25%–50%24 (30%)
     ≥50%8 (10%)
    Radioactivity delivered (GBq)1.6 (0.6)
    • RFA = radiofrequency ablation; TACE = transcatheter arterial chemoembolization; LITT = laser-induced thermotherapy; UICC = International Union Against Cancer; PR+ = progesterone receptor status positive; ER+ = estrogen receptor status positive; Her-2/neu+ = Her-2/neu status positive.

    • Given are total numbers (with percentages in parentheses) or median (with IQRs in parentheses).

    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Adverse Events After Radioembolization

    Adverse eventAll gradesGrade 1Grade 2Grade 3Grade 4
    Fever19 (23%)18 (22%)1 (1%)——
    Nausea41 (51%)15 (19%)20 (25%)6 (7%)—
    Abdominal pain58 (72%)19 (23%)37 (46%)2 (2%)—
    Ulcer———5 (6%)
    Pancreatitis———2 (2%)
    Bilirubin50 (62%)20 (25%)22 (27%)5 (6%)3 (4%)
    Transaminase80 (99%)29 (36%)20 (25%)24 (30%)7 (9%)
    GGT70 (86%)25 (31%)16 (20%)24 (30%)5 (6%)
    INR74 (91%)62 (77%)10 (12%)2 (2%)—
    Ascites29 (36%)20 (25%)9 (11%)——
    REILD———3 (4%)
    • INR = international normalized ratio.

    • Given are total numbers (with percentages in parentheses).

    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    Therapy-Associated Risk for SAE After Radioembolization

    95% confidence interval
    VariablenPOdds ratioLower boundUpper bound
    TAX590.8051.130.442.87
    ANT570.4491.450.553.80
    5-FU/MTX220.8051.130.442.87
    PBA200.2221.890.685.28
    CLA590.1941.940.715.31
    mAb350.043*2.330.955.73
    Other CTx430.4480.710.301.71
    HTx630.1542.200.736.59
    • ↵* Significant.

    • TAX = taxanes; ANT = anthracyclines; 5-FU = fluorouracil; MTX = methotrexate; PBA = platinum-based agents; CLA = DNA cross-link agents; mAb = monoclonal antibodies; CTx = chemotherapy; HTx = hormone therapy.

    • View popup
    TABLE 4

    OS, TTPliver, and Response by 18F-FDG PET or CA15-3

    Response categoryTotal or median
    OS
     n81
     After radioembolization (wk)35 (41)
     After initial diagnosis (y)7.2 (7.3)
    TTPliver
     n30
     After radioembolization (wk)26 (18)
    PET
     n56
     Responder29 (52%)
     Nonresponder27 (48%)
    CA15-3
     n46
     Responder28 (61%)
     Nonresponder18 (39%)
    • Given are total numbers (with percentages in parentheses) or median (with IQRs in parentheses).

    • View popup
    TABLE 5

    Univariate Cox Regression Analysis for OS After Radioembolization

    95% confidence interval
    VariableMedianSubcategories based on rounded mediannPHazard ratioLower boundUpper bound
    Prior local treatmentNo611.0
    Yes200.152*0.660.381.16
    Treatment groupSL231.0
    WL580.9381.020.601.75
    Tumor-to-liver ratio<25%491.0
    25%–50%240.048*1.640.992.72
    ≥50%8<0.001*6.362.7414.79
    Chemo < 3 mo before radioembolizationNo531.0
    Yes280.186*1.390.852.25
    Dose (GBq)1.6<1.6400.3521.250.781.98
    ≥1.6411.0
    Baseline CA15-3137<137401.0
    ≥137410.065*1.550.972.48
    Baseline transaminase toxicityWNL611.0
    Grade ≥ 2200.001*2.481.444.26
    Baseline GGT toxicityWNL361.0
    Grade ≥ 2450.008*1.891.183.03
    Baseline bilirubin toxicityWNL731.0
    Any grade80.2791.511.723.16
    Extrahepatic metastasisNo271.0
    Yes540.2991.300.792.12
    • ↵* P < 0.20, variables were included into multivariate analysis.

    • WNL = within normal limits.

    • View popup
    TABLE 6

    Multivariate Cox Regression Analysis of Selected Variables

    Multivariate Cox regression
    VariablenHazard ratio95% confidence intervalP
    Total81
    Tumor-to-liver ratio ≥ 50%85.672.41–13.34<0.001*
    Baseline transaminase toxicity grade ≥ 2202.151.21–3.800.009*
    • ↵* Significant.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental Data

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Supplemental Data
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Nuclear Medicine: 57 (4)
Journal of Nuclear Medicine
Vol. 57, Issue 4
April 1, 2016
  • 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.
Safety, Efficacy, and Prognostic Factors After Radioembolization of Hepatic Metastases from Breast Cancer: A Large Single-Center Experience in 81 Patients
(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
Safety, Efficacy, and Prognostic Factors After Radioembolization of Hepatic Metastases from Breast Cancer: A Large Single-Center Experience in 81 Patients
Wolfgang P. Fendler, Hanna Lechner, Andrei Todica, Karolin J. Paprottka, Philipp M. Paprottka, Tobias F. Jakobs, Marlies Michl, Peter Bartenstein, Sebastian Lehner, Alexander R. Haug
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Apr 2016, 57 (4) 517-523; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.115.165050

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Safety, Efficacy, and Prognostic Factors After Radioembolization of Hepatic Metastases from Breast Cancer: A Large Single-Center Experience in 81 Patients
Wolfgang P. Fendler, Hanna Lechner, Andrei Todica, Karolin J. Paprottka, Philipp M. Paprottka, Tobias F. Jakobs, Marlies Michl, Peter Bartenstein, Sebastian Lehner, Alexander R. Haug
Journal of Nuclear Medicine Apr 2016, 57 (4) 517-523; DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.115.165050
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
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • This Month in JNM
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Reshaping the Landscape of Locoregional Treatments for Breast Cancer Liver Metastases: A novel, intratumoral, p21-targeted percutaneous therapy increases survival in BALB/c mice inoculated with 4T1 triple negative breast cancer cells in the liver
  • A Novel Injectable Hydrogel Matrix Loaded With 90Y Microspheres for the Treatment of Solid Tumors
  • Liver-dominant Breast Cancer Metastasis: A Comparative Outcomes Study of Chemoembolization Versus Radioembolization
  • Prediction of 90Y Radioembolization Outcome from Pretherapeutic Factors with Random Survival Forests
  • 18F-FDG PET/CT in Local Ablative Therapies: A Systematic Review
  • 68Ga-PSMA PET/CT and Volumetric Morphology of PET-Positive Lymph Nodes Stratified by Tumor Differentiation of Prostate Cancer
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • 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
  • Prognostic Role of 68Ga-PSMA11 PET–Based Response in Patients with Prostate Cancer Undergoing Taxane-Based Chemotherapy
Show more Clinical Investigations

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • radioembolization
  • hepatic metastases
  • breast cancer
  • survival
SNMMI

© 2025 SNMMI

Powered by HighWire