Skip to main content
EJNMMI Research
Download PDF
  • Original research
  • Open access
  • Published:

Post-radioembolization yttrium-90 PET/CT - part 1: diagnostic reporting

EJNMMI Research volume 3, Article number: 56 (2013) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Yttrium-90 (90Y) positron emission tomography with integrated computed tomography (PET/CT) represents a technological leap from 90Y bremsstrahlung single-photon emission computed tomography with integrated computed tomography (SPECT/CT) by coincidence imaging of low abundance internal pair production. Encouraged by favorable early experiences, we implemented post-radioembolization 90Y PET/CT as an adjunct to 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT in diagnostic reporting.

Methods

This is a retrospective review of all paired 90Y PET/CT and 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT scans over a 1-year period. We compared image resolution, ability to confirm technical success, detection of non-target activity, and providing conclusive information about 90Y activity within targeted tumor vascular thrombosis. 90Y resin microspheres were used. 90Y PET/CT was performed on a conventional time-of-flight lutetium-yttrium-oxyorthosilicate scanner with minor modifications to acquisition and reconstruction parameters. Specific findings on 90Y PET/CT were corroborated by 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT, 99mTc macroaggregated albumin SPECT/CT, follow-up diagnostic imaging or review of clinical records.

Results

Diagnostic reporting recommendations were developed from our collective experience across 44 paired scans. Emphasis on the continuity of care improved overall diagnostic accuracy and reporting confidence of the operator. With proper technique, the presence of background noise did not pose a problem for diagnostic reporting. A counter-intuitive but effective technique of detecting non-target activity is proposed, based on the pattern of activity and its relation to underlying anatomy, instead of its visual intensity. In a sub-analysis of 23 patients with a median follow-up of 5.4 months, 90Y PET/CT consistently outperformed 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT in all aspects of qualitative analysis, including assessment for non-target activity and tumor vascular thrombosis. Parts of viscera closely adjacent to the liver remain challenging for non-target activity detection, compounded by a tendency for mis-registration.

Conclusions

Adherence to proper diagnostic reporting technique and emphasis on continuity of care are vital to the clinical utility of post-radioembolization 90Y PET/CT. 90Y PET/CT is superior to 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT for the assessment of target and non-target activity.

Background

The science of yttrium-90 (90Y) radioembolization is rapidly evolving. In suitable patients, 90Y radioembolization is an effective treatment modality for inoperable liver malignancies, and its expansion into organs other than the liver has been described [1–5]. Contemporary techniques and clinical outcomes are well described in recent literature [6–11]. 90Y radioembolization is complex and requires close multi-disciplinary coordination across all stages of its workflow, described as a continuum of care [7].

90Y radioembolization is brachytherapy delivered by 90Y-labelled microspheres implanted permanently in the target vascular bed following intra-arterial injection. The microsphere biodistribution within the target arterial territory is dependent on the locoregional flow environment distal to the point of injection. This in turn is influenced by a myriad of inter-related biophysical variables such as the catheter tip cross-sectional spatial location, injection rate and timing interval, proximity to branching daughter vessels, extent of shunting, cardiovascular status, particle load and microembolization [12–14]. Such complexity means that technical success should not be assumed without some form of microsphere imaging. A technically unsuccessful 90Y radioembolization may have prognostic implications for tumor response or non-target radiation injury.

In recent years, 90Y bremsstrahlung single-photon emission computed tomography with integrated computed tomography (SPECT/CT) has been the modality-of-choice for post-radioembolization microsphere imaging, for the lack of a better alternative [8]. 90Y bremsstrahlung scintigraphy suffers from a low spatial resolution, ranging between 11 to 15 mm depending on the choice of energy window, collimator, and image processing [15–17]. This is due to its inherent technical limitation as a form of indirect imaging of a continuous scatter radiation spectrum without a pronounced photopeak, resulting in a coarse representation of the microsphere biodistribution. 90Y bremsstrahlung activity on SPECT/CT often appears smooth and diffuse, with ill-defined margins which are difficult to distinguish from closely adjacent activity foci. As a result, assessment of activity within subcentimeter tumors or tumor vascular thrombosis are often suboptimal on 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT. Quantitatively, 90Y bremsstrahlung scintigraphy is largely inaccurate despite compensation techniques for attenuation, scatter, and collimator-detector response, making it unsuitable for dose–response analysis [18–20].

Positron emission tomography with integrated computed tomography (PET/CT) represents a technological leap from 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT, both qualitatively and quantitatively, allowing direct imaging of 90Y microspheres. Although 90Y is predominantly a β− emitter, coincidence imaging of 90Y is possible because of a minor decay branch to the 0+ first excited state of zirconium-90 followed by β−β+ internal pair production at a very low branching ratio of 31.86 ± 0.47 × 10−6 [21–24]. However, the clinical application of 90Y PET/CT has been fraught with challenges. Today’s time-of-flight PET/CT scanners use lutetium-based crystals due to its superior timing resolution. Such crystals, such as lutetium-yttrium-oxyorthosilicate (LYSO), contain 2.6% of naturally occurring lutetium-176 (176Lu) which results in a background activity of intrinsic true and random coincidences which cannot be distinguished from coincidences by an external radioactive source [22, 25]. This issue was previously thought to be clinically irrelevant until recent interest in 90Y PET/CT. In addition, the low positron activity of 90Y and the intrinsic activity of 176Lu can have an impact on scatter correction. For time-of-flight PET, several authors have computed the scatter based on the PET activity [26–28]. Since the scatter correction algorithm depends on the PET activity map, which is poor due to low signal and intrinsic noise, scatter correction will be negatively affected. The unfavorable combination of intrinsic background activity and a very low positron fraction results in reconstructed 90Y PET/CT images which at the outset, seem uninterpretable due to high background noise.

Despite this, several institutions have published encouraging early experiences using 90Y time-of-flight PET for post-radioembolization imaging [29–31]. These early reports suggest that despite background noise, it is possible to obtain high-resolution images of microsphere biodistribution using conventional time-of-flight PET scanners, with only minor adjustments to scan technique and image reconstruction such as PET acquisition time, number of bed positions, reconstruction iterations, and subsets. 90Y phantom studies of lutetium-based time-of-flight PET/CT systems found the spatial resolution to be 9.3 mm, and the minimum detectable 90Y radioconcentration of a 10-mm phantom sphere was approximately 1 MBq/ml [23, 32]. Count rate linearity was maintained when tested up to 4.7 GBq, and detector saturation from 90Y bremsstrahlung radiation was not an issue [22, 23, 32–34].

For tumor dose quantification, several phantom studies using various protocols on lutetium-based time-of-flight PET/CT systems have recently been published. Carlier et al. found activity quantification of phantom spheres to be feasible at 90Y radioconcentrations greater than 2 MBq/ml, with recovery coefficients of approximately 0.6 and 0.7 for spheres of diameters 17 and 28 mm respectively [32]. Willowson et al. showed a phantom sphere of 90Y radioconcentration 3.9 MBq/ml and diameter 37 mm to have a recovery coefficient of approximately 0.8, and a trend was observed for recovery coefficients to approach 1 with increasing sphere size [33]. Goedicke et al. achieved a mean quantitative error of +2.4% ± 3.4% standard deviation in a 350 ml phantom, and 90Y radioconcentrations greater than 2.9 MBq/ml had quantitative errors less than 2% [34]. Elschot et al. found the absorbed dose quantitative error of a 37-mm diameter phantom sphere of 90Y radioconcentration 2.4 MBq/ml to be −11% uncorrected and +6% corrected for partial volume effects [35]. These phantom studies suggest that tumor dose quantification by 90Y PET may be feasible, and complements clinical reports of 90Y PET tumor dose quantification correlating well with treatment response [24, 36, 37].

On the basis of superior image resolution, quantitative capability, and encouraged by favorable early experiences [29–31], we recently introduced post-radioembolization 90Y PET/CT as an adjunct to 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT in diagnostic reporting. This is a two-part retrospective report reviewing our experience over a 1-year period: Part 1 focuses on qualitative analysis and diagnostic reporting; Part 2 analyzes tissue dose–response by 90Y PET quantification and evaluates the accuracy of tumor predictive dosimetry [38].

Methods

Institutional review board approval was obtained for the conduct and publication of this retrospective report (CIRB 2010/781/C, SingHealth, Singapore), and all research is in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration. We recently introduced 90Y PET/CT as an adjunct to 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT for high resolution imaging of microsphere biodistribution. Pairing 90Y PET/CT with 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT enabled the trouble shooting of indeterminate findings on either modality, and facilitated the learning of our nuclear medicine physicians in the diagnostic reporting of 90Y PET/CT. As there were no 90Y PET/CT protocols specific to our scanner make and model in prior literature, our early scan protocols were based on publications of other scanner types [22, 29]. In the first few months after implementation, our 90Y PET/CT protocol was continually refined by empirical adjustment of acquisition and reconstruction parameters, with a primary emphasis on visual image quality. The aim was to qualitatively achieve a balance between image resolution and background noise, of sufficient clarity for diagnostic reporting purposes. Quantitative accuracy was not a consideration during this early optimization phase.

Our PET/CT is the GE Discovery 690 (General Electric Medical Systems, GEMS, Milwaukee, WI, USA). It uses cerium-activated LYSO crystals, and its image reconstruction is a fully three-dimensional (3D) ordered subset expectation maximization (3D-OSEM) algorithm which incorporates time-of-flight and point spread function information (GEMS name: VUE-point FX; Sharp-IR) [25]. The resulting image is corrected for attenuation, scatter, randoms, dead time, and normalization [25]. 90Y PET was acquired using positron fraction 3.186 × 10−5, half-life 64.1 h, 15 min per bed position, 1 to 2 bed positions from the diaphragm downwards to cover the entire liver, reconstructed with 3 iterations and 18 subsets. Our full protocol is presented in Additional file 1. 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT was performed on a Philips Precedence (Philips, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), which has a dual-head gamma camera and 16-slice CT. A medium energy general purpose collimator was used. Based on our phantom studies, we centered our energy window at 80% ± 15% keV to capture the most prominent photopeak amidst a continuous bremsstrahlung spectrum. Scans were acquired in 128 frames over 360°, 20 s per frame; 3D-OSEM reconstruction using Philips Astonish software; 3 iterations and 8 subsets; matrix size 128 × 128; low-dose CT for anatomical correlation and attenuation correction. All paired 90Y PET/CT and 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT scans were performed within 1 h of each other.

Diagnostic reporting for all paired scans were done in consensus by an experienced team of nuclear medicine physicians with cumulative experience of more than 200 90Y radioembolization cases over 5 years. As no prior guidelines existed in literature for the diagnostic reporting of post-radioembolization 90Y PET/CT, a gestalt interpretation was applied to all paired scans based on a thorough knowledge of the case-specific treatment intent, angiographic and dosimetric factors. 90Y resin microspheres (SIR-Spheres, Sirtex Medical Limited, New South Wales, Australia) were used. Our predictive dosimetric protocol was previously described, which involves catheter-directed CT angiography for arterial territory delineation, quantitative 99mTc macroaggregated albumin (MAA) SPECT/CT of the target organ, and Medical Internal Radiation Dose (MIRD) macrodosimetry to achieve artery-specific personalized radiation planning [11]. As our treatment paradigm deviates considerably from conventional semi-empirical methods, our nuclear medicine team emphasizes continuity of care and an in-depth knowledge of case-specific angiography, in close collaboration with our interventional radiologists.

One of the qualitative study objectives was to compare the ability of 90Y PET/CT versus 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT in providing conclusive information about the presence or absence of 90Y activity within targeted tumor vascular thrombosis. We chose to evaluate tumor vascular thrombosis because these are tumorous lesions within small-to-medium calibre vessels which carry prognostic significance [9]. Another qualitative study objective was to compare the ability of 90Y PET/CT versus 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT in detecting non-target activity.

Where these were appropriate, specific findings on 90Y PET/CT were corroborated by 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT, 99mTc MAA SPECT/CT, follow-up diagnostic sectional imaging (e.g. CT or MRI), or review of clinical records for symptoms or endoscopy. Clinical toxicities attributable to 90Y radioembolization were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03 (CTCAE; National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute, USA). A retrospective review of clinical records was performed for all patients to exclude any clinically significant non-target activity undetected by both imaging modalities. The accuracies of both modalities were calculated by binary classification testing.

Our methods for the diagnostic reporting of target and non-target activity are presented in Table 1. In the absence of established diagnostic reporting guidelines, our methods were heuristically formulated based on rational angiographic and dosimetric principles from our collective experience across all paired scans. Using these guidelines, we were able to overcome the problem of background noise and other general issues related to the complexity of 90Y radioembolization. Thus, the presence of background noise did not pose a problem for diagnostic reporting. In Table 1, we propose an unconventional technique for non-target activity detection, which counter-intuitively requires an increase in noise levels by adjusting the visual display threshold, but was effective in overcoming the problem of background noise.

Table 1 Recommendations for diagnostic reporting of post-radioembolization 90 Y PET/CT
Full size table

As outlined in Table 1, operator adjustment of the PET visual display threshold was a key step to qualitatively distinguish between signal and noise for diagnostic reporting. The lower PET visual display threshold was set to zero for both target and non-target activity detection. For target activity detection, the upper PET visual display threshold setting was adjusted to reduce the background noise to a minimum. On our system, we used the following upper PET visual display threshold settings for target activity detection: median 53% (7,000 kBq/ml), mean 54% (6,900 kBq/ml), 95% confidence interval (CI) 47% to 61% (5,900 to 7,900 kBq/ml).

For non-target activity detection, the upper PET visual display threshold setting was adjusted to deliberately increase the background noise to moderate levels. This counter-intuitive technique was necessary because genuine trace non-target activity may appear visually less intense than noise spikes (see “Discussion”). Therefore, if the upper PET visual display threshold had remained at the settings used to suppress background noise for target activity assessment, it will be unlikely for visually subtle, trace non-target activity to be detected by the operator. Albeit subjective, this method improved the detection of non-target activity with appropriate diagnostic technique (Table 1). On our system, we used the following upper PET visual display threshold settings for non-target activity detection: median 14% (2,000 kBq/ml), mean 22% (2,200 kBq/ml), 95% CI 4 to 41% (1,200 to 3,100 kBq/ml). Non-target activity was sometimes more easily detected on the rotating maximum intensity projection (MIP) than on the sectional PET or PET/CT images. On the rotating MIP, any activity in a non-random pattern protruding from the smooth outline of targeted tissue amidst background noise was regarded as suspicious and pursued on sectional PET and PET/CT images. The above data is tabulated in Additional file 1: Table S1.

Terms and definitions

The following terms and definitions are used throughout our two-part report. Predictive dosimetry refers to personalized radiation planning guided by modern tomographical techniques of microsphere simulation, where intended absorbed doses are determined a priori based on case-specific clinical, angiographic and dosimetric parameters, in accordance with the achievable intent [11]. Target refers to the arterial territory intended for 90Y radioembolization, represented by planning target volumes used in artery-specific predictive dosimetry [11]. Non-target refers to unintended 90Y activity beyond planning target volumes, e.g., stomach and duodenum, which also includes untargeted non-tumorous liver due to microsphere reflux or arterio-portal shunting. Technical success refers to the qualitative assessment of a satisfactory 90Y activity biodistribution in accordance with radiation planning expectations as seen on post-radioembolization 90Y PET/CT, not to be confused with ‘clinical success’ [8]. Our definition of technical success is slightly dissimilar to conventional reporting standards [8] because angiographic appearances alone at the conclusion of 90Y radioembolization may not necessarily reflect the actual microsphere biodistribution [12, 14]. The planning-therapy continuum for 90Y radioembolization at our institution is a seamless, integrated workflow for nuclear medicine physicians with emphasis on continuity of care, a multi-disciplinary approach, open and continuous inter-disciplinary communication, and predictive dosimetry.

Results and discussion

Results

A total of 63 90Y radioembolization procedures were performed over a 1-year period. Of these, 44 (70%) paired 90Y PET/CT and 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT scans were performed. Twenty-one of 44 paired scans were performed using various 90Y PET/CT protocols during our early optimization phase. After finalization of our scan protocol, a further 23 paired scans were performed. For data consistency, all case examples, statistical and dose–response results presented in this two-part report were limited to the latter 23 patients only.

Of these 23 patients, 19 (83%) had hepatocellular carcinomas (HCC), 2 had intra-hepatic cholangiocarcinomas, 1 had liver metastases from pancreatic neuroendocrine cancer, and 1 had a bulky right adrenal gland metastasis from gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) - a case of 90Y radioembolization of an organ other than the liver. Median age was 64.5 years (mean 63.5 years; range 40 to 77 years); there were 16 (70%) male patients. Tumor vascular thrombosis was present in seven (30%) patients: portal vein in six patients and inferior vena cava in one; and all were HCCs. The median hepatopulmonary shunt fraction estimated by 99mTc MAA planar scintigraphy was 5.8% (mean 6.6%; range 1.5% to 24.2%).

A total of 39 arterial territories were treated across 23 patients (mean 2; range 1 to 4), which included the right inferior phrenic, right internal mammary, and right inferior adrenal arteries. The median injected 90Y activity was 2.2 GBq (mean 2.4 GBq; range 1.1 to 5.0 GBq), and the median time interval from 90Y radioembolization to 90Y PET/CT was 21.3 h (mean 19.2 h; range 4.7 to 24.0 h). One patient was deemed technically unsuccessful due to non-target activity in the gastric and duodenal walls resulting in CTCAE Grade 3 toxicity; all others were technically successful. All the above data are summarized in Table 2 and presented in full detail in Additional file 1: Tables S2 and S3.

Table 2 Patient and treatment characteristics
Full size table

90Y PET/CT outperformed 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT in all aspects of qualitative analysis. Its image resolution was consistently superior to 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT (Figures 1 and 2), which also improved operator confidence in diagnostic reporting. Among 23 patients, 7 had tumor vascular thrombosis seen on diagnostic sectional imaging (Additional file 1: Table S4). 90Y PET/CT was able to provide conclusive information about the presence or absence of activity within targeted tumor vascular thrombosis in all seven patients (Figure 3), whereas 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT was conclusive in only three of seven patients; the remaining four patients were indeterminate due to its low resolution. In two patients without visually detectable activity on 90Y PET/CT within targeted tumor vascular thrombosis, follow-up scans confirmed disease progression in these lesions (Figure 4). Therefore, within the statistical limitations of our small dataset, 90Y PET/CT had a 100% accuracy for the provision of conclusive information about the presence or absence of activity within targeted tumor vascular thrombosis, compared to only 30% for 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT (60% sensitivity and positive predictive value; 0% specificity and negative predictive value).

Figure 1
figure 1

Patient 23. (a) Multifocal HCC seen on catheter-directed CT angiogram of the replaced left hepatic artery, arising from the left gastric artery. Four small tumors are indicated by arrows. (b) Enlarged view of segment IV shows the larger central tumor being flanked by two smaller, closely adjacent tumors separated by approximately 3 mm. (c) Post-radioembolization 90Y PET/CT confirms focal activity within the four small tumors, depicted in high resolution. (d)90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT was barely able to detect subtle activity in the larger (arrow) of the four small tumors, but was unable to confirm any focal activity within the other three small tumors due to its low resolution.

Full size image
Figure 2
figure 2

Patient 20. (a) Large hypovascular HCC in the right lobe, seen on contrast-enhanced CT Abdomen. (b) Catheter-directed CT angiogram of the right hepatic artery demonstrates tumor hypovascularity and delineates the target arterial territory. (c)90Y PET/CT depicts, in high resolution, a rim-like activity in the tumor periphery with a large area of relative central photopenia, typical of hypovascular tumors. (d)90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT poorly demonstrates the peripheral activity due to its low image resolution and under-represents the extent of central photopenia.

Full size image
Figure 3
figure 3

Patient 10. Portal vein tumor thrombosis in a large heterogeneous HCC. (a, b) Catheter-directed CT angiogram of the right hepatic artery demonstrates contrast enhancement within portal vein tumor thrombosis (arrow). (c, d)90Y PET/CT depicts focal 90Y activity within the portal vein tumor thrombus in high resolution. (e, f) The same activity is poorly visualized on 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT as subtle, ill-defined activity.

Full size image
Figure 4
figure 4

Patient 12. (a, b) Portal vein tumor thrombosis (arrow) in a multifocal HCC seen on portal venous phase of a triphasic CT liver. (c)90Y PET/CT demonstrates absent activity within the portal vein tumor thrombus. (d) The diffuse nature of 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT is unable to resolve the absence of activity within the portal vein tumor thrombus. (e, f) Four months post-radioembolization, a follow-up triphasic CT liver in the portal venous phase shows significant progression of portal vein tumor thrombosis, validating the 90Y PET/CT findings.

Full size image

90Y PET/CT detected non-target activity in all eight of eight patients, whereas 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT detected only four of eight patients initially - a further three were seen only with hindsight of 90Y PET/CT findings (Additional file 1: Table S5). These eight cases include the stomach (Figure 5), duodenum, chest wall (Figure 6), kidney (Figure 7), untargeted liver, and gallbladder. All 23 patients underwent a retrospective review of clinical records to exclude any clinically significant non-target activity undetected by both imaging modalities. Three of 23 patients were non-residents who were discharged back to their home countries after 90Y radioembolization and were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 20 patients, there were no cases of toxicity greater than or equal to CTCAE Grade 3 attributable to undetected non-target activity in extra-hepatic viscera at a median follow-up of 5.4 months (mean 6.3 months, 95% CI 4.5 to 8.1 months). Therefore, within the statistical limitations of our small dataset, 90Y PET/CT had a 100% accuracy for non-target activity detection, compared to 80% for 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT (50% sensitivity; 100% specificity and positive predictive value; 75% negative predictive value).

Figure 5
figure 5

Patient 17.90 Y radioembolization of a recurrent intra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma. (a) Pre-radioembolization coeliac axis ‘C’ digital subtraction angiography (DSA) shows the common hepatic artery bifurcating into the right hepatic and gastroduodenal arteries ‘GDA’, later branching into the right gastroepiploic artery ‘RGE’. DSA at the conclusion of 90Y radioembolization demonstrated significant vascular stasis and reflux of contrast into the gastroduodenal and right gastroepiploic arteries (images not shown). (b) Coronal view of post-radioembolization 90Y PET/CT and its (c) MIP demonstrates in high resolution, non-target activity along the gastric greater curve ‘G’, antrum ‘A’ and proximal duodenum ‘D’. (d) MIP of 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT shows concordant non-target activity, but of lower intensity and resolution. By quantification 90Y PET activity, detailed in Part 2 [38], the non-target mean absorbed doses to the gastric greater curve, gastric outlet, and proximal duodenum were approximately 49, 65, and 53 Gy, respectively. Within weeks, the patient developed persistent epigastric pain. (e) Gastroscopy at 3.3 months revealed extensive inflammation along the stomach and proximal duodenum. A Forrest III ulcer was present in the pylorus (large arrow). The ulcer edge (small arrows) was inflamed and indurated. (f) Photomicrograph (H&E stain; ×200) of the gastric biopsy showed edema, congestion, and diffuse lymphoplasmacytic, eosinophilic, and neutrophilic infiltrates. A purple-staining resin microsphere (arrow) surrounded by a halo was seen in the lamina propria. The surrounding gastric glands show flattening of the epithelium, dilatation, and reactive atypia, consistent with severe cellular injury.

Full size image
Figure 6
figure 6

Patient 22.90 Y radioembolization of part of a segment III HCC via the terminal branch of the right internal mammary artery (RIMA). (a, b) Pre-therapy 99mTc MAA SPECT/CT demonstrates non-target activity in the right lower anterior chest wall (arrows), shunted from proximal branches of the RIMA. (c, d)90Y PET/CT depicts in high-resolution, non-target activity conforming to the anatomy of the right lower anterior chest wall, concordant with 99mTc MAA SPECT/CT. The slight dissimilarity in chest wall activity biodistribution between 90Y PET/CT versus 99mTc MAA SPECT/CT is due to local arterial flow changes after prophylactic bland embolization of proximal branches of the RIMA (images not shown). (e, f)90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT was unable to detect any non-target activity in the chest wall due to its low image resolution.

Full size image
Figure 7
figure 7

Patient 9.90 Y radioembolization of an organ other than the liver. KIT-negative GIST with bulky metastasis to the right adrenal gland, refractory to tyrosine kinase inhibitors. (a) Pre-radioembolization digital subtraction angiogram (DSA) with catheter tip in the right renal artery ‘R’ demonstrates the origin of the right inferior adrenal artery ‘A’ and the arterial trees of the adrenal tumor and right kidney. The catheter tip was advanced deep into the right inferior adrenal artery for 90Y radioembolization. (b) Post-radioembolization DSA with no change in catheter tip position demonstrates significant vascular stasis and reflux of contrast down the right inferior adrenal artery and distally into the terminal branches of the right renal artery (arrows). (c, d)90Y PET/CT depicts in high resolution, non-target activity conforming to the anatomy of the right renal cortex (arrows). (e, f) On 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT, non-target activity was indistinguishable from adjacent activity bloom in the coronal plane, but seen as low-grade, diffuse activity in the saggital plane (arrows).

Full size image

Discussion

90Y is an imperfect PET tracer. However, its superior image resolution makes it very attractive for clinical use. With proper diagnostic reporting technique, 90Y PET/CT consistently out-performed 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT in high-resolution imaging to confirm technical success, detection of non-target activity, and providing conclusive information about 90Y activity within targeted tumor vascular thrombosis. These qualitative parameters have prognostic implications which may impact patient management early in the post-radioembolization period.

90Y radioembolization is complex, and continuity of care is paramount to the clinical utility of 90Y PET/CT. This is because case-specific issues occur throughout the planning-therapy continuum which can affect the final microsphere biodistribution, e.g., selective sparing of liver segments, vascular stasis, risk of microsphere reflux, vessels-at-risk, on-table changes to the intended vascular approach. The same attending nuclear medicine physician who follows through the entire planning-therapy continuum already has in mind an expected activity biodistribution when reviewing the 90Y PET/CT. This case-specific knowledge improves overall diagnostic accuracy and operator confidence, and leads to clinically meaningful reporting.

Despite the superior image resolution of 90Y PET/CT over 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT, parts of extra-hepatic viscera which lie closely adjacent to the liver still remain blind spots for non-target activity detection, e.g., gallbladder fundus, gastric lesser curve, pylorus, and proximal duodenum. These often appear anatomically inseparable from the adjacent liver on 90Y PET/CT, making assessment for non-target activity in these areas very challenging. This issue is further compounded by varying degrees of PET/CT mis-registration due to the relatively long 90Y PET acquisition time. However, these issues similarly affect 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT and should therefore not be viewed as a comparative disadvantage.

Despite background noise, 90Y PET/CT had a higher detection rate for non-target activity than 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT. Our counter-intuitive technique of deliberately increasing background noise levels has proven to be effective. Its rationale lies in our observation that noise spikes may be of higher visual intensity than non-target activity, as the latter depends on the quantity of shunted microspheres and its 90Y radioconcentration within the non-target arterial territory. This means that visually subtle but genuine trace non-target activity may appear less intense than background noise. Quantitative reconstruction methods proposed by Carlier et al. to distinguish signal from noise were not investigated in our study [32]. Therefore, from a qualitative perspective, a diagnosis of non-target activity should not be made on the basis of its visual intensity, but on its pattern and whether it conforms to underlying anatomy. The presence of a plausible vascular etiology will greatly lend support to the diagnosis, although this is not an essential criteria because it may not always be possible to identify a culprit vessel upon retrospective review of angiography.

The presence or absence of correlative clinical signs or symptoms do not feature in our criteria for non-target activity because clinical sequelae is a quantitative function of dose–response radiobiology over time, with no bearing on the qualitative presence of non-target activity at the time of scan. For example, it is common to detect subtle non-target activity in an untargeted liver lobe due to minor microsphere reflux or arterio-portal shunting, with no clinically relevant sequelae. Another example is the presence of mild non-target activity in the gallbladder wall, without ensuing clinical cholecystitis. It follows that the absence of correlative clinical signs or symptoms do not invalidate a 90Y PET/CT diagnosis of non-target activity.

The detection of non-target activity should immediately be followed by an assessment of the risk of developing clinically significant radiation toxicity. Accurate risk assessment facilitates appropriate action to be undertaken early to mitigate potential radiation injury, even if the patient is asymptomatic at the time of scan. This should be based on 90Y PET quantification of the non-target tissue absorbed dose, which is superior to subjective visual assessment alone. Exceptions are cases of visually subtle, trace non-target activity where the absorbed doses are unlikely to be clinically relevant. Similarly, it may sometimes be difficult to distinguish noise spikes from genuine 90Y activity. However, such indeterminate activity foci are usually too mild to result in any clinically relevant toxicity even if genuine, and therefore do not impact post-radioembolization management. The topic of 90Y PET quantification and its clinical applications in tissue dose–response assessment and tumor predictive dosimetry are presented in part 2 [38].

Conclusions

Adherence to proper diagnostic reporting technique and emphasis on continuity of care are vital to the clinical utility of post-radioembolization 90Y PET/CT. With proper reporting technique, the presence of background noise did not pose a problem, and 90Y PET/CT consistently out-performed 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT in all aspects of qualitative analysis. 90Y PET/CT may supersede 90Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT as the modality-of-choice for post-radioembolization assessment of microsphere biodistribution.

References

  1. Salem R, Thurston KG: Radioembolization with yttrium-90 microspheres: a state-of-the-art brachytherapy treatment for primary and secondary liver malignancies: part 3: comprehensive literature review and future direction. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006, 17: 1571–1593. 10.1097/01.RVI.0000236744.34720.73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sirtex Technology Pty Ltd, Lane Cove: Pilot study of Selective Internal Radiation Therapy (SIRT) with yttrium-90 resin microspheres (SIR-Spheres microspheres) in patients with renal cell carcinoma (STX0110, “RESIRT”). New South Wales, Australia: Australiancancertrials.gov.au; 2010. Trial ID ACTRN12610000690055

    Google Scholar 

  3. Muylle K, Nguyen J, de Wind A, Meuleman N, Delatte P, Vanderlinden B, Roelandts M, Van der Stappen A, Bron D, Flamen P: Radioembolization of the spleen: a revisited approach for the treatment of malignant lymphomatous splenomegaly. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2013, 36: 1155–1160. 10.1007/s00270-012-0484-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hamoui N, Gates VL, Gonzalez J, Lewandowski RJ, Salem R: Radioembolization of renal cell carcinoma using yttrium-90 microspheres. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2013, 24: 298–300. 10.1016/j.jvir.2012.10.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ricke J, Großer O, Amthauer H: Y90-radioembolization of lung metastases via the bronchial artery: a report of 2 cases. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2013,  : . 10.1007/s00270-013-0690-3

    Google Scholar 

  6. Riaz A, Lewandowski RJ, Kulik LM, Mulcahy MF, Sato KT, Ryu RK, Omary RA, Salem R: Complications following radioembolization with yttrium-90 microspheres: a comprehensive literature review. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009, 20: 1121–1130. 10.1016/j.jvir.2009.05.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wang SC, Bester L, Burnes JP, Clouston JE, Hugh TJ, Little AF, Padbury RTA, Price D: Clinical care and technical recommendations for 90yttrium microsphere treatment of liver cancer. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2010, 54: 178–187. 10.1111/j.1754-9485.2010.02167.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Salem R, Lewandowski RJ, Gates VL, Nutting CW, Murthy R, Rose SC, Soulen MC, Geschwind JF, Kulik L, Kim YH, Spreafico C, Maccauro M, Bester L, Brown DB, Ryu RK, Sze DY, Rilling WS, Sato KT, Sangro B, Bilbao JI, Jakobs TF, Ezziddin S, Kulkarni S, Kulkarni A, Liu DM, Valenti D, Hilgard P, Antoch G, Muller SP, Alsuhaibani H, et al.: Research reporting standards for radioembolization of hepatic malignancies. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2011, 22: 265–278. 10.1016/j.jvir.2010.10.029

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Sangro B, Iñarrairaegui M, Bilbao JI: Radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2012, 56: 464–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lau WY, Kennedy AS, Kim YH, Lai HK, Lee RC, Leung TW, Liu CS, Salem R, Sangro B, Shuter B, Wang SC: Patient selection and activity planning guide for selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2012, 82: 401–407. 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2010.08.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kao YH, Hock Tan AE, Burgmans MC, Irani FG, Khoo LS, Gong Lo RH, Tay KH, Tan BS, Chow PKH, Eng Ng DC, Whatt Goh AS: Image-guided personalized predictive dosimetry by artery-specific SPECT/CT partition modeling for safe and effective 90Y radioembolization. J Nucl Med 2012, 53: 559–566. 10.2967/jnumed.111.097469

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Kao YH, Tan EH, Teo TK, Ng CE, Goh SW: Imaging discordance between hepatic angiography versus Tc-99m-MAA SPECT/CT: a case series, technical discussion and clinical implications. Ann Nucl Med 2011, 25: 669–676. 10.1007/s12149-011-0516-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kleinstreuer C, Basciano CA, Childress EM, Kennedy AS: A new catheter for tumor targeting with radioactive microspheres in representative hepatic artery systems. Part I: impact of catheter presence on local blood flow and microsphere delivery. J Biomech Eng 2012, 134: 051004. 10.1115/1.4006684

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jiang M, Fischman A, Nowakowski FS, Heiba S, Zhang Z, Knesaurek K, Weintraub J, Machac J: Segmental perfusion differences on paired Tc-99m macroaggregated albumin (MAA) hepatic perfusion imaging and yttrium-90 (Y-90) bremsstrahlung imaging studies in SIR-sphere radioembolization: associations with angiography. J Nucl Med Radiat Ther 2012, 3: 122.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Shen S, DeNardo GL, Yuan A, DeNardo DA, DeNardo SJ: Planar gamma camera imaging and quantitation of yttrium-90 bremsstrahlung. J Nucl Med 1994, 35: 1381–1389.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rault E, Clementel E, Vandenberghe S, D’Asseler Y, Van Holen R, De Beenhouwer J, Staelens S: Comparison of yttrium-90 SPECT and PET images. J Nucl Med 2010,51(suppl):125.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Elschot M, Nijsen JF, Dam AJ, de Jong HW: Quantitative evaluation of scintillation camera imaging characteristics of isotopes used in liver radioembolization. PLoS One 2011, 6: e26174. 10.1371/journal.pone.0026174

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Minarik D, Sjögreen Gleisner K, Ljungberg M: Evaluation of quantitative (90)Y SPECT based on experimental phantom studies. Phys Med Biol 2008, 53: 5689–5703. 10.1088/0031-9155/53/20/008

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fabbri C, Sarti G, Cremonesi M, Ferrari M, Di Dia A, Agostini M, Botta F, Paganelli G: Quantitative analysis of 90Y Bremsstrahlung SPECT-CT images for application to 3D patient-specific dosimetry. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 2009, 24: 145–154. 10.1089/cbr.2008.0543

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ito S, Kurosawa H, Kasahara H, Teraoka S, Ariga E, Deji S, Hirota M, Saze T, Minamizawa T, Nishizawa K: (90)Y bremsstrahlung emission computed tomography using gamma cameras. Ann Nucl Med 2009, 23: 257–267. 10.1007/s12149-009-0233-9

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Selwyn RG, Nickles RJ, Thomadsen BR, DeWerd LA, Micka JA: A new internal pair production branching ratio of 90Y: the development of a non-destructive assay for 90Y and 90Sr. Appl Radiat Isot 2007, 65: 318–327. 10.1016/j.apradiso.2006.08.009

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Lhommel R, van Elmbt L, Goffette P, Van den Eynde M, Jamar F, Pauwels S, Walrand S: Feasibility of 90Y TOF PET-based dosimetry in liver metastasis therapy using SIR-spheres. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010, 37: 1654–1662. 10.1007/s00259-010-1470-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Van Elmbt L, Vandenberghe S, Walrand S, Pauwels S, Jamar F: Comparison of yttrium-90 quantitative imaging by TOF and non-TOF PET in a phantom of liver selective internal radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 2011, 56: 6759–6777. 10.1088/0031-9155/56/21/001

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Walrand S, Flux GD, Konijnenberg MW, Valkema R, Krenning EP, Lhommel R, Pauwels S, Jamar F: Dosimetry of yttrium-labelled radiopharmaceuticals for internal therapy: 86Y or 90Y imaging? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011,38(suppl):S57-S68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bettinardi V, Presotto L, Rapisarda E, Picchio M, Gianolli L, Gilardi MC: Physical performance of the new hybrid PET/CT Discovery-690. Med Phys 2011, 38: 5394–5411. 10.1118/1.3635220

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bendriem B, Soussaline F, Campagnolo R, Verrey B, Wajnberg P, Syrota A: A technique for the correction of scattered radiation in a PET system using time-of-flight information. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1986, 10: 287–295.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Werner ME, Surti S, Karp JS: Implementation and evaluation of a 3D PET single scatter simulation with TOF modeling. Proc IEEE Nuclear Science Symp Conf Rec 2006, 3: 1768–1773.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Watson CC: Extension of single scatter simulation to scatter correction of time-of-flight PET. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2007, 54: 1679–1686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lhommel R, Goffette P, Van den Eynde M, Jamar F, Pauwels S, Bilbao JI, Walrand S: Yttrium-90 TOF PET scan demonstrates high-resolution biodistribution after liver SIRT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2009, 36: 1696. 10.1007/s00259-009-1210-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kao YH, Tan EH, Ng CE, Goh SW: Yttrium-90 time-of-flight PET/CT is superior to Bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT for postradioembolization imaging of microsphere biodistribution. Clin Nucl Med 2011, 36: 186–187. 10.1097/RLU.0b013e318208f0e6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wissmeyer M, Heinzer S, Majno P, Buchegger F, Zaidi H, Garibotto V, Viallon M, Becker CD, Ratib O, Terraz S: 90 Y Time-of-flight PET/MR on a hybrid scanner following liver radioembolisation (SIRT). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2011, 38: 1744–1745. 10.1007/s00259-011-1792-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Carlier T, Eugène T, Bodet-Milin C, Garin E, Ansquer C, Rousseau C, Ferrer L, Barbet J, Schoenahl F, Kraeber-Bodéré F: Assessment of acquisition protocols for routine imaging of Y-90 using PET/CT. EJNMMI Res 2013, 3: 11. 10.1186/2191-219X-3-11

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Willowson K, Forwood N, Jakoby BW, Smith AM, Bailey DL: Quantitative (90)Y image reconstruction in PET. Med Phys 2012, 39: 7153–7159. 10.1118/1.4762403

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Goedicke A, Berker Y, Verburg F, Behrendt F, Winz O, Mottaghy F: Study-parameter impact in quantitative 90-Yttrium PET imaging for radioembolization treatment monitoring and dosimetry. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2013, 32: 485–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Elschot M, Vermolen BJ, Lam MG, de Keizer B, van den Bosch MA, de Jong HW: Quantitative comparison of PET and bremsstrahlung SPECT for imaging the in vivo yttrium-90 microsphere distribution after liver radioembolization. PLoS One 2013, 8: e55742. 10.1371/journal.pone.0055742

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Walrand S, Lhommel R, Goffette P, Van den Eynde M, Pauwels S, Jamar F: Hemoglobin level significantly impacts the tumor cell survival fraction in humans after internal radiotherapy. EJNMMI Res 2012, 2: 20. 10.1186/2191-219X-2-20

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. D'Arienzo M, Chiaramida P, Chiacchiararelli L, et al.: 90Y PET-based dosimetry after selective internal radiotherapy treatments. Nucl Med Commun 2012, 33: 633–640. 10.1097/MNM.0b013e3283524220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kao YH, Steinberg JD, Tay YS, Lim GKY, Yan J, Townsend DW, Takano A, Burgmans MC, Irani FG, Teo TKB, Yeow TN, Gogna A, Lo RHG, Tay KH, Tan BS, Chow PKH, Satchithanantham S, Tan AEH, Ng DCE, Goh ASW: Post-radioembolization yttrium-90 PET/CT - part 2: dose-response and tumor predictive dosimetry for resin microspheres. EJNMMI Res 2013, 3: 57. 10.1186/2191-219X-3-57

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the following individuals for their contributions: Dr. Glenn P. Sy, M.D., Clinical Application Specialist, GE Healthcare ASEAN, for assisting with 90Y PET/CT optimization; Miss Toh Ying, Research Coordinator, Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET, Singapore General Hospital, for administrative support; Miss Doreen Lau Ai Hui and Dr. Kei Pin Lin, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, for providing CT images; Dr. Toh Ee-Lin, Surgical Registrar, Department of General Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, for providing endoscopic images and annotations; and Dr. Choo Su Pin, Medical Oncologist, Department of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, for patient referrals and reviewing this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Nuclear Medicine and PET, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore, 169608, Singapore

    Yung-Hsiang Kao, Young-Soon Tay, Gabriel KY Lim, Somanesan Satchithanantham, Andrew EH Tan, David CE Ng & Anthony SW Goh

  2. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Hospital Ave, Perth, Western Australia, 6009, Australia

    Yung-Hsiang Kao

  3. Department of Nuclear Medicine, Austin Hospital, 145 Studley Rd, Melbourne, VIC, 3084, Australia

    Yung-Hsiang Kao

  4. Singapore Bioimaging Consortium, Agency for Science Technology and Research (A*STAR), 11 Biopolis Way, Helios Building, Singapore, 138667, Singapore

    Jeffrey D Steinberg

  5. Agency for Science Technology and Research (A*STAR) - National University of Singapore (NUS) Clinical Imaging Research Centre, 14 Medical Drive, Singapore, 117599, Singapore

    Jianhua Yan & David W Townsend

  6. Department of Pathology, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore, 169608, Singapore

    Angela Takano

  7. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore, 169608, Singapore

    Mark C Burgmans, Farah G Irani, Terence KB Teo, Tow-Non Yeow, Apoorva Gogna, Richard HG Lo, Kiang-Hiong Tay & Bien-Soo Tan

  8. Department of General Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore, 169608, Singapore

    Pierce KH Chow

  9. Department of Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, 11 Hospital Drive, Singapore, 169610, Singapore

    Pierce KH Chow

  10. Office of Clinical Sciences, Duke-National University of Singapore Graduate Medical School, 8 College Rd, Singapore, 169857, Singapore

    Pierce KH Chow

  11. Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2300, RC, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Mark C Burgmans

Authors
  1. Yung-Hsiang Kao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeffrey D Steinberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Young-Soon Tay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gabriel KY Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jianhua Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. David W Townsend
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Angela Takano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mark C Burgmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Farah G Irani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Terence KB Teo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Tow-Non Yeow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Apoorva Gogna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Richard HG Lo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Kiang-Hiong Tay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Bien-Soo Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Pierce KH Chow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Somanesan Satchithanantham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Andrew EH Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. David CE Ng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Anthony SW Goh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yung-Hsiang Kao.

Additional information

Competing interests

YHK, ASWG, KHT, and PKHC receive research funding from Sirtex Medical Singapore. ASWG and PKHC receive honoraria from Sirtex Medical Singapore.

Authors’ contributions

YHK, YST, GKYL, SS, AEHT, DCEN, and ASWG were involved in study design, implementation, analysis, and manuscript preparation. JDS, JY, and DWT were involved in study design, scan optimization, and manuscript preparation. AT was involved in histopathological analysis and manuscript preparation. PKHC was involved in clinical care and manuscript preparation. MCB, FGI, TKBT, TNY, AG, RHGL, KHT and BST were involved in radioembolization, angiographic analysis, and manuscript preparation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Electronic supplementary material

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kao, YH., Steinberg, J.D., Tay, YS. et al. Post-radioembolization yttrium-90 PET/CT - part 1: diagnostic reporting. EJNMMI Res 3, 56 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-219X-3-56

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/2191-219X-3-56

Keywords