Last reviewed by Dr. Dharmender Malik on 14 May 2026 · this article reflects the published primary literature and current clinical practice at FMRI Gurugram.
Introduction
For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are listed for liver transplantation, the central clinical risk is not the surgery itself — it is dropping off the waitlist because tumour grew beyond transplant criteria while waiting for an organ. Bridging therapy is the strategy of keeping tumour controlled during the wait. Y-90 transarterial radioembolization (TARE) is one of the principal bridging options. This article walks through, with primary-literature sourcing, why bridging matters, where TARE sits in the bridging algorithm, what LEGACY and DOSISPHERE-01 actually showed about radiation segmentectomy, expected explant pathology findings, time-to-transplant logistics, and the limits of current evidence.
Transplant criteria and why bridging matters
AI Overview · short answer
Bridging therapy in liver transplantation for HCC is locoregional treatment given to patients on the transplant waitlist to keep tumour within transplant eligibility criteria (typically Milan criteria: single lesion ≤5 cm or up to 3 lesions each ≤3 cm without vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread)[1]. Y-90 TARE is one of several established bridging modalities alongside TACE, thermal ablation (RFA / MWA), and SBRT, with selection guided by tumour size, location, vascular anatomy, liver reserve, and centre expertise[2]. The LEGACY study (Salem et al., Hepatology 2021) reported objective response rates of approximately 88% with radiation segmentectomy (high-dose Y-90 to a single hepatic segment), with sustained tumour control and explant pathology findings consistent with effective bridging[3].
Liver transplantation in HCC is restricted to patients whose tumour burden meets defined criteria, because outcomes drop substantially outside those limits. The principal criteria sets in current use are[1][4]:
- Milan criteria (Mazzaferro et al., NEJM 1996) — single lesion ≤5 cm or up to 3 lesions each ≤3 cm, no macrovascular invasion, no extrahepatic disease. The most widely-used historical standard with documented 4-year survival of 75% and recurrence-free survival of 83% in the original cohort.
- UCSF criteria (Yao et al., Hepatology 2001) — single lesion ≤6.5 cm or up to 3 lesions with largest ≤4.5 cm and total tumour diameter ≤8 cm. An expansion of Milan with similar long-term outcomes.
- Toronto criteria, Up-to-Seven, and other extended criteria — further expansions evaluated in specific centres with criteria-specific outcomes data.
The challenge is waitlist time. Median waitlist times in deceased-donor systems vary by region but commonly run 6-18+ months. During that time, tumour can progress, vascular invasion can develop, or extrahepatic disease can appear — taking the patient outside transplant criteria. UNOS/OPTN data have documented HCC waitlist dropout rates that meaningfully reduce intention-to-treat outcomes, and OPTN has built locoregional therapy into the MELD-exception scoring system specifically to support bridging strategies[5].
What bridging therapy is trying to achieve
Bridging therapy has three overlapping clinical objectives[6]:
- Preventing waitlist dropout — keeping tumour within criteria while the patient waits for an organ.
- Downstaging to within criteria — for patients initially outside Milan / UCSF criteria, locoregional therapy can sometimes reduce tumour burden into the eligible range. This is distinct from bridging (where the patient is already eligible) and has its own dedicated criteria sets and selection algorithms (RETREAT score, AFP thresholds).
- Inducing tumour necrosis ahead of transplant — the explant (the diseased liver removed at transplant) provides the only definitive pathology assessment of what locoregional therapy actually achieved. Pathological complete response (pCR) on the explant is an important post-transplant prognostic marker.
The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) 2018 / 2024 HCC guidelines, the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) HCC guidelines, and the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) strategy all incorporate locoregional bridging into the standard waitlist management algorithm for HCC[7][8].
TARE as one of several bridging modalities
TARE is one option in a portfolio of bridging modalities; the right choice depends on tumour anatomy, liver reserve, and centre expertise[9]:
| Modality | Best-suited setting | Notes |
|---|
| Thermal ablation (RFA / MWA) | Small (typically <3 cm) lesions accessible to percutaneous needle placement | Curative-intent for small tumours; not appropriate for multiple lesions or proximity to critical structures |
| TACE (transarterial chemoembolization) | Multifocal disease; intermediate-stage HCC; well-established bridging modality | Established, may require multiple sessions, post-embolization syndrome typically more pronounced than TARE |
| Y-90 TARE | Larger or segmentally distributed tumours, radiation segmentectomy for solitary HCC, selected patients with portal vein involvement | Single-session in many cases; milder post-embolization syndrome; longer time-to-imaging-response than TACE |
| SBRT (stereotactic body radiation therapy) | Tumours unsuitable for ablation or TARE; well-defined small-to-medium lesions | External-beam approach; works alongside TARE/TACE |
| Resection | Selected single tumours in patients with adequate liver reserve | Curative-intent option; may be combined with later transplant in 'resection-then-transplant' strategies |
Most transplant centres run a multidisciplinary tumour board (hepatology, interventional radiology, transplant surgery, oncology, nuclear medicine) that reviews each waitlisted HCC patient and selects bridging modality on a case-by-case basis. There is no single algorithm that dictates TARE versus TACE — selection depends on tumour size and number, location, hepatic artery anatomy, liver reserve, and expected time-to-transplant[10].
The LEGACY study — radiation segmentectomy outcomes
LEGACY (Local radioEmbolization using Glass microspheres for the Assessment of tumour Control with Y-90) was a multicentre single-arm study evaluating Y-90 TheraSphere in patients with solitary HCC ≤8 cm. It used radiation segmentectomy — delivery of a high Y-90 dose to a single hepatic segment, achieving tumour-absorbed doses that frequently exceed 400 Gy and effectively ablate the treated segment[3]:
- 162 patients with solitary HCC ≤8 cm enrolled across 3 US transplant centres.
- Objective response rate: 88% by modified RECIST.
- Sustained tumour control rate at 6 months: 88%.
- 3-year overall survival: 86.6% in the entire cohort; 92.8% in patients neoadjuvantly treated and then proceeding to transplant or resection.
The LEGACY findings supported a 2022 update to FDA labeling of Y-90 TheraSphere for HCC and established radiation segmentectomy as an evidence-supported approach particularly relevant to bridging-to-transplant in patients with solitary HCC where the tumour can be isolated to a single hepatic segment by selective angiography[11].
DOSISPHERE-01 — personalised dosimetry improves response
DOSISPHERE-01 (Garin et al., Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology 2021) was a randomised trial directly comparing standard dosimetry with personalised dosimetry for Y-90 TARE in unresectable HCC. Patients were randomised to either standard dosimetry (target tumour dose 120 Gy) or personalised dosimetry (target tumour dose ≥205 Gy)[12]:
| Endpoint | Personalised dosimetry (≥205 Gy) | Standard dosimetry (120 Gy) |
|---|
| Objective response rate at 3 months | 71% | 36% |
| Median overall survival | 26.6 months | 10.7 months |
| Treatment-related serious adverse events | Manageable; no excess vs standard dosimetry | — |
The DOSISPHERE-01 result has shifted clinical practice toward personalised dosimetric planning — every Y-90 TARE procedure intended for ablative or transplant-bridging objective should use personalised dosimetry rather than a single fixed activity. Personalised dosimetry requires the pre-procedure Tc-99m MAA mapping scan, tumour volume measurement, and explicit calculation of prescribed activity based on the tumour-absorbed-dose target[13].
TARE vs TACE for bridging — published comparisons
Direct comparisons between Y-90 TARE and TACE for bridging to transplant have been the subject of several retrospective and small prospective studies[14]:
- Time-to-progression and waitlist dropout — multiple cohort studies suggest TARE-bridged patients may have lower waitlist dropout rates than TACE-bridged patients, though randomised evidence directly comparing the two for the bridging endpoint is limited[15].
- Post-transplant outcomes — outcomes after transplantation are broadly similar between TARE-bridged and TACE-bridged patients in most series, suggesting that the choice of bridging modality, when both are technically feasible, does not strongly differentiate post-transplant survival.
- Number of sessions — TARE is typically delivered in 1-2 sessions, while TACE often requires multiple sessions; the practical implications for patients with long expected waitlist times can be meaningful.
- Tolerability — post-embolization syndrome tends to be milder with TARE than with TACE, which can be relevant for patients with limited functional reserve.
- Time-to-imaging-response — TARE response on imaging typically takes longer to fully manifest than after TACE (6-12 weeks for first reliable response assessment).
For a more detailed clinical comparison see our companion TARE vs TACE article.
Patient selection and pre-procedure workup
Every Y-90 TARE bridging procedure is preceded by a mandatory pre-procedure workup, conducted approximately 1-2 weeks before the actual Y-90 delivery[16]:
- Multidisciplinary tumour board review — confirms eligibility (Milan or UCSF or extended criteria), reviews liver reserve (Child-Pugh, MELD), confirms transplant listing and expected waitlist time, selects TARE versus alternative bridging modality.
- Tri-phasic contrast CT or MRI — characterises tumour burden, segmental distribution, vascular anatomy, portal vein patency.
- Mapping angiography — catheter-based angiogram of hepatic arterial supply to identify variant anatomy and to embolize aberrant vessels (gastroduodenal artery, right gastric artery) that could shunt microspheres to gut or other extrahepatic sites.
- Tc-99m MAA SPECT/CT — particles similar in size to Y-90 microspheres are infused during mapping; imaging confirms intended distribution and quantifies lung shunt fraction (target <10% for full-dose treatment).
- Personalised dosimetry planning — based on tumour volume, MAA distribution, and target tumour-absorbed dose ≥205 Gy (DOSISPHERE-01 informed).
- Pre-transplant work-up coordination — confirms blood typing, cross-matching readiness, immunosuppression strategy in place, anaesthesia and surgical evaluation completed.
Explant pathology — what TARE actually achieves
The explant — the diseased liver removed at transplantation — provides definitive pathology assessment of what locoregional bridging therapy actually achieved. Explant pathology data from TARE-bridged HCC cohorts have been reported across multiple transplant centres[17]:
- Pathological complete response (pCR) — complete tumour necrosis with no viable cancer cells in the explant. Reported pCR rates after Y-90 TARE bridging vary by series and dose; high-dose radiation segmentectomy series report meaningful pCR rates particularly in solitary HCC ≤5 cm.
- Partial response (substantial necrosis with residual viable tumour) — the more common pathology finding, with prognostic relevance for post-transplant recurrence.
- Failure to control (viable tumour with no significant necrosis) — uncommon when patient selection, dosimetry, and mapping are rigorous; more likely in patients with extensive disease, vascular involvement, or sub-optimal dose delivery.
Achieved pCR is associated with reduced post-transplant HCC recurrence in published series[18]. This is an important reason the multidisciplinary team plans TARE specifically with curative intent (radiation segmentectomy where feasible) rather than as palliative-intent disease-stabilisation alone.
Limits and contraindications
Y-90 TARE is not appropriate or sufficient for every HCC patient on the transplant waitlist[19]. Recognised limits and contraindications include:
- Inadequate liver reserve — Child-Pugh C disease or very limited functional liver typically contraindicates Y-90, particularly for whole-lobe treatment.
- Unfavourable vascular anatomy — significant arterio-portal or arterio-systemic shunting identified at mapping that cannot be embolized.
- Excessive lung shunt fraction — typically >10% precludes full-dose treatment and may require dose modification or alternative bridging.
- Tumour location precluding selective delivery — diffuse multifocal disease without isolable segments.
- Inability to embolize aberrant vessels — risk of GI ulceration where vessels supplying gut cannot be safely occluded.
- Pre-existing significant biliary obstruction — increased risk of biliary complications post-TARE.
For patients in whom TARE is unsuitable, alternative bridging strategies (TACE, ablation, SBRT, resection where feasible) are selected at multidisciplinary review. The right answer depends on individual anatomy, reserve, and expected waitlist time.
Post-TARE and pre-transplant logistics
Time-to-transplant coordination after Y-90 TARE is a structured process[20]:
- First 1-2 weeks — recovery from procedure, management of post-embolization syndrome, baseline biochemistry monitoring.
- Weeks 2-6 — continued monitoring of liver function, marrow counts, and clinical status. Imaging at 6-8 weeks for early response assessment.
- 3-month restaging — multiphasic CT or MRI ± Ga-68 PSMA PET (if applicable) for response assessment. Patient remains on transplant waitlist with locoregional therapy continuing as needed.
- Repeat treatment if needed — if disease progression is documented during continued wait, additional bridging therapy is considered (further Y-90 if reserve permits, TACE, ablation).
- Transplant coordination — when organ becomes available, transplant proceeds; explant pathology then provides definitive assessment of locoregional therapy effect.
The interval between final bridging treatment and transplantation is variable and depends on organ availability. Continued multidisciplinary review during the waiting period ensures the patient remains transplant-eligible and that bridging therapy is escalated, repeated, or switched as clinically appropriate.
The bottom line
- Bridging therapy is locoregional treatment given to HCC patients on the liver transplant waitlist to prevent dropout and downstage or control tumour while waiting for an organ[1][6].
- Y-90 TARE is one of several established bridging modalities alongside TACE, thermal ablation, and SBRT, with selection guided by tumour anatomy, liver reserve, and centre expertise[9].
- The LEGACY study (Salem et al., Hepatology 2021) reported 88% objective response rate with radiation segmentectomy in solitary HCC ≤8 cm, with 3-year overall survival of 86.6% (92.8% in neoadjuvant-then-transplant patients)[3].
- DOSISPHERE-01 (Garin et al., Lancet Gastro Hepatol 2021) showed personalised dosimetry (≥205 Gy target tumour dose) doubled objective response (71% vs 36%) and median OS (26.6 vs 10.7 months) compared with standard dosimetry[12].
- Y-90 TARE pre-procedure workup is mandatory: multiphasic imaging, mapping angiography, Tc-99m MAA SPECT for lung shunt fraction, personalised dosimetry planning, multidisciplinary tumour board review[16].
- Explant pathology after TARE-bridged transplantation documents pathological complete response, partial response, or treatment failure; pCR is associated with reduced post-transplant HCC recurrence[17][18].
- Y-90 TARE is not appropriate for every patient: contraindications include inadequate liver reserve, excessive lung shunt fraction, unfavourable vascular anatomy, and inability to embolize aberrant vessels[19].
Important
This article is general information about Y-90 TARE as bridging therapy in HCC. Individual eligibility for transplantation and bridging-modality selection requires formal multidisciplinary review including hepatology, transplant surgery, interventional radiology, and nuclear medicine. Treatment plans depend on tumour stage, liver reserve, vascular anatomy, and expected waitlist time.
"Bridging to transplant is a structured strategy, not a single procedure. The mapping angiogram, the MAA SPECT, the personalised dosimetry, the multidisciplinary review, and the coordinated waitlist coordination all happen together. The Y-90 procedure itself is one day. The bridging strategy is the entire wait."
Dr. Ishita B. Sen, MD · Director & Chief, Nuclear Medicine, FMRI
HCC bridging-therapy MDT review · FMRI
At FMRI Gurugram, HCC bridging-therapy review brings together hepatology, interventional radiology, nuclear medicine, transplant surgery, and medical oncology in a structured multidisciplinary tumour board. Eligibility and bridging-modality selection follow Milan / UCSF criteria, AASLD / EASL guidelines, and BCLC strategy.
Request MDT review · WhatsApp +91 8800 988936
For patients & referring clinicians
Frequently asked questions
Q01
What is bridging therapy in HCC liver transplantation?
Bridging therapy is locoregional treatment (Y-90 TARE, TACE, thermal ablation, or SBRT) given to HCC patients listed for liver transplantation to prevent disease progression and waitlist dropout while waiting for an organ. The goal is to keep tumour within transplant criteria (typically Milan: single lesion ≤5 cm or up to 3 lesions each ≤3 cm) until transplant can occur. Bridging is built into AASLD, EASL, and BCLC HCC management guidelines [1][6][7][8].
Q02
What are Milan criteria?
Milan criteria (Mazzaferro et al., NEJM 1996) define standard liver transplant eligibility in HCC: a single lesion ≤5 cm, or up to 3 lesions each ≤3 cm in maximum dimension, with no macrovascular invasion and no extrahepatic disease. The original Milan cohort showed 4-year overall survival of 75% and recurrence-free survival of 83%. UCSF criteria (Yao et al., Hepatology 2001) and other extended criteria expand the eligible range with similar outcomes in selected cohorts [1][4].
Q03
What does the LEGACY study show about radiation segmentectomy?
LEGACY (Salem et al., Hepatology 2021) was a multicentre single-arm study of 162 patients with solitary HCC ≤8 cm treated with Y-90 TheraSphere radiation segmentectomy. It reported objective response rate of 88%, sustained tumour control rate at 6 months of 88%, 3-year overall survival of 86.6% overall and 92.8% in patients who proceeded to transplant or resection. The findings supported a 2022 FDA labeling update for Y-90 TheraSphere in HCC [3][11].
Q04
What is radiation segmentectomy?
Radiation segmentectomy is a high-dose Y-90 TARE technique that delivers ablative-dose radiation (often >400 Gy tumour-absorbed dose) to a single hepatic segment, effectively ablating the treated segment and its contained tumour. It is technically achieved through highly selective hepatic arterial catheterisation. The approach is particularly relevant for solitary HCC ≤5 cm where the tumour can be isolated to one segment, and the LEGACY study established 3-year overall survival around 87% in this setting [3][11].
Q05
How does TARE compare with TACE for bridging?
Both are established bridging modalities. Several cohort studies suggest TARE-bridged patients may have lower waitlist dropout rates than TACE-bridged patients, though direct randomised comparisons for the bridging endpoint are limited. Post-transplant outcomes are broadly similar with either modality when both are technically feasible. TARE is typically delivered in 1-2 sessions vs multiple sessions for TACE, and post-embolization syndrome tends to be milder with TARE. Selection is based on tumour anatomy, liver reserve, and centre expertise [14][15].
Q06
What is DOSISPHERE-01 and why does it matter?
DOSISPHERE-01 (Garin et al., Lancet Gastro Hepatol 2021) was a randomised trial directly comparing standard vs personalised dosimetry for Y-90 TARE in unresectable HCC. Personalised dosimetry (target tumour-absorbed dose ≥205 Gy) showed objective response 71% vs 36% and median OS 26.6 vs 10.7 months versus standard dosimetry. The result shifted clinical practice toward personalised dosimetric planning for all Y-90 TARE with ablative or bridging intent [12].
Q07
Can TARE downstage HCC into transplant criteria?
Yes — for patients initially outside Milan or UCSF criteria, TARE (often in combination with other locoregional therapy) can sometimes reduce tumour burden into the eligible range. Downstaging is distinct from bridging (which is for patients already eligible) and has its own selection algorithms (RETREAT score, AFP thresholds, specific imaging criteria). Whether a downstaged patient is appropriate for transplantation is decided on a case-by-case basis at multidisciplinary review [6][7].
Q08
How long is the typical wait between TARE and transplantation?
Time between Y-90 TARE bridging and transplant is variable and depends primarily on organ availability. In deceased-donor transplant systems, waitlist times commonly run 6-18+ months. The bridging strategy is designed to keep the patient transplant-eligible throughout this period — with repeat bridging therapy if disease progresses during the wait. The interval between final bridging treatment and transplant itself is not fixed; transplant proceeds when an organ becomes available [5][20].
Q09
What does pathological complete response (pCR) on the explant mean?
Pathological complete response (pCR) means no viable cancer cells are found in the explant (the liver removed at transplantation) on histological examination — total tumour necrosis induced by the bridging therapy. pCR after locoregional bridging is associated with reduced post-transplant HCC recurrence in published series, making it an important prognostic marker. High-dose radiation segmentectomy series report meaningful pCR rates, particularly in solitary HCC ≤5 cm [17][18].
Q10
Who is not a candidate for Y-90 TARE bridging?
Y-90 TARE is not appropriate for patients with: inadequate liver reserve (Child-Pugh C, or very limited functional liver), excessive lung shunt fraction (>10% on Tc-99m MAA SPECT/CT, which would result in unacceptable pulmonary radiation), unfavourable vascular anatomy (significant arterio-portal shunting not amenable to embolization), tumour location precluding selective delivery (diffuse multifocal disease), inability to embolize aberrant vessels (risk of GI ulceration), or pre-existing significant biliary obstruction. Alternative bridging is selected at MDT for these patients [19].
Q11
What are the side effects of Y-90 TARE bridging?
Most common: post-embolization syndrome (low-grade fever, mild abdominal discomfort, fatigue, nausea — usually mild and resolves in 1-2 weeks), and fatigue (which can persist weeks). Less common but more serious: radiation-induced liver disease (REILD), cholecystitis, gastrointestinal ulceration, biliary stricture, and rarely radiation pneumonitis. Patient selection, careful mapping, lung shunt assessment, and dosimetric planning are the most important determinants of the safety profile. For broader context see our side-effects-of-nuclear-medicine-treatment article.
Q12
How do I begin an HCC bridging review at FMRI?
At FMRI Gurugram, HCC bridging-therapy review brings together hepatology, interventional radiology, nuclear medicine, transplant surgery, and medical oncology in a structured multidisciplinary tumour board. Eligibility assessment includes multiphasic imaging, liver reserve evaluation, vascular anatomy mapping, and waitlist coordination. Bridging-modality selection follows Milan / UCSF criteria, AASLD / EASL guidelines, and BCLC strategy. WhatsApp +91 8800 988936 to begin a confidential review.
Citations & references
All clinical numbers above are sourced from the primary literature listed below. Every reference links to the open journal page or the regulatory archive — open in a new tab to verify.
[1] Mazzaferro V, Regalia E, Doci R, et al. Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis (Milan criteria).
N Engl J Med. 1996;334(11):693-699.
View source ↗[2] Mehta N, Bhangui P, Yao FY, et al. Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Working Group Report from the ILTS Transplant Oncology Consensus Conference.
Transplantation. 2020;104(6):1136-1142.
View source ↗[3] Salem R, Johnson GE, Kim E, et al. Yttrium-90 Radioembolization for the Treatment of Solitary, Unresectable HCC: The LEGACY Study.
Hepatology. 2021;74(5):2342-2352.
View source ↗[4] Yao FY, Ferrell L, Bass NM, et al. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: expansion of the tumor size limits does not adversely impact survival (UCSF criteria).
Hepatology. 2001;33(6):1394-1403.
View source ↗[5] Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). Policy 9.5: HCC MELD Exception. United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS).
View source ↗[6] Heimbach JK, Kulik LM, Finn RS, et al. AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Hepatology. 2018;67(1):358-380.
View source ↗[7] European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma.
J Hepatol. 2018;69(1):182-236.
View source ↗[8] Reig M, Forner A, Rimola J, et al. BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: 2022 update.
J Hepatol. 2022;76(3):681-693.
View source ↗[9] Llovet JM, De Baere T, Kulik L, et al. Locoregional therapies in the era of molecular and immune treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;18(5):293-313.
View source ↗[10] Singal AG, Llovet JM, Yarchoan M, et al. AASLD Practice Guidance on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Hepatology. 2023;78(6):1922-1965.
View source ↗[11] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. TheraSphere Y-90 Glass Microspheres premarket approval (P200029). FDA Approvals.
View source ↗[12] Garin E, Tselikas L, Guiu B, et al. Personalised versus standard dosimetry approach of selective internal radiation therapy in patients with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (DOSISPHERE-01): a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 2 trial.
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;6(1):17-29.
View source ↗[13] Salem R, Padia SA, Lam M, et al. Clinical and dosimetric considerations for Y90: recommendations from an international multidisciplinary working group.
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(8):1695-1704.
View source ↗[14] Salem R, Gordon AC, Mouli S, et al. Y90 Radioembolization Significantly Prolongs Time to Progression Compared With Chemoembolization in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma (PREMIERE).
Gastroenterology. 2016;151(6):1155-1163.
View source ↗[15] Salem R, Lewandowski RJ, Kulik L, et al. Radioembolization results in longer time-to-progression and reduced toxicity compared with chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
Gastroenterology. 2011;140(2):497-507.
View source ↗[16] Lewandowski RJ, Sato KT, Atassi B, et al. Radioembolization with 90Y microspheres: angiographic and technical considerations.
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2007;30(4):571-592.
View source ↗[17] Riaz A, Kulik L, Lewandowski RJ, et al. Radiologic-pathologic correlation of hepatocellular carcinoma treated with internal radiation using yttrium-90 microspheres.
Hepatology. 2009;49(4):1185-1193.
View source ↗[18] Tohme S, Sukato D, Chen HW, et al. Yttrium-90 radioembolization as a bridge to liver transplantation: a single-institution experience.
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;24(11):1632-1638.
View source ↗[19] Mahnken AH, Spreafico C, Maleux G, et al. Standards of practice in transarterial radioembolization.
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2013;36(3):613-622.
View source ↗[20] Kulik LM, Carr BI, Mulcahy MF, et al. Safety and efficacy of 90Y radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma with and without portal vein thrombosis.
Hepatology. 2008;47(1):71-81.
View source ↗[21] Lewandowski RJ, Gabr A, Abouchaleh N, et al. Radiation Segmentectomy: Potential Curative Therapy for Early Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
Radiology. 2018;287(3):1050-1058.
View source ↗[22] Yao FY, Mehta N, Flemming J, et al. Downstaging of hepatocellular carcinoma prior to liver transplant: long-term outcome compared to tumors within Milan criteria.
Hepatology. 2015;61(6):1968-1977.
View source ↗[23] Mehta N, Heimbach J, Lee D, et al. Wait Time of Less Than 6 and Greater Than 18 Months Predicts Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence After Liver Transplantation.
Am J Transplant. 2017;17(8):2077-2086.
View source ↗[24] Vouche M, Habib A, Ward TJ, et al. Unresectable solitary hepatocellular carcinoma not amenable to radiofrequency ablation: multicenter radiology-pathology correlation and survival of radiation segmentectomy.
Hepatology. 2014;60(1):192-201.
View source ↗[25] Salem R, Lewandowski RJ. Yttrium-90 radioembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11(6):604-611.
View source ↗[26] Padia SA, Lewandowski RJ, Johnson GE, et al. Radioembolization of Hepatic Malignancies: Background, Quality Improvement Guidelines, and Future Directions.
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017;28(1):1-15.
View source ↗[27] Mehta N, Dodge JL, Roberts JP, et al. A novel waitlist dropout score for HCC (DropoutScore).
Liver Transpl. 2018;24(9):1196-1205.
View source ↗[28] Goin JE, Salem R, Carr BI, et al. Treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with intrahepatic yttrium-90 microspheres: factors associated with liver toxicities.
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005;16(2 Pt 1):205-213.
View source ↗[29] Sangro B, Inarrairaegui M, Bilbao JI. Radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma.
J Hepatol. 2012;56(2):464-473.
View source ↗[30] Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (Government of India). Safety Code for Nuclear Medicine Facilities. AERB/RF-MED/SC-2 (Rev. 2).
View source ↗
About the Author
Dr. Ishita B. Sen
MBBS · MD (Nuclear Medicine) · DNB · Post-doctoral Fellowship, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York
Director and Chief of Nuclear Medicine at Fortis Memorial Research Institute. Co-founder of Theranostic Physicians Private Limited (TPPL). Two decades of clinical practice in PSMA imaging and PSMA-directed radioligand therapy, with one of the largest Indian institutional experiences in Lu-PSMA.