Skip to main content

Table 4 Univariate analysis of predictive factors of poor agreement between DPost-treatment-R and DPredicitve-D for lesion, TL and NTL

From: Combined quality and dose-volume histograms for assessing the predictive value of 99mTc-MAA SPECT/CT simulation for personalizing radioembolization treatment in liver metastatic colorectal cancer

Variables Dichotomisation QF Lesion QF TL QF NTL
median
(IQR)
p median
(IQR)
p median
(IQR)
p
Sex Male vs. Female 0.23 (0.14-0.34) vs 0.22 (0.13-0.33) 0.50 0.29 (0.20-0.37) vs 0.25 (0.17-0.29) 0.22 0.27 (0.19-0.36) vs 0.27 (0.22-0.40) 0.79
Age (y) > 73 vs ≤73 0.21 (0.14-0.33) vs 0.23 (0.14-0.34) 0.54 0.25 (0.16-0.33) vs 0.26(0.20-0.34) 0.61 0.24 (0.19-0.43) vs 0.28 (0.24-0.32) 0.47
Previous Liver surgery Yes vs No 0.26 (0.15-0.34) vs 0.22 (0.14-0.32) 0.74 0.28 (0.18-0.39) vs 0.26 (0.17-0.30) 0.53 0.24 (0.20-0.33) vs 0.28 (0.19-0.39) 0.70
Previous Bevacizumab Yes vs No 0.19 (0.13-0.34) vs 0.26 (0.17-0.33) 0.07 0.24 (0.17-0.33) vs 0.27 (0.19-0.33) 0.98 0.27 (0.18-0.33) vs 0.28 (0.23-0.43) 0.19
Delay predictive / post-treatment dosimetry (d) > 9 vs ≤9 0.26 (0.17-0.38) vs 0.19 (0.12-0.30) 0.003 0.28 (0.22-0.37) vs 0.22 (0.15-0.27) 0.03 0.33 (0.28-0.41) vs 0.22 (0.18-0.28) 0.004
Net administered activity (MBq) > 1262 vs ≤1262 0.20 (0.13-0.34) vs 0.24 (0.16-0.33) 0.49 0.25 (0.20-0.35) vs 0.26 (0.17-0.33) 0.64 0.26 (0.19-0.35) vs 0.28 (0.21-0.41) 0.50
Lesion Volume (ml) > 5.8 vs ≤5.8 0.23 (0.15-0.32) vs 0.21 (0.13-0.34) 0.51     
TL Volume (ml) > 73.34 vs ≤73.34    0.28 (0.16-0.37) vs 0.26 (0.20-0.30) 0.40   
NTL Volume (ml) > 1354 vs ≤1354      0.29 (0.21-0.41) vs 0.27 (0.20-0.31) 0.37
Type of targeting Whole liver single injection 0.17 (0.12-0.28)    0.02 0.20 (0.15-0.28)    0.65 0.23 (0.17-0.33) 0.42
Whole Liver injection left and right lobes separately 0.24 (0.14-0.35)    0.27 (0.17-0.37)    0.31 (0.19-0.41)
Uni-lobar 0.26 (0.18-0.33)    0.27 (0.22-0.33)    0.28 (0.24-0.38)