Meta-analysis reveals high disease control and favorable survival in neuroendocrine liver metastases, suggesting selective internal radiation therapy is an effective liver-directed treatment.
Background/Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and symptom impact of yttrium-90 selective internal radiation therapy (Y-90 SIRT) for neuroendocrine liver metastases (NELM) through an updated systematic review and meta-analysis integrated with our institutional data. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 12 patients with NELM treated with Y-90 resin microspheres between 2019 and 2024. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), hepatic progression-free survival (HPFS), symptom improvement, and adverse events. Concurrently, a systematic review and meta-analysis of 43 studies (including our institutional cohort; total n = 2221; 2008–2025) was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Pooled estimates for survival, tumor response, symptom improvement, and adverse events were derived using random- or fixed-effects models, with publication bias assessed by standard methods. Results: In our cohort, the median OS and HPFS were 33.3 and 15.3 months; 71.4% of symptomatic patients reported improvement, with no grade ≥ 3 toxicities. In the meta-analysis, pooled OS rates were 82%, 66%, 52%, and 34% at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years, and HPFS rates were 64%, 41%, and 29% at 1, 2, and 3 years. The pooled objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 40% and 87% by RECIST, and 56% and 91% by mRECIST. Patients treated with resin microspheres (ORR 38%, DCR 86%) and glass microspheres (ORR 39%, DCR 83%) showed comparable responses. Symptom improvement was observed in 77% of symptomatic patients, while reported grade ≥ 3 toxicities for individual adverse events were each below 5%. Conclusions: Y-90 SIRT is associated with promising survival outcomes, high disease control rates, and substantial symptom improvement in NELM with acceptable toxicity, suggesting its potential value as a liver-directed therapy option.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zheng et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: