AJDRAJNR - American Journal of Neuroradiology

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Agid, R.
Right arrow Articles by Gomori, J. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Agid, R.
Right arrow Articles by Gomori, J. M.

INTERVENTIONAL

Does Streaming Affect the Cerebral Distribution of Infraophthalmic Intracarotid Chemotherapy?

Ronit Agida, Rina Rubinsteinb, Tali Siegalc, Hava Lesterb, Felix Boksteinc, Roland Chisinb and John M. Gomoria

a Department of Radiology, Hadassah Hebrew University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel
b Department of Nuclear Medicine, Hadassah Hebrew University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel
c the Neurooncology Center, Hadassah Hebrew University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel

Address reprint requests to John M. Gomori, MD, Department of Radiology, Hadassah University Hospital, Ein-Kerem, Jerusalem, P.O.B. 12000, Israel 91120

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The development of new non–ocular-toxic drugs has enabled infraophthalmic chemotherapeutic infusion. We assessed whether streaming occurs with infraophthalmic, high cervical internal carotid artery (ICA) delivery of chemotherapeutic agents by means of conventional angiographic catheters.

METHODS: Six patients with high-grade gliomas treated with monthly carotid intraarterial chemotherapy were studied. Chemotherapy delivery and distribution was modeled by technetium 99m hexylmethyl-propyleneamine oxine (HMPAO), a first-pass agent. Each patient received 0.5 mCi (18.5 MBq) of 99mTc-HMPAO in 50-mL of saline intraarterially in the ICA at the C1–C2 level. Injections were given twice, at two different injection rates: 0.08 mL/s at one therapeutic session and 6 mL/s a month later. The slow injection rate modeled the slowest rate used in the delivery of chemotherapy into the ICA. The higher rate was selected to avoid any possibility of uneven mixing, by replacing intracarotid blood completely and by using a turbulent injection rate that destroys laminar flow and intraarterial streaming. Single photon emission CT (SPECT) was performed 2 hours after injection. For each patient, the corresponding SPECT sections at the two injection rates were compared.

RESULTS:No differences were noted in 99mTc-HMPAO distribution between the two injection rates in any of the patients. However, some of the rapid injection rate SPECT scans showed extension of the 99mTc-HMPAO uptake into adjacent watershed territories.

CONCLUSION: There was no evidence, in humans, of substantial streaming during slow infraophthalmic intracarotid injections. Slow rates of infusion are as good as high rates for infraophthalmic intracarotid drug delivery. This is of special importance for drugs that are not tolerated at high injection rates. Moreover, infraophthalmic intracarotid chemotherapeutic infusion does not require special injectors or catheters.