Caren van Roekel

251 Use of an anti-reflux catheter in 166 Ho-radioembolization SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES AND FIGURES TABLE S1. Percentage change in mean absorbed dose (Gy) per response category (95%CI) Progressive disease Stable disease Partial response Complete response Patient-level n=2 n=11 n=4 n=0 Mean dose (Gy) 61 (29;129) 128 (100;164) 150 (102;219) - Unadjusted reference 110 0.1;344) 146 (-14;433) - P trend =0.094 Tumor-level n=14 n=25 n=8 n=5 Mean dose (Gy) 103 (72;146) 121 (94;156) 163 (109;243) 222 (118;418) Unadjusted reference 18 (-19;173) 58 (-4;161) 116 (8;330) P trend =0.023 Adjusted § reference 21 (-16;80) 68 (-1;178) 136 (18;372) P trend =0.015 The dose-response relation was analyzed in seventeen patients that were treated and had availability of both the post-treatment 166 Ho-SPECT/CT and the three-month follow-up [ 18 F]-FDG PET/CT. Interpretation at tumor level: the average dose is 138% higher in CR than PD (95%CI 8;423) (unadjusted analysis). § Analysis at a tumor-level was adjusted for catheter type (yes/no anti-reflux catheter) TABLE S2. CTCAE grading of new toxicity per patient during three months from baseline* Toxicity Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Laboratory toxicity Hypoalbuminemia 2 1 Elevated ALT 9 1 1 Elevated alkaline phosphatase 2 7 1 Elevated AST 12 2 Elevated bilirubin 1 1 Elevated γ-glutamyltransferase 2 8 3 Any laboratory toxicity 10 9 3 1 Clinical toxicity Abdominal pain 6 9 3 Nausea 14 4 Fatigue 10 8 1 Anorexia 4 1 Dyspnea 1 Fever 4 1 1 Chest pain 1 1 Vomiting 5 2 9