A method of treating a carbon structure is provided. The method may include the step of infiltrating the carbon structure with a ceramic preparation comprising yttrium oxides and zirconium oxides. The carbon structure may be densified by chemical vapor infiltration (CVI) and heat treated to form yttrium oxycarbides and/or carbides and zirconium oxycarbides and/or carbides. Heat treating the carbon structure may comprise a temperature ranging from 1000° C. to 1600° C.

The purpose of this study was to establish the dose-response relationship of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), when informed by radiobiological sensitivity parameters derived from mCRC cell lines exposed to yttrium-90 (⁹⁰Y). Methods: 23 mCRC patients with liver metastases refractory to chemotherapy were included. ⁹⁰Y bremsstrahlung SPECT images were transformed into dose maps assuming the local dose deposition method. Baseline and follow-up CT scans were segmented to derive liver and tumor volumes. Mean, median, and D₇₀ (minimum dose to 70% of tumor volume) values determined from dose maps were correlated with change in tumor volume and vRECIST response using linear and logistic regression, respectively. Radiosensitivity parameters determined by clonogenic assays of mCRC cell lines HT-29 and DLD-1 after exposure to ⁹⁰Y or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT; 6MV photons) were used in biological effective dose (BED) calculations. Results: Mean administered radioactivity was 1469±428 MBq (847-2185 MBq), achieving a mean radiation absorbed tumor dose of 35.5±9.4 Gy and mean normal liver dose of 26.4±6.8 Gy. A 1.0 Gy increase in mean, median, and D₇₀ absorbed dose was associated with reduction in tumor volume of 1.8%, 1.8%, and 1.5%, respectively, and increased probability of vRECIST response (odds ratio: 1.09, 1.09, and 1.10 respectively). Threshold mean, median and D₇₀ doses for response were 48.3, 48.8, and 41.8 Gy respectively. EBRT-equivalent BEDs for ⁹⁰Y are up to 50% smaller than those calculated by applying protraction-corrected radiobiological parameters derived from EBRT alone. Conclusion: Dosimetric studies have assumed equivalence between ⁹⁰Y SIRT and EBRT, leading to inflation of BED for SIRT and possible under-treatment. Radiobiological parameters for ⁹⁰Y were applied to a BED model, providing a calculation method that has the potential to improve assessment of tumor control.

In randomized clinical trials (RCTs), no survival benefit has been observed for selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) over sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). This study aimed to assess by means of a meta-analysis whether overall survival (OS) with SIRT, as monotherapy or followed by sorafenib, is non-inferior to sorafenib, and compare safety profiles for patients with aHCC. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to February 2019 to identify RCTs comparing SIRT as monotherapy, or followed by sorafenib, to sorafenib monotherapy among patients with aHCC. The main outcomes were OS and frequency of treatment-related severe adverse events (AEs grade ≥3). The per-protocol population was the primary analysis population. A non-inferiority margin of 1.08 in terms of hazard ratio (HR) was pre-specified for the upper boundary of 95% confidence interval (CI) for OS. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed. Results: Three RCTs, involving 1,243 patients, comparing sorafenib with SIRT (SIRveNIB and SARAH) or SIRT followed by sorafenib (SORAMIC), were included. After randomization, 411/635 (64.7%) patients allocated to SIRT and 522/608 (85.8%) allocated to sorafenib completed the studies without major protocol deviations. Median OS with SIRT, whether or not followed by sorafenib, was non-inferior to sorafenib (10.2 and 9.2 months, [HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78–1.05]). Treatment-related severe adverse events were reported in 149/515 patients (28.9%) who received SIRT and 249/575 (43.3%) who received sorafenib only (p<0.01). Conclusion: SIRT as initial therapy for aHCC is non-inferior to sorafenib in terms of OS, and offers a better safety profile.