12
Chemoembolization and radioembolization

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2014.08.009Get rights and content

Abstract

Chemoembolization and radioembolization are at the core of the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who cannot receive potentially curative therapies such as transplantation, resection or percutaneous ablation. They differ in the mechanism of action (ischaemia and increase cytotoxic drug exposure for chemoembolization, internal irradiation for radioembolization) and may target different patient populations. Chemoembolization with cytotoxic drug-eluting beads is a more standardized although not necessarily more effective way of performing chemoembolization. Cytoreduction is achieved in most patients but complete tumor ablation may be achieved and lead to extended survival. Grade 1 level of evidence support the use of chemoembolization for the treatment of patients in the early and intermediate stages while grade 2 evidence supports the use of radioembolization for the treatment of patients in intermediate to advanced stages. Selecting the best candidates for both techniques is still a work in progress that ongoing clinical trials are trying to address.

Introduction

Most patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are diagnosed at late stages, when curative surgical treatments cannot be applied [1]. According to guidelines from the European and American Association for the Study of the Liver [2], [3], the BCLC classification with its five tumor stages should be used for tumor staging. Surgery by means of resection or transplantation and percutaneous ablation are restricted to the very early or early tumors (stage 0 and A) while intraarterial and systemic therapies are recommended for intermediate and advanced tumors, respectively (stages B and C) [4]. However, up to 50% of patients cannot receive the recommended treatment modality because of availability, technical issues, age or comorbidities [5] and guidelines are evidence-based flexible frameworks on which individual therapeutic strategies can be built upon by multidisciplinary teams [2]. The most common intraarterial techniques used in HCC treatment are transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) with or without drug-eluting beads (DEB) and radioembolization (RE). They differ in mechanism of action, technique and typical patient population, which translates into differences in patient monitoring, complications and outcomes. And they are all widely accepted for treating appropriately selected HCC patients.

Section snippets

Conventional procedures

TACE comprises different procedures intended to increase the exposure of tumor cells to cytotoxic agents, and to induce ischemic necrosis. In conventional TACE this is accomplished by the sequential intra-arterial injection of chemotherapeutic agents mixed with Lipiodol and embolizing particles. The wide variety of drug vehicles, cytotoxic agents and embolizing particles available has introduced numerous variations worldwide. Emulsification in Lipiodol is believed to increase intratumoral

Radioembolization

Those procedures in which intra-arterially injected radioactive microspheres are used for selective internal radiation treatment (SIRT) are also named radioembolization (RE). The most important difference between RE and TACE is the mechanism of action, i.e. irradiation vs. ischemia/chemotherapy. In RE, radioactive isotopes are deployed inside the tumor vasculature carried in microparticles [42]. Yttrium-90 (90Y) is the most commonly used isotope. As a pure beta emitter it has a short tissue

TACE and RE in combination with systemic agents

Tumor hypoxia intentionally caused by TACE can induce upregulation of circulating vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which is essential for HCC growth, invasion, and metastasis. Recent studies have reported a significant association between VEGF upregulation after TACE and poor prognosis [79], [80]. Therefore, adjuvant or concurrent use of an anti-angiogenic agent may be helpful for HCC patients who are treated with TACE [81] and several clinical trials are currently evaluating this

Summary

The intraarterial therapies TACE and RE are the mainstay of the treatment of HCC patients who cannot receive curative approaches. Good tumor responses are generally observed when a reduced number of not very large tumors are embolized in a selective fashion (ideally through a distinct feeding vessel). Based on three meta-analyses, conventional TACE is the standard of care for HCC patients in the intermediate stage. DEB-TACE has become recently a more standardized way of performing TACE with

Conflict of interest statement

Bruno Sangro has received lecture and consulting fees from Sirtex Medical and Bayer Healthcare.

Acknowledgements

CIBEREHD is funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain.

References (90)

  • J. Llovet

    Systematic review of randomized trials for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: chemoembolization improves survival

    Hepatology

    (2003 Feb)
  • K. Takayasu et al.

    Superselective transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. Validation of treatment algorithm proposed by Japanese guidelines

    J Hepatol

    (2012 Apr)
  • J. Bruix et al.

    Clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL conference. European Association for the Study of the Liver

    J Hepatol

    (2001 Sep)
  • E.S. Jung et al.

    Comparison of the methods for tumor response assessment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing transarterial chemoembolization

    J Hepatol

    (2013 Jun)
  • H.J. Prajapati et al.

    mRECIST and EASL responses at early time point by contrast-enhanced dynamic MRI predict survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated by doxorubicin drug-eluting beads transarterial chemoembolization (DEB TACE)

    Ann Oncol

    (2013 Apr)
  • B.K. Kim et al.

    Prospective comparison of prognostic values of modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours with European Association for the Study of the Liver criteria in hepatocellular carcinoma following chemoembolisation

    Eur J Cancer

    (2013 Mar)
  • M. Varela et al.

    Chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma with drug eluting beads: efficacy and doxorubicin pharmacokinetics

    J Hepatol

    (2007 Mar)
  • M. Burrel et al.

    Survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated by transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) using Drug Eluting Beads. Implications for clinical practice and trial design

    J Hepatol

    (2012 Jun)
  • T.W. Leung et al.

    Radiation pneumonitis after selective internal radiation treatment with intraarterial 90yttrium-microspheres for inoperable hepatic tumors

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

    (1995 Nov 1)
  • J.-F.H. Geschwind et al.

    Yttrium-90 microspheres for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

    Gastroenterology

    (2004 Nov)
  • R. Salem et al.

    Treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with use of 90Y microspheres (TheraSphere): safety, tumor response, and survival

    J Vasc Interv Radiol

    (2005 Dec)
  • C.E. Woodall et al.

    Is selective internal radioembolization safe and effective for patients with inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma and venous thrombosis?

    ACS – Am Coll Surg

    (2009 Mar 1)
  • B. Sangro et al.

    Radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma

    J Hepatol Eur Assoc Study Liver

    (2012 Feb 1)
  • W.-Y. Lau et al.

    Patient selection and activity planning guide for selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

    (2012 Jan 1)
  • B. Sangro et al.

    Radioembolization using 90Y-resin microspheres for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

    (2006 Nov)
  • R. Salem et al.

    Radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma using Yttrium-90 microspheres: a comprehensive report of long-term outcomes

    Gastroenterology

    (2010 Jan 1)
  • A. Riaz et al.

    Radiation segmentectomy: a novel approach to increase safety and efficacy of radioembolization

    Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys

    (2011 Jan 1)
  • R.J. Lewandowski et al.

    A comparative analysis of transarterial downstaging for hepatocellular carcinoma: chemoembolization versus radioembolization

    Am J Transplant

    (2009 Aug)
  • A.-L. Cheng et al.

    Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

    Lancet Oncol

    (2009 Jan 1)
  • M. Iñarrairaegui et al.

    Radioembolization with use of yttrium-90 resin microspheres in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein thrombosis

    J Vasc Interv Radiol

    (2010 Aug)
  • J. Bruix et al.

    Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: subanalyses of a phase III trial

    J Hepatol

    (2012 Oct)
  • M. Kudo et al.

    Phase III study of sorafenib after transarterial chemoembolisation in Japanese and Korean patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

    Eur J Cancer

    (2011 Sep)
  • J.-H. Wang et al.

    The efficacy of treatment schedules according to Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging for hepatocellular carcinoma – survival analysis of 3892 patients

    Eur J Cancer

    (2008 May)
  • K.-F. Hsu et al.

    Superselective transarterial chemoembolization vs hepatic resection for resectable early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with Child-Pugh class a liver function

    Eur J Radiol

    (2012 Mar)
  • J. Bruix et al.

    Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update

    Hepatol Baltim Md

    (2011)
  • D. D'Avola et al.

    Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in relation to treatment across BCLC stages

    Ann Surg Oncol

    (2011 Jul)
  • J.W. Chung et al.

    Hepatic tumors: predisposing factors for complications of transcatheter oily chemoembolization

    Radiology

    (1996 Jan)
  • J.-S. Yu et al.

    Predisposing factors of bile duct injury after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) for hepatic malignancy

    Cardiovasc Interv Radiol

    (2002 Jul)
  • J. Luo et al.

    Transarterial chemoembolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis: a prospective comparative study

    Ann Surg Oncol

    (2011 Feb)
  • L. Belli et al.

    Arteritis following intra-arterial chemotherapy for liver tumors

    Eur Radiol

    (1997)
  • C. Cammà et al.

    Transarterial chemoembolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

    Radiology

    (2002 Jul 1)
  • L. Marelli et al.

    Transarterial therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: which technique is more effective? A systematic review of cohort and randomized studies

    Cardiovasc Interv Radiol

    (2007 Jan)
  • R.J. Lewandowski et al.

    Chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: comprehensive imaging and survival analysis in a 172-patient cohort

    Radiology

    (2010 May 25)
  • C.B. O'Suilleabhain et al.

    Factors predictive of 5-year survival after transarterial chemoembolization for inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma

    Br J Surg

    (2003 Mar)
  • R.T. Poon et al.

    Transarterial chemoembolization for inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma and postresection intrahepatic recurrence

    J Surg Oncol

    (2000 Feb)
  • Cited by (19)

    • Interventional oncology for hepatocellular carcinoma

      2016, Clinics and Research in Hepatology and Gastroenterology
      Citation Excerpt :

      The causes of death were acute liver failure (the most frequent), tumor rupture (large HCC), upper gastrointestinal bleeding or sepsis. However when the appropriate patients are properly selected, cTACE is a highly safe procedure [44]. Post-embolization syndrome, consisting of transient nausea, abdominal pain and fever, occurs in > 40% of patients [44].

    • Post-embolization syndrome as an early predictor of overall survival after transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma

      2015, HPB
      Citation Excerpt :

      It is the fastest growing cause of cancer‐related mortality, and has a poor prognosis with 5‐year overall survival (OS) rates of less than 12%.3 Liver transplantation and liver resection are the only potentially curative treatments, but only a small proportion of patients are candidates for these therapies.4,5 A number of locoregional liver‐directed therapies are currently available for patients not amenable to curative treatment, with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) among the most commonly used.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text