Prospective randomized pilot study of Y90+/-sorafenib as bridge to transplantation in hepatocellular carcinoma

Chinese Expert Consensus on the Whole-Course Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma (2023 Edition)

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common malignant tumors in China. Most HCC patients have the complications of chronic liver disease and need overall consideration and whole-course management, including diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. To develop a reasonable, long-term, and complete management plan, multiple factors need to be considered, including the patient’s general condition, basic liver diseases, tumor stage, tumor biological characteristics, treatment requirements, and economic cost. Summary: To better guide the whole-course management of HCC patients, the Chinese Association of Liver Cancer and the Chinese Medical Doctor Association has gathered multidisciplinary experts and scholars in relevant fields to formulate the “Chinese Expert Consensus on The Whole-Course Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma (2023).” Key Messages: This expert consensus, based on the current clinical evidence and experience, proposes surgical and nonsurgical HCC management pathways and involves 18 recommendations, including perioperative treatment, systematic treatment combined with local treatment, conversion treatment, special population management, symptomatic support treatment, and follow-up management.

Multidisciplinary Delphi Consensus on Safety of Combining Transarterial Radioembolization with Yttrium-90 Microspheres with Systemic Anticancer Agents for the Treatment of Liver Malignancy

PURPOSE

To provide guidance, via multidisciplinary consensus statements, on the safety interactions between systemic anticancer agents (such as radiosensitizing chemotherapy, immunotherapy, targeted therapy, and peptide receptor radionuclide therapy) and transarterial radioembolization (TARE) with yttrium-90 (90Y)-labeled microspheres in the treatment of primary and metastatic liver malignancies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search identified 59 references that informed 26 statements on the safety of 90Y TARE combined with systemic therapies. Modified Delphi method was used to develop consensus on statements through online anonymous surveys of the 12 panel members representing the fields of interventional radiology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, hepatology, and pharmacy, focusing on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), neuroendocrine tumors, metastatic breast cancer, and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

RESULTS

High-level evidence was limited. Level 1 data in patients with mCRC suggest that some radiosensitizing chemotherapies (eg, oxaliplatin) require temporary dose reduction when used concomitantly with 90Y TARE, and some targeted therapies (eg, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors and antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors) should be avoided for at least 4 weeks before 90Y TARE. In patients with HCC, the feasibility of 90Y TARE and immunotherapy has been demonstrated with Level 4 evidence. Data are more limited for other primary and secondary liver malignancies, and consensus statements were driven by expert opinion (Level 5).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the absence of evidence-based guidelines on the safety of 90Y TARE in combination with systemic anticancer therapy, these consensus statements provide expert guidance on the potential risks when considering specific combinations.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: The Evolving Role of Systemic Therapies as a Bridging Treatment to Liver Transplantation

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related deaths. Classically, liver transplantation (LT) can be curative for HCC tumors within the Milan criteria. Bridging strategies to reduce the dropouts from LT waiting lists and/or to downstage patients who are beyond the Milan criteria are widely utilized. We conducted a literature-based review to evaluate the role of systemic therapies as a bridging treatment to liver transplantation (LT) in HCC patients. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) can be used as a systemic bridging therapy to LT in patients with contraindications for locoregional liver-directed therapies. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment can be utilized either as a monotherapy or as a combination therapy with bevacizumab or TKIs prior to LT. Acute rejection after liver transplantation is a concern in the context of ICI treatment. Thus, a safe ICI washout period before LT and cautious post-LT immunosuppression strategies are required to reduce post-LT rejections and to optimize clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, prospective clinical trials are needed to establish definitive conclusions about the utility of systemic therapy as a bridging modality prior to LT in HCC patients.

Applications of Yttrium-90 (90Y) in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer, affecting millions of people worldwide. Due to the lack of systemic radiation therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma, researchers have been investigating the use of yttrium-90 (90Y) radioembolization for local-regional tumor control since the 1960s. With the development of glass and resin 90Y microspheres and the durable local control, good long-term efficacy, and equivalent tumor responsiveness and tolerability of 90Y-selective internal irradiation compared with alternative therapies such as transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and sorafenib, 90Y radioembolization has gradually been applied in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma of all stages. In this article, we summarize the latest progress of 90Y in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in terms of its principle, advantages, indications, contraindications, efficacy and adverse effects.

Review of outcomes of combination therapy using yttrium 90 radioembolization and sorafenib/nivolumab for HCC with hepatic vein or IVC invasion

Background

A systematic review of the outcomes of combination therapy using Yttrium 90 radioembolization (Y90) and sorafenib/nivolumab for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with hepatic vein (HV) or inferior vena cava (IVC) invasion. The aim of this study is to summarise the results of different studies that used the combination therapy for HCC patients with tumor thrombosis involving the HV or IVC.

Method

A literature search was performed using keywords in Medline and Google Scholar limited to publications from 2010 to 2021. There were 173 articles identified during the initial literature search. During abstract screening, 81 articles were excluded. Another 83 did not contain information on hepatic vein or IVC invasion. Therefore, 9 articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the synthesis.

Results

In total, 37 patients with hepatic vein or IVC invasion were identified. There were 31 patients who were given sorafenib, 7 were given nivolumab and 1 was given both sorafenib and nivolumab. Among the 37 patients, 21 had hepatic vein invasion, 22 had IVC invasion and 6 had both HV and IVC invasion. The median OS was 20.55 months and median PFS was 8.18 months. For the results, 23 patients were evaluated via modified RECIST (mRECIST) criteria and 14 were evaluated via RECIST 1.1.

Conclusion

The combination of local and systemic therapies demonstrated potential results for increased response rates, OS and PFS benefits. Further studies are required to determine the long-term outcomes of the combination therapy for this group of patients.

Clinical consensus statement: Establishing the roles of locoregional and systemic therapies for the treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in Canada

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) a leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide and approximately one-third of patients present with intermediate-stage disease. The treatment landscape of intermediate-stage HCC is rapidly evolving due to developments in local, locoregional and systemic therapies. Treatment recommendations focused on this heterogenous disease stage and that take into account the Canadian reality are lacking. To address this gap, a pan-Canadian group of experts in hepatology, transplant, surgery, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine, interventional radiology, and medical oncology came together to develop consensus recommendations on management of intermediate-stage HCC relevant to the Canadian context.

METHODS

A modified Delphi framework was used to develop consensus statements with strengths of recommendation and supporting levels of evidence graded using the AHA/ACC classification system. Tentative consensus statements were drafted based on a systematic search and expert input in a series of iterative feedback cycles and were then circulated via online survey to assess the level of agreement.

RESULTS & CONCLUSION

The pre-defined ratification threshold of 80 % agreement was reached for all statements in the areas of multidisciplinary treatment (n = 4), intra-arterial therapy (n = 14), biologics (n = 5), radiation therapy (n = 3), surgical resection and transplantation (n = 7), and percutaneous ablative therapy (n = 4). These generally reflected an expansion in treatment options due to developments in previously established or emergent techniques, introduction of new and more active therapies and increased therapeutic flexibility. These developments have allowed for greater treatment tailoring and personalization as well as a paradigm shift toward strategies with curative intent in a wider range of disease settings.

Neo-Adjuvant Use of Sorafenib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Awaiting Liver Transplantation

Data on efficacy and safety of sorafenib in a neoadjuvant setting for HCC awaiting liver transplantation (LT) are heterogeneous and scarce. We aimed to investigate the trajectory of patients treated with sorafenib while awaiting LT. All patients listed for HCC and treated with sorafenib were included in a monocentric observational study. A clinical and biological evaluation was performed every month. Radiological tumor response evaluation was realized every 3 months on the waiting list and every 6 months after LT. Among 327 patients listed for HCC, 62 (19%) were treated with Sorafenib. Sorafenib was initiated for HCC progression after loco-regional therapy (LRT) in 50% of cases and for impossibility of LRT in 50% of cases. The mean duration of treatment was 6 months. Thirty six patients (58%) dropped-out for tumor progression and 26 (42%) patients were transplanted. The 5-year overall and recurrent-free survival after LT was 77% and 48% respectively. Patients treated for impossibility of LRT had acceptable 5-year intention-to-treat overall and post-LT survivals. Conversely, patients treated for HCC progression presented high dropout rate and low intention-to-treat survival. Our results suggest that it is very questionable in terms of utility that patients treated for HCC progression should even be kept listed once the tumor progression has been observed.

Efficacy of combined transarterial radioembolization and sorafenib in the treatment of hepatocarcinoma: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant sorafenib may further enhance the efficacy of transarterial radioembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of radioembolization plus sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

METHODS

With a literature search through October 2020, we identified 9 studies (632 patients). Primary outcome was overall survival. Results were expressed as pooled median, odds ratio, or hazard ratio and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Pooled overall survival after radioembolization plus sorafenib was 10.79 months (95% confidence interval 9.19-12.39) and it was longer in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) B (14.47 months, 9.07-19.86) as compared to BCLC C patients (10.22 months, 7.53-12.9). No difference between combined therapy versus radioembolization alone was observed in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio 1.07, 0.89-1.30). Pooled median progression-free survival was 6.32 months (5.68-6.98), with 1-year progression-free survival pooled rate of 38.5% (12.7%-44.2%). No difference in progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.94, 0.79-1.12) between the two treatments was observed. Pooled rate of severe adverse events was 48.9% (26.7%-71.2%), again with no difference between the two treatment regimens (odds ratio 1.52, 0.15-15.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The association of sorafenib does not seem to prolong survival nor delay disease progression in patients treated with radioembolization.

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common primary liver cancer, remains a deadly cancer, with an incidence that has tripled in the United States since 1980. In recent years, new systemic therapies for HCC have been approved and a critical assessment of the existing data is necessary to balance benefits and harms and inform the development of evidence-based guidelines.

METHODS

The American Gastroenterological Association formed a multidisciplinary group consisting of a Technical Review Panel and a Guideline Panel. The Technical Review Panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients and conducted an evidence review of systemic therapies in patients with advanced-stage HCC. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence. The Guideline Panel reviewed the evidence and used the Evidence-to-Decision Framework to develop recommendations.

RESULTS

The Panel reviewed the evidence, summarized in the Technical Review, for the following medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for HCC: first-line therapies: bevacizumab+atezolizumab, sorafenib, and lenvatinib; second-line therapies: cabozantinib, pembrolizumab, ramucirumab, and regorafenib; and other agents: bevacizumab, nivolumab, and nivolumab+ipilimumab.

CONCLUSIONS

The Panel agreed on 11 recommendations focused on systemic therapy for HCC in patients who are not eligible for locoregional therapy or resection, those with metastatic disease and preserved liver function, those with poor liver function, and those on systemic therapy as adjuvant therapy.

Clinical outcome of Yttrium-90 selective internal radiation therapy (Y-90 SIRT) in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: Experience from a tertiary care center

Background and aim

Whereas Yttrium-90 selective internal radiation therapy (Y-90 SIRT) was shown to improve local tumor control in non-Asian population, the efficacy of this therapy for Asian population in real-world setting remains poorly detailed. We aimed to determine outcomes and identify predictors of response in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated by Y-90 SIRT.

Methods

We retrospectively enrolled 52 HCC patients receiving Y-90 SIRT at our tertiary center between 2014 and 2019. Overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and predictive factors were determined by Kaplan-Meier method and Cox-proportional hazard analysis.

Results

Of the 52 patients (81% male, mean age 64.9 years), 71% and 29% were classified as Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C and B HCC, respectively; 63% had portal vein thrombosis, and 35% had objective tumor response defined by the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) criteria. OS and PFS were 11.0 and 2.4 months, respectively. Two patients were successfully down-staged and further underwent surgical resection. Multifocal lesion, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥200 ng/mL, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score ≥1 were significantly associated with poor survival, with adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) of 7.7 (2.0-29.8), 5.4 (2.0-14.7), and 3.1 (1.0-9.6), respectively (all in P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Y-90 SIRT is an effective treatment for the local tumor control of HCC without serious adverse events. Single lesion, AFP level and ECOG status were predictors of response.

Radioembolization in the Setting of Systemic Therapies

90 Yttrium (Y90) radioembolization has been shown to improve outcomes for primary and metastatic liver cancers, but there is limited understanding of the optimal timing and safety of combining systemic therapies with Y90 treatment. Both therapeutic effects and toxicities could be synergistic depending on the timing and dosing of different coadministration paradigms. In particular, patients with liver-only or liver-dominant metastatic disease progression are often on systemic therapy when referred to interventional radiology for consideration of Y90 treatment. Interventional radiologists are frequently asked to offer insight into whether or not to hold systemic therapy, and for how long, prior to and following transarterial therapy. This study reviews the current evidence regarding the timing and safety of systemic therapy with Y90 treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma, metastatic colorectal carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, metastatic neuroendocrine tumors, and other hepatic metastases. A particular focus is placed on the timing, dosing, and toxicities of combined therapy.

Frontiers of therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma continues to increase worldwide. Fortunately, there have been notable recent advances in locoregional and systemic therapy. In this current review, we will highlight these new developments and future directions of hepatocellular carcinoma treatment and address the importance of a multidisciplinary approach to treatment.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Downstaging to Liver Transplantation as Curative Therapy

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) ranks among the leading cancer-related causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Downstaging of HCC has prevailed as a key method to curative therapy for patients who present with unresectable HCC outside of the listing criteria for liver transplantation (LT). Even though LT paves the way to lifesaving curative therapy for HCC, perpetually severe organ shortage limits its broader application. Debate over the optimal protocol and assessment of response to downstaging treatment has fueled immense research activity and is pushing the boundaries of LT candidate selection criteria. The implicit obligation of refining downstaging protocol is to ensure the maximization of the transplant survival benefit by taking into account the waitlist life expectancy. In the following review, we critically discuss strategies to best optimize downstaging HCC to LT on the basis of existing literature.

Argentinian clinical practice guideline for surveillance, diagnosis, staging and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

The A.A.E.E.H has developed this guideline for the best care of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from Argentina. It was done from May 2018 to March 2020. Specific clinical research questions were systematically searched. The quality of evidence and level of recommendations were organized according to GRADE. HCC surveillance is strongly recommended with abdominal ultrasound (US) every six months in the population at risk for HCC (cirrhosis, hepatitis B or hepatitis C); it is suggested to add alpha-feto protein (AFP) levels in case of inexeperienced sonographers. Imaging diagnosis in patients at risk for HCC has high specificity and tumor biopsy is not mandatory. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer algorithm is strongly recommended for HCC staging and treatment-decision processes. Liver resection is strongly recommended for patients without portal hypertension and preserved liver function. Composite models are suggested for liver transplant selection criteria. Therapies for HCC with robust clinical evidence include transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and first to second line systemic treatment options (sorafenib, lenvatinib, regorafenib, cabozantinib and ramucirumab). Immunotherapy with nivolumab and pembrolizumab has failed to show statistical benefit but the novel combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has recently shown survival benefit over sorafenib in frontline.

Selective internal radiation therapies for unresectable early-, intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review, network meta-analysis and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of primary liver cancer. Treatment choice is dependent on underlying liver dysfunction and cancer stage. Treatment options include conventional transarterial therapies for patients with intermediate-stage disease and systemic therapy [e.g. sorafenib (Nexavar®; Bayer plc, Leverkusen, Germany)] for patients with advanced-stage disease. Selective internal radiation therapies deliver radiation to liver tumours via microspheres that are injected into the hepatic artery. There are three selective internal radiation therapies: TheraSphere™ [BTG Ltd, London, UK (now Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA)], SIR-Spheres® (Sirtex Medical Ltd, Woburn, MA, USA) and QuiremSpheres® (Quirem Medical BV, Deventer, the Netherlands).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapies for treating patients with unresectable early-, intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

A search was undertaken to identify clinical effectiveness literature relating to selective internal radiation therapies and relevant comparators for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Studies were critically appraised and summarised. The network of evidence was mapped to estimate the relative effectiveness of the different selective internal radiation therapies and comparator treatments. An economic analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two large randomised controlled trials rated as having a low risk of bias [SARAH: Vilgrain V, Pereira H, Assenat E, Guiu B, Ilonca AD, Pageaux GP, et al. Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled Phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1624-36; and SIRveNIB: Chow PKH, Gandhi M, Tan SB, Khin MW, Khasbazar A, Ong J, et al. SIRveNIB: selective internal radiation therapy versus sorafenib in Asia-Pacific patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:1913-21] found no significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival between SIR-Spheres and sorafenib (systemic therapy) in an advanced population, despite greater tumour response in the SIR-Spheres arm of both trials. There were some concerns regarding generalisability of the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials to UK practice. All other studies of SIR-Spheres, TheraSphere or QuiremSpheres were either rated as being at a high risk of bias or caused some concerns regarding bias. A network meta-analysis was conducted in adults with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who had Child-Pugh class A liver cirrhosis and were ineligible for conventional transarterial therapies. The analysis included the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials as well as a trial comparing lenvatinib (Kisplyx®; Eisai Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) (systemic therapy) with sorafenib. There were no meaningful differences in overall survival between any of the treatments. The base-case economic analysis suggested that TheraSphere may be cost-saving relative to both SIR-Spheres and QuiremSpheres. However, incremental cost differences between TheraSphere and SIR-Spheres were small. In a fully incremental analysis, which included confidential Patient Access Scheme discounts, lenvatinib was the most cost-effective treatment and dominated all selective internal radiation therapies. In pairwise comparisons of sorafenib with each selective internal radiation therapy, sorafenib also dominated all selective internal radiation therapies.

LIMITATIONS

The existing evidence cannot provide decision-makers with clear guidance on the comparative effectiveness of treatments in early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma or on the efficacy of TheraSphere or QuiremSpheres.

CONCLUSIONS

In the advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma population, two large randomised trials have shown that SIR-Spheres have similar clinical effectiveness to sorafenib. None of the selective internal radiation therapies was cost-effective, being more costly and less effective than lenvatinib, both at list price and with Patient Access Scheme discounts.

FUTURE WORK

Future studies may wish to include early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma patients and the low tumour burden/albumin-bilirubin 1 subgroup of advanced-stage patients. Future high-quality studies evaluating alternative selective internal radiation therapies would be beneficial.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019128383.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Methods for selecting the best evidence to inform a NICE technology appraisal on selective internal radiation therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews of medical devices are particularly challenging as the quality of evidence tends to be more limited than evidence on pharmaceutical products. This article describes the methods used to identify, select and critically appraise the best available evidence on selective internal radiation therapy devices for treating hepatocellular carcinoma, to inform a technology appraisal for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of ten medical databases and six grey literature sources was undertaken to identify studies of three devices (TheraSphere®, SIR-Spheres® and QuiremSpheres®) for treating hepatocellular carcinoma. The large evidence base was scoped before deciding what level of evidence to include for data extraction and critical appraisal. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using criteria relevant to each study design.

RESULTS

Electronic searches identified 4755 records; over 1000 met eligibility criteria after screening titles and abstracts. A hierarchical process was used to scope these records, prioritising comparative studies over non-comparative studies, where available. One hundred ninety-four full papers were ordered; 64 met the eligibility criteria. For each intervention, studies were prioritised by study design and applicability to current UK practice, resulting in 20 studies subjected to critical appraisal and data extraction. Only two trials had a low overall risk of bias. In view of the poor quality of the research evidence, our technology appraisal focused on the two higher quality trials, including a thorough critique of their reliability and generalisability to current UK practice. The 18 poorer quality studies were briefly summarised; many were very small and results were often contradictory. No definitive conclusions could be drawn from the poorer quality research evidence available.

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic, pragmatic process was used to select and critically appraise the vast quantity of research evidence available in order to present the most reliable evidence on which to develop recommendations.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019128383.

Hepatocellular carcinoma in adult thalassemia patients: an expert opinion based on current evidence

Beta-thalassemia represents a heterogeneous group of haemoglobin inherited disorders, among the most common genetic diseases in the world, frequent in the Mediterranean basin. As beta-thalassemia patients' survival has increased over time, previously unknown complications are observed with increasing frequency. Among them, an increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been registered. Our aim is to reduce inequalities in diagnosis and treatment and to offer patients univocal recommendations in any institution.The members of the panel - gastroenterologists, radiologists, surgeons and oncologists -were selected on the basis of their publication records and expertise. Thirteen clinical questions, derived from clinical needs, and an integration of all the committee members' suggestions, were formulated. Modified Delphi approach involving a detailed literature review and the collective judgement of experts, was applied to this work.Thirteen statements were derived from expert opinions' based on the current literature, on recently developed reviews and on technological advancements. Each statement is discussed in a short paragraph reporting the current key evidence. As this is an emerging issue, the number of papers on HCC in beta-thalassemia patients is limited and based on anecdotal cases rather than on randomized controlled studies. Therefore, the panel has discussed, step by step, the possible differences between beta-thalassemia and non beta-thalassemia patients. Despite the paucity of the literature, practical and concise statements were generated.This paper offers a practical guide organized by statements describing how to manage HCC in patients with beta-thalassemia.

Comparison between Y90 Radioembolization Plus Sorafenib and Y90 Radioembolization alone in the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Analysis

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant sorafenib may enhance the efficacy of transarterial radioembolization with yttrium-90 in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of radioembolization plus sorafenib in comparison to radioembolization alone.

METHODS

Out of 175 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated with radioembolization between 2011 and 2018, after propensity score matching, two groups were compared: a group of 45 patients that underwent radioembolization while being on sorafenib (Group 1) and a second group of 90 patients that underwent radioembolization alone (Group 2).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of the two groups were well balanced concerning liver function and tumor burden. No significant differences in survival outcomes were identified (median overall survival 10 vs. 10 months; p = 0.711), median progression-free survival 6 vs. 7 months (p = 0.992) in Group 1 and Group 2). The objective response rate in Group 1 vs. Group 2 was 45.5% vs. 42.8% (p = 1) according to mRECIST. No differences in toxicity nor in liver decompensation rates were registered.

CONCLUSIONS

The association of sorafenib does not prolong survival nor delay progression in patients treated with radioembolization. Liver toxicity does not differ among the two therapeutic schemes.

Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolisation for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common liver neoplasm and the sixth most common cancer worldwide. Its incidence has increased dramatically since the mid-2000s. Although surgical resection and liver transplantation are the main curative treatments, only about 20% of people with early hepatocellular carcinoma may benefit from these interventions. Treatment options for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma include ablative and transarterial interventions - selective yttrium-90 microsphere transarterial radioembolisation - in addition to the drug sorafenib.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of yttrium-90 (Y-90) microsphere transarterial radioembolisation given as monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional interventions versus placebo, no treatment, or other similar systemic or locoregional interventions for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed electronic searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group (CHBG) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Science Citation Index - Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science until September 2019. We manually checked the reference lists of primary studies and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised clinical trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We extracted information on participants, interventions, outcomes, trial design, and trial methods. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials using pre-defined domains and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Our primary review outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, and serious adverse events; our secondary outcomes were cancer-related mortality, time to progression of the tumour, tumour response, non-serious adverse events, and liver transplantation. For dichotomous variables, we calculated risk ratio (RR), and for continuous variables, we planned to calculate mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We based time-to-event data analyses on hazard ratios (HRs).

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised trials with 1340 participants in total fulfilled the review inclusion criteria and provided data for one or more of our analysed outcomes. All trials were at high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence as low to very low. One trial compared radioembolisation plus sorafenib versus sorafenib alone in people with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. All-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, cancer-related mortality, time to progression, and tumour response rates were not reported. Serious adverse events were reported in 63 trial participants (39.6%) in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group versus 70 trial participants (38.5%) in the sorafenib group (very low-certainty evidence). Hyperbilirubinaemia was approximately three times more common in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group versus the sorafenib group (14.5% versus 4.4%; very low-certainty evidence). Fatigue was more common in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group than in the sorafenib group, at 35.2% versus 24.2% of trial participants. Two trials compared radioembolisation versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in people with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. From the data we could extract, one-year all-cause mortality was 62.7% in the radioembolisation group versus 53.0% in the sorafenib group (1 trial; n = 360; very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences in the quality of life between radioembolisation and sorafenib groups (1 trial). Global health status subscore was better in the radioembolisation group than in the sorafenib group (P = 0.0048; 1 trial). Fewer participants had serious adverse events in the radioembolisation group than in the sorafenib group (27 (20.8%) in the radioembolisation group versus 57 (35.2%) in the sorafenib group; 1 trial). Median time to progression of the tumour in the radioembolisation group was 6.1 months versus 5.4 months in the sorafenib group (1 trial). The RR for disease control rate was 0.94 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.05; n = 748; 2 trials; very low-certainty evidence), favouring neither radioembolisation nor sorafenib. In two trials with 734 participants, radioembolisation seemed to be less likely to be associated with hand-foot skin reaction (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; P < 0.001; low-certainty evidence), skin rash (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; low-certainty evidence), diarrhoea (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; low-certainty evidence), and hypertension (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.88; low-certainty evidence). No trial reported cancer-related mortality. Three trials compared radioembolisation versus chemoembolisation in people with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. From the data we could extract, none of these trials reported all-cause mortality and cancer-related mortality. The RR for serious adverse events was 1.41 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.14; n = 97; very low-certainty evidence), favouring neither radioembolisation nor chemoembolisation. One trial reported quality of life and noted no differences between intervention groups with regard to this outcome at week 12 (very low-certainty evidence). Median time to progression was not reached in the radioembolisation group and was 6.8 months in the chemoembolisation group (HR 0.122, 95% CI 0.027 to 0.557; 1 trial). Median time to progression of the tumour in the radioembolisation group was 371 days versus 336 days in the chemoembolisation group (P = 0.5764; 1 trial). Disease control rates (complete response + partial response + stable disease) were 73.3% with radioembolisation versus 76.9% with chemoembolisation (1 trial). According to World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, tumour response was reported in 52% of participants who received radioembolisation versus 63% of those who received chemoembolisation (1 trial). Patients in the chemoembolisation group experienced diarrhoea (P = 0.031; 1 trial) and hypoalbuminaemia (P < 0.001; 1 trial) more frequently. Four trials were sponsored by industry, and two by University. We found two ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence showing effects of radioembolisation with or without sorafenib compared with sorafenib alone in people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is highly insufficient. We cannot determine if radioembolisation plus sorafenib compared with sorafenib alone affects all-cause mortality or the occurrence of adverse events. Radioembolisation compared with sorafenib seemed to achieve equivalent survival and to cause fewer adverse effects, but our certainty was very low. Evidence showing effects of radioembolisation versus chemoembolisation in people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is also highly insufficient. Radioembolisation did not seem to differ from chemoembolisation in terms of serious adverse events and quality of life, but the certainty of evidence was very low. Further high-quality placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials are needed to assess patient-centred outcomes.

Safety and efficacy of radioembolization with glass microspheres in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with elevated lung shunt fraction: analysis of a 103-patient cohort

BACKGROUND

Technetium-99m macroaggregated albumin is used to estimate lung shunt fraction (LSF) prior to yttrium-90 (Y90). Studies have debated the safety and efficacy of Y90 in patients with LSF > 15%. We aimed to assess the role of Y90 in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with LSF > 15%.

METHODS

With IRB approval, we searched our prospectively acquired database of HCC patients with Y90 treated with LSF > 15%. Median LSF and liver and lung doses were calculated. The response was assessed using RECIST. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from date of first Y90.

RESULTS

A total of 103 HCC patients underwent Y90. The median baseline LSF was 24.4% (IQR 18.1-28.8). Patients exhibited multifocal disease (59/103, 60%) and median tumor size of 7.85 cm (IQR 5.2, 10.57). BCLC class was A, B, C, and D in 7 (7%), 5 (5%), 85 (83%), and 6 (6%) patients, respectively. The median liver dose was 84.6 Gy (IQR 57.4, 107.55). The median lung dose per session and cumulatively was 22.9 Gy (IQR 15-28) and 29.5 Gy (IQR 20.5-44.3). Thirty-three patients (32%) demonstrated partial response, 57 stable disease, and 13 (13%) had progressive disease. The median OS was 7.3 months (95% CI 5.3, 11.47). Twenty patients (19%) had non-specific pulmonary symptoms (cough, shortness of breath, wheezing) in the 1-year post-Y90. The median time to the appearance of non-specific pulmonary symptoms was 63 days (range 7-224). Thoracic imaging demonstrated no pulmonary fibrosis/injury following treatment in any patient.

CONCLUSION

Y90 can be performed in patients with LSF > 15%. The RECIST response was identified in 32% of the patients. In isolation, LSF > 15% should not deter from treatment with Y90.

Alpha-Fetoprotein, Des-Gamma-Carboxy Prothrombin, and Modified RECIST Response as Predictors of Survival after Transarterial Radioembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

PURPOSE

To evaluate the prognostic role of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), des-gamma-carboxy protein (DCP), and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after transarterial radioembolization (TARE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

During 2009-2016, 63 patients with AFP >20 ng/mL, DCP >20 mAU/mL, and Child-Pugh class A who were treated with TARE were evaluated using landmark and risk-of-death method after TARE. Both resin microspheres (n = 46) and glass microspheres (n = 17) were used. AFP or DCP response was defined as more than 50% decrease from baseline. mRECIST response was defined as complete or partial response. Median age was 60 years, and the proportion of male sex was 77.8% (n = 49). The proportions of patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stages A, B, and C were 7.9% (n = 5), 46.0% (n = 29), and 46.0% (n = 29), respectively.

RESULTS

At the 3-month landmark, AFP, DCP, and mRECIST responders lived longer than nonresponders (median overall survival, 75.8 vs 7.6 months for AFP; 75.8 vs 7.1 months for DCP; and 75.8 vs 10.0 months for mRECIST; all P < .05). The 6-month risk of death at the 3-month landmark was statistically different only between DCP responders and nonresponders (P = .002). In multivariate analysis, age less than 70 years (P = .024), absence of distant metastasis (P = .049), DCP response (P = .003), and mRECIST response (P = .003) were independent predictors for overall survival at the 3-month landmark after TARE.

CONCLUSIONS

AFP, DCP, and mRECIST responders showed better prognosis than nonresponders after TARE, and DCP response was a more potent predictor than AFP response. Tumor marker response, as well as radiologic response, may be useful to predict post-TARE survival.

A prospective clinical trial on sorafenib treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma before liver transplantation

Background

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma waiting for liver transplantation are commonly treated with locoregional treatments, such as TACE and ablation, to prevent tumor progression and dropout and to improve long-term outcome after transplantation. We wanted to prospectively assess feasibility of systemic antitumor treatment with sorafenib as neoadjuvant treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma while waiting for liver transplantation, evaluating tolerability, toxicity and posttransplant morbidity. We also wanted to evaluate perfusion CT parameters to assess tumor properties and response early after start of sorafenib treatment in patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma.

Methods

Twelve patients assigned for liver transplantation due to hepatocellular carcinoma, within the UCSF and who fulfilled other criteria, were included January 2012–August 2014. After baseline evaluation, sorafenib treatment was started. Treatment was evaluated by perfusion CT at 1, 4 and 12 weeks and thereafter every 8 weeks. Toxicity and quality of life was assessed at 1 and 4 weeks and every 4 weeks thereafter during treatment. Treatment was stopped when patients were prioritized on the transplantation waiting list or when intolerable side effects or tumor progress warranted other treatments. Posttransplant morbidity after 90 days was registered according to Clavien-Dindo.

Results

Baseline perfusion CT parameters in the tumors predicted the outcome according to RECIST/mRECIST at three months, but no change in CTp parameters was detected as a result of sorafenib. Sorafenib as neoadjuvant treatment was associated with intolerability and dose reductions. Therefore the prerequisites for evaluation of the sorafenib effect on both CT parameters and tumor response were impaired.

Conclusions

This study failed to show changes in CTp parameters during sorafenib treatment. Despite the curative treatment intention, tolerability of neoadjuvant sorafenib treatment before liver transplantation was inadequate in this study.

Trial registration

EudraCT number: 2010–024306-36 (date 2011-04-07).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5760-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Obtaining Optimal Long-Term Outcomes from Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Cancer

Liver transplantation is the definitive treatment for patients with end-stage liver disease. Liver transplantation is also the optimal treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), especially in the setting of chronic liver disease. Unfortunately, due to the worldwide shortage of organs, this treatment is not available for all patients with HCC. Strict selection criteria have been developed in order to obtain optimal results. A surgical perspective of the preoperative selection, perioperative management, and postoperative care of patients is reviewed in depth and provides an overview for obtaining optimal long-term results from liver transplantation for HCC. With rigorous selection and patient management, excellent long-term outcomes can be obtained with liver transplantation for patients with HCC.

New Systemic Treatments in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The principal advancements in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are the use of new systemic treatments, such as lenvatinib in first-line treatment and regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab in second-line treatment, because of their benefits in terms of overall survival. In addition, nivolumab as a second-line agent was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2017 based on improved radiological response data. Physicians and patients alike will greatly benefit from this expanded arsenal of treatments once all these new drugs for the treatment of HCC finally become available. Unfortunately, in our review of the available data, we found a conspicuous lack of approved systemic treatments for HCC in the distinct setting of after liver transplantation (LT). Careful evaluation of the clinical trials for approved systemic treatments of HCC is crucial when considering the best options for those with HCC recurrence after LT. Although several first-line or second-line treatments have been shown to be effective for HCC, each of these trials was composed of its own specific populations, and those with HCC recurrence after LT were excluded. We have also summarized from a critical and clinical point of view the issues involved in the management of patients who are candidates for systemic treatment in this era of multiple drugs for the same indication.

Review of therapies for intermediate and advanced stage hepatocellular carcinoma, not suitable for curative therapies: a rapidly changing landscape

Recent clinical trials and new agents have permitted greater clarity in the choice of effective agents for that majority of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who have advanced disease at diagnosis and thus cannot be offered potentially curative resection, ablation or liver transplantation. The main treatment for these patients remains chemoembolization, although evidence for selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with SIR-Spheres or Theraphere, is beginning to suggest that the results with this may be comparable with less toxicity. Patients who have failed chemoembolization or SIRT or have metastatic disease at presentation are suitable for the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib (nexavar) or newly-approved lenvatinib (lenvima) as first line therapies. The choice between which of them to use first is not currently clear. Patients who have failed sorafenib can be offered a choice of FDA-approved regorafenib (stivarga) or immune checkpoint inhibitor nivolumab (opdivo) as second line agents. For that considerable percent of patients presenting with macroscopic portal vein thrombosis, the choice appears to be between multikinase inhibitor or SIRT, given the potential toxicity of chemoembolization in this setting. However, considering the potency of both nivolumab and regorafenib and the pipeline of new agents such as atezolizumab (tecentriq) in current clinical trials, including new immune checkpoint inhibitors, this landscape may change within a couple of years, especially if new evidence arises for the superior effectiveness of combinations of any of these agents over single agents.

History and Evolution of Yttrium-90 Radioembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common form of primary liver cancer and affects millions worldwide. Due to the lack of effective systemic therapies for HCC, researchers have been investigating the use of locoregional tumor control with Yttrium-90 (Y90) radioembolization since the 1960s. Following the development of glass and resin Y90 microspheres in the early 1990s, Y90 radioembolization has been shown to be a safe and efficacious treatment for patients with HCC across Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stages. By demonstrating durable local control, good long term outcomes, and equivalent if not superior tumor responses and tolerability when compared to alternative therapies including transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and sorafenib, Y90 radioembolization is being increasingly used in HCC treatment. More recently, investigations into variations in Y90 radioembolization technique including radiation segmentectomy and radiation lobectomy have further expanded its clinical utility. Here, we discuss the history and evolution of Y90 use in HCC. We outline key clinical trials that have established the safety and efficacy of Y90 radioembolization, and also summarize trials comparing its efficacy to existing HCC treatments. We conclude by reviewing the techniques of radiation segmentectomy and lobectomy, and by discussing dosimetry.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Posttransplant Hepatic Artery and Biliary Complications in Patients Treated With Transarterial Chemoembolization Before Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Hepatic artery complications are feared complications after liver transplantation and may compromise the biliary tract, graft, and patient survival. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare risk of hepatic artery and biliary complications after liver transplantation in patients who underwent neoadjuvant transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) versus no TACE.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches were performed in Embase, MEDLINE OvidSP, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases to identify studies concerning hepatocellular cancer patients undergoing preliver transplantation TACE. Quality assessment of studies was done by the validated checklist of Downs and Black. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate the incidence of all hepatic artery complications, hepatic artery thrombosis, and biliary tract complications, using binary random-effect models.

RESULTS

Fourteen retrospective studies, representing 1122 TACE patients, met the inclusion criteria. Postoperative hepatic artery complications consisted of hepatic artery thrombosis, stenosis, and (pseudo)-aneurysms. Preliver transplantation TACE was significantly associated with occurrence of posttransplant hepatic artery complications (odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-2.26; P = 0.02). No significant association between neoadjuvant TACE and hepatic artery thrombosis alone or biliary tract complications was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with TACE before liver transplantation may be at increased risk for development of hepatic artery complications after liver transplantation.

Safety of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with yttrium-90 microspheres combined with systemic anticancer agents: expert consensus

Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with microspheres labelled with the β-emitter yttrium-90 (Y-90) enables targeted delivery of radiation to hepatic tumors. SIRT is primarily used to treat inoperable primary or metastatic liver tumors. Eligible patients have usually been exposed to a variety of systemic anticancer therapies, including cytotoxic agents, targeted biologics, immunotherapy and peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). All these treatments have potential interactions with SIRT; however, robust evidence on the safety of these potential combinations is lacking. This paper provides current clinical experiences and expert consensus guidelines for the use of SIRT in combination with the anticancer treatment agents likely to be encountered in clinical practice. It was agreed by the expert panel that precautions need to be taken with certain drugs, but that, in general, systemic therapies do not necessarily have to be stopped to perform SIRT. The authors recommend stopping vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors 4-6 weeks before SIRT, and restart after the patient has recovered from the procedure. It may also be prudent to stop potent radiosensitizers such as gemcitabine therapy 4 weeks before SIRT, and restart treatment at least 2‒4 weeks later. Data from phase III studies combining SIRT with fluorouracil (5FU) or folinic acid/5FU/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) suggest that hematological toxicity is more common from the combination than it is from chemotherapy without SIRT. There is no evidence to suggest that chemotherapy increases SIRT-specific gastro-intestinal or liver toxicities.

Trans-arterial radio-embolization: a new chance for patients with hepatocellular cancer to access liver transplantation, a world review

Liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) within the Milan criteria (MC) is nowadays a curative procedure. Yttrium-90 microspheres radioembolization (Y90-RE) has shown to be an effective and safe treatment of primary liver tumors. The aim of this work is to offer a view on the publications which report on the use of Y90-RE as bridge or downstaging prior to LT. Twenty articles have been considered for this world review. About 178 LT in patients were treated with Y90-RE prior to LT. Most of patients had a downstaging strategy. In all series alpha-fetoproteins decreased between Y90-RE and LT. Therefore, Y90-RE may have an important role in the bridge and downstaging treatments.

Loco-regional treatment of HCC: current status

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents one of the few cancers for which locoregional treatments are recognised as being able to cure and/or prolong survival and are included in international guidelines. This is due to the unique nature of HCC, in most cases occurring in patients with underlying virus- or alcohol-related cirrhosis. The treatment choice in patients with HCC is therefore driven not only by tumour staging, as in the great majority of cancers, but also by careful evaluation of liver function and physical status. Another specific feature of HCC is that it is the only tumour that can be cured by organ transplantation, with the aim of treating both the cancer and underlying liver disease. These characteristics configure a complex scenario and prompt the need for close cooperation among interventional oncologists, surgeons, hepatologists, and anaesthesiologists. In patients with limited hepatic disease, preserved hepatic function and good performance status, categorised as very early and early-stage HCC according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) classification, image-guided tumour ablation is included among the curative treatments. More than half of patients with HCC are, however, diagnosed late, despite the widespread implementation of surveillance programmes, when curative treatments cannot be applied. For patients presenting with multinodular HCC and relatively preserved liver function, absence of cancer-related symptoms, and no evidence of vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread transcatheter arterial chemoembolisation (TACE) is the current standard of care. Although anti-tumour activity and promising survival results has been reported in cohorts of patients with advanced HCC treated with radio-embolisation, systemic treatment with the multi-kinase inhibitor, sorafenib, is still recommended for patients at this stage. In this article, current treatment strategies for HCC according to tumour stage are discussed, underlining the latest advances in the literature and technical developments.

Treatment Options in Patients Awaiting Liver Transplantation with Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Cholangiocarcinoma

Liver transplantation (LT) provides a good chance of cure for selected patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA). Patients with HCC on a waiting list for LT are at risk for tumor progression and dropout. Treatment of HCC with locoregional therapies may lessen dropout due to tumor progression. Strict selection and adherence to the LT criteria for patients with pCCA before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy are critical for optimal outcome with LT. This article reviews the existing data for the various treatment strategies used for patients with HCC and pCCA awaiting LT.

New concepts in embolotherapy of HCC

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide with rapidly growing incidence rates in the USA and Europe. Despite improving surveillance programs, most patients are diagnosed at intermediate to advanced stages and are no longer amenable to curative therapies, such as ablation, surgical resection and liver transplantation. For such patients, catheter-based image-guided embolotherapies such as transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) represent the standard of care and mainstay therapy, as recommended and endorsed by a variety of national guidelines and staging systems. The main benefit of these therapies is explained by the preferentially arterial blood supply of liver tumors, which allows to deliver the anticancer therapy directly to the tumor-feeding artery while sparing the healthy hepatic tissue mainly supplied by the portal vein. The tool box of an interventional oncologist contains several different variants of transarterial treatment modalities. Ever since the first TACE more than 30 years ago, these techniques have been progressively refined, both with respect to drug delivery materials and with respect to angiographic micro-catheter and image-guidance technology, thus substantially improving therapeutic outcomes of HCC. This review will summarize the fundamental principles, technical and clinical data on the application of different embolotherapies, such as bland transarterial embolization, Lipiodol-based conventional transarterial chemoembolization as well as TACE with drug-eluting beads (DEB-TACE). Clinical data on ⁹⁰Yttrium radioembolization as an emerging alternative, mostly applied for niche indications such as HCC with portal vein invasion, will be discussed. Furthermore, we will summarize the principle of HCC staging, patient allocation and response assessment in the setting of HCC embolotherapy. In addition, we will evaluate the role of cone-beam computed tomography as a novel intra-procedural image-guidance technology. Finally, this review will touch on new technical developments such as radiopaque, imageable DEBs and the rationale and role of combined systemic and locoregional therapies, mostly in combination with Sorafenib.

Yttrium-90 Radioembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Prior to Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Liver transplantation (LT) is a well-established procedure for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) within the Milan criteria. Yttrium-90 microspheres radioembolization (Y90-RE) has shown to be an effective and safe treatment of primary liver tumors. We retrospectively evaluate the efficacy of the Y90-RE in patients with HCC prior to LT.

METHODS

From January 2002 to December 2015, 365 patients were transplanted at the San Camillo Hospital Center. One hundred forty-three patients were transplanted for HCC, and in 22 cases the patients were treated with Y90-RE before LT.

RESULTS

Three patients were treated with Y90-RE within the Milan criteria, and 19 patients were out of criteria before Y90-RE. Four patients had an increasing MELD score between Y90-RE and LT. On the other hand, alpha-fetoprotein decreases after Y90-RE treatment in all cases. No patient death was observed in Y90-RE procedure or at LT. In 78.9 % of cases, a successful downstaging was observed, and in 100 % of cases bridging was achieved. From Y90-RE treatment overall survival was 43.9 months. From LT, overall mean survival was 30.2 months with a free survival of 29.6 months. The overall survival after LT analysis between the patients treated with Y90-RE and patients without was not significant (p = 0.113). Free survival analysis was not significant (p = 0.897) between the two populations.

CONCLUSIONS

We successfully performed LT in patients after Y90-RE treatment both as bridging and downstaging for HCC and obtained a similar overall and free survival of LT for HCC within Milan criteria. Y90-RE becomes a real option to provide curative therapy for patients who traditionally are not considered eligible for surgery.

Trans-arterial radioembolization in intermediate-advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analyses

Trans-arterial radioembolization (TARE) is a recognized, although not explicitly recommended, experimental therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).A systematic literature review was performed to identify published studies on the use of TARE in intermediate and advanced stages HCC exploring the efficacy and safety of this innovative treatment.Twenty-one studies reporting data on overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP), were included in a meta-analysis. The pooled post-TARE OS was 63% (95% CI: 56-70%) and 27% (95% CI: 21-33%) at 1- and 3-years respectively in intermediate stage HCC, whereas OS was 37% (95% CI: 26-50%) and 13% (95% CI: 9-18%) at the same time intervals in patients with sufficient liver function (Child-Pugh A-B7) but with an advanced HCC because of the presence of portal vein thrombosis. When an intermediate and advanced case-mix was considered, OS was 58% (95% CI: 48-67%) and 17% (95% CI: 12-23%) at 1- and 3-years respectively. As for TTP, only four studies reported data: the observed progression probability was 56% (95% CI: 41-70%) and 73% (95% CI: 56-87%) at 1 and 2 years respectively. The safety analysis, focused on the risk of liver decompensation after TARE, revealed a great variability, from 0-1% to more than 36% events, influenced by the number of procedures, patient Child-Pugh stage and treatment duration.Evidence supporting the use of radioembolization in HCC is mainly based on retrospective and prospective cohort studies. Based on this evidence, until the results of the ongoing randomized trials become available, radioembolization appears to be a viable treatment option for intermediate-advanced stage HCC.

Combined sorafenib and yttrium-90 radioembolization for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In this pilot study, we assessed the safety and tolerability of combining sorafenib with ⁹⁰Y radioembolization for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (hcc).

METHODS

The study, conducted prospectively during 2009-2012, included eligible patients with unresectable hcc and a life expectancy of at least 12 weeks. Each patient received sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) for 6-8 weeks before ⁹⁰Y treatment. Safety and tolerability were assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 40 patients enrolled, 29 completed treatment (combined therapy). In the initial cohort, the most common cause of hcc was hepatitis C (32.5%), and most patients were staged Child A (82.5%). The 29 patients who completed the study had similar baseline characteristics. Grades 1 and 2 toxicities accounted for 77.8% of all adverse events reported. The most common toxicities reported were fatigue (19.0%), alteration in liver function (7.9%), and diarrhea (6.3%). There were 12 grade 3 and 2 grade 4 toxicity events reported. One patient died of liver failure within 30 days after treatment. During the study, the sorafenib dose was reduced in 6 patients (20.7%), and sorafenib had to be interrupted in 4 patients (13.8%) and discontinued in 4 patients (13.8%). The disease control rate was 72.4% per the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and tumour necrosis was observed in 82.8% of patients. Overall survival in patients undergoing combined therapy was 12.4 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Preliminary results demonstrate the safety and tolerability of combining ⁹⁰Y radioembolization and sorafenib for advanced hcc. A larger prospective study is needed to determine the extent of the survival benefit.

Novel implications in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

Worldwide hepatocellular carcinoma remains one of the leading causes of cancer-related death, associated with a poor prognosis due to late diagnosis in the majority of cases. Physicians at care are frequently confronted with patients who are ineligible for curative treatment such as liver resection, transplantation or radiofrequency ablation. Besides established palliative locoregional therapies, such as ablation or chemoembolization, new treatment options, such as microwave ablation, drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization or selective internal radiation therapy, are emerging; however, data from randomized controlled trials are still lacking. In order to achieve optimal tumor control, patients should receive tailored treatment concepts, considering their tumor burden, liver function and performance status, instead of strictly assigning patients to treatment modalities following algorithms that may be partly very restrictive. Palliative locoregional pretreatment might facilitate downstaging to ensure later curative resection or transplantation. In addition, the combined utilization of different locoregional treatment options or systemic co-treatment has been the subject of several trials. In cases where local tumor control cannot be achieved, or in the scenario of extrahepatic spread, sorafenib remains the only approved systemic therapy option. Alternative targeted therapies, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown encouraging preliminary results, while data from phase III studies are pending.

A comparison of survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein invasion treated by radioembolization or sorafenib

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Sorafenib (SOR) is the standard of care for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal vein invasion (PVI), based on the results of phase 3 trials. However, radioembolization (RE) using yttrium-90 microspheres has been shown to achieve higher response rates and better survival in large cohorts and phase 2 trials. This study aimed to compare survival of HCC patients with PVI treated by RE or SOR.

METHODS

Survival among patients with HCC and PVI treated with RE or SOR in four Spanish hospitals between 2005 and 2013 was analysed retrospectively. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were plotted and baseline variables tested for prognostic value using the log-rank test. A multivariate prognostic model including variables identified in the univariate analysis and adjusted by a propensity score based on factors that may determine the probability of exposure to RE was generated using Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

After a median follow-up of 6 months, 60 deaths had occurred: 38 and 22 in SOR and RE groups respectively. Median survival was 6.7 months (95%CI 5.2-8.1 months) for the entire cohort, and 8.8 months (95%CI 1.8-15.8) in the RE group and 5.4 months (95%CI 2.7-8.1) in the SOR group (P = 0.047). The difference in survival was still statistically significant when 13 patients in the RE group who started SOR after a median time of 8 months were censored from the analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In a cohort of patients with HCC and PVI treatment with RE was associated with a more prolonged survival compared with SOR.

Angiogenic Response following Radioembolization: Results from a Randomized Pilot Study of Yttrium-90 with or without Sorafenib

PURPOSE

To compare the regulation of serum angiogenic factors in patients with unresectable early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with yttrium-90 ((90)Y) radioembolization alone vs with sorafenib.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a single-center pilot study, 23 patients with unresectable HCC awaiting orthotopic liver transplantation were prospectively randomized to receive radioembolization alone (n = 12) or radioembolization with sorafenib (n = 11). Serum angiogenic markers (angiopoietin-2 [Ang-2], hepatocyte growth factor, interleukin [IL]-6, IL-8, c-reactive protein, platelet-derived growth factor [PDGF], and vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF]) were assayed at baseline and at 2 and 4 weeks after radioembolization ((90)Y alone, n = 6; (90)Y plus sorafenib, n = 7).

RESULTS

In the (90)Y-alone group, all growth factors were elevated above baseline levels at 2 and 4 weeks: VEGF increased 36% vs baseline at 2 weeks and 22% at 4 weeks, and PDGF increased 24% at 2 weeks and 3% at 4 weeks. In the (90)Y/sorafenib arm, Ang-2 and PDGF decreased at 2 weeks and the remainder increased. By 4 weeks, only PDGF remained below baseline levels. VEGF increased 49% at 2 weeks and 28% at 4 weeks, and PDGF decreased 31% at 2 weeks and 39% at 4 weeks. Differences were statistically significant for hepatocyte growth factor (P = .03) and PDGF (P = .02) at 2 weeks and for IL-6 (P = .05) at 4 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Radioembolization is associated with a mild increase in angiogenic markers. The addition of sorafenib blunts PDGF response; other factors such as VEGF remain unaffected. The predominant effect of sorafenib may be through downregulation of PDGF and not VEGF.

Current status of transarterial radioembolization

Unresectable primary and secondary liver malignancies present a major problem in the treatment of solid tumors. Transarterial radioembolization (TARE) is an increasingly used technique for treating various types of malignant liver tumors. This approach is appealing, as the mechanism of action is independent from other loco-regional treatments and potentially complementary to systemic therapies. There are two commercially available products in use for TARE: ⁹⁰Y-resin and ⁹⁰Y-glass microspheres. Currently available data indicates TARE so be safe and effective in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and metastatic liver disease. In HCC the results compare well with chemoembolization, while the role of TARE in combination with kinase inhibitors has yet to be established. Current data on TARE in metastatic liver disease is promising, but there is a strong need for prospective randomized trials comparing TARE and modern chemotherapeutic regimen to support the growing role of TARE in metastatic liver disease.