Effect of yttrium-90 radioembolization on outcomes in Asian patients with early to advanced stage hepatocellular carcinoma

Clinical consensus statement: Selective internal radiation therapy with yttrium 90 resin microspheres for hepatocellular carcinoma in Asia

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is subject to different management approaches and guidelines according to Eastern and Western therapeutic algorithms. Use of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with resin yttrium 90 microspheres for HCC has increased in Asia in recent years, without clearly defined indications for its optimal application. The objective of this systematic review and expert consensus statement is to provide guidance and perspectives on the use of SIRT among patients with HCC in Asia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review identified current publications on HCC management and SIRT recommendations. A group of 10 experts, representing stakeholder specialties and countries, convened between August 2020 and March 2021 and implemented a modified Delphi consensus approach to develop guidelines and indications for use of SIRT for HCC in Asia. Final recommendations were organized and adjudicated based on the level of evidence and strength of recommendation, per approaches outlined by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

RESULTS

The experts acknowledged a general lack of evidence relating to use of SIRT in Asia and identified as an unmet need the lack of phase 3 randomized trials comparing clinical outcomes and survival following SIRT versus other therapies for HCC. Through an iterative process, the expert group explored areas of clinical relevance and generated 31 guidance statements and a patient management algorithm that achieved consensus.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations aim to support clinicians in their decision-making and to help them identify and treat patients with HCC using SIRT in Asia. The recommendations also highlight areas in which further clinical trials are needed to define the role of SIRT in management of HCC among Asian populations.

Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma need a personalized management: A lesson from clinical practice

The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) advanced stage (BCLC C) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) includes a heterogeneous population, where sorafenib alone is the recommended treatment. In this study, our aim was to assess treatment and overall survival (OS) of BCLC C patients subclassified according to clinical features (performance status [PS], macrovascular invasion [MVI], extrahepatic spread [EHS] or MVI + EHS) determining their allocation to this stage. From the Italian Liver Cancer database, we analyzed 835 consecutive BCLC C patients diagnosed between 2008 and 2014. Patients were subclassified as: PS1 alone (n = 385; 46.1%), PS2 alone (n = 146; 17.5%), MVI (n = 224; 26.8%), EHS (n = 51; 6.1%), and MVI + EHS (n = 29; 3.5%). MVI, EHS, and MVI + EHS patients had larger and multifocal/massive HCCs and higher alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels than PS1 and PS2 patients. Median OS significantly declined from PS1 (38.6 months) to PS2 (22.3 months), EHS (11.2 months), MVI (8.2 months), and MVI + EHS (3.1 months; P < 0.001). Among MVI patients, OS was longer in those with peripheral than with central (portal trunk) MVI (11.2 vs. 7.1 months; P = 0.005). The most frequent treatments were: curative approaches in PS1 (39.7%), supportive therapy in PS2 (41.8%), sorafenib in MVI (39.3%) and EHS (37.3%), and best supportive care in MVI + EHS patients (51.7%). Independent prognostic factors were: Model for End-stage Liver Disease score, Child-Pugh class, ascites, platelet count, albumin, tumor size, MVI, EHS, AFP levels, and treatment type.

CONCLUSION

BCLC C stage does not identify patients homogeneous enough to be allocated to a single stage. PS1 alone is not sufficient to include a patient into this stage. The remaining patients should be subclassified according to PS and tumor features, and new patient-tailored therapeutic indications are needed. (Hepatology 2018;67:1784-1796).

Update on Embolization Therapies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of the review is to summarize the latest applications for embolotherapy in the management of patients with HCC according to BCLC stage.

RECENT FINDINGS

While traditionally reserved for patients with unresectable HCC and stage B disease, there is an important role for embolization therapies in earlier stage patients as an adjunct to ablation, bridging, or downstaging therapy, as a means to improve safety of resection, and potentially as an arterial ablative option in the case of radioembolization. Newer applications of radioembolization such as radiation segmentectomy have the potential to provide cure in localized unifocal disease, and transarterial chemoembolization-portal vein embolization and radiation lobectomy may provide a combination of treatment and future liver remnant hypertrophy for planned hepatic resection. There is also an increasing role for embolization in the treatment of stage C disease, and recent data suggest it can be used in combination with sorafenib with the potential for survival benefit over sorafenib alone, even in the case of portal vein tumor thrombus. Embolization therapies play an increasingly important role in patients with BCLC stage A-C hepatocellular carcinoma. While different therapies may be offered on a patient-specific basis, there are limited prospective RCT data to support superiority of one technique over another.