Balloon-occluded chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective study of safety, feasibility and outcomes

Microballoon Interventions for Liver Tumors: Review of Literature and Future Perspectives

Background: Microballoon interventions (MBIs) have been proposed as useful tools to improve the efficacy of locoregional liver treatments. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the existing evidence on procedural characteristics, safety, and efficacy of MBIs. Methods: PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were queried for original research articles evaluating MBIs in patients with liver malignancies from 2012 to August 2022. Search terms employed were liver malignancies, hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, liver metastases, microballoon transarterial chemoembolization, balloon-occluded trans-arterial chemoembolization, balloon-occluded selective internal radiation therapies, balloon-occluded TACE and ablation, and safety or oncological results or efficacy. Merely technical studies and animal studies were excluded. Results: Thirty-four original research studies and one abstract involving 744 patients treated with MBIs were included; 76% of the studies were retrospective, with low risk of bias and moderate-to-poor levels of evidence. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. All studies proved MBI safety, which was not inferior to non-occlusive procedures. Balloon employment ameliorates oncological results, improving time to recurrence, objective response rate, and lowers need for retreatment. Conclusions: MBIs appear to be potential game changers in the treatment of liver malignancies. Multicentric, prospective and randomized studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

In the Era of Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Is Transarterial Chemoembolization Still a Card to Play?

Conventional transarterial embolization (cTACE) has been proven to be effective for intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with a recent systematic review showing an overall survival (OS) of 19.4 months. Nevertheless, due to the rapid development of the systemic therapeutic landscape, the place of TACE is becoming questionable. Is there still a niche for TACE in the era of immunotherapy and combination treatments such as atezolizumab-bevacizumab, which has shown an OS of 19.2 months with excellent tolerance? The development of drug-eluting microspheres (DEMs) has led to the standardization of the technique, and along with adequate selection, it showed an OS of 48 months in a retrospective study. In order to increase treatment selectivity, new catheters have also been added to the TACE arsenal as well as the use of cone-beam CT (CBCT), which provides three-dimensional volumetric images and guidance during procedures. Moreover, the TACE indications have also widened. It may serve as a "bridging therapy" for liver transplantation candidates while they are on the waiting list, and it represents a valuable downstaging tool to transplantation criteria. The aim of this review is to explore the current data on the advancements of TACE and its future place amongst the growing panel of treatments.

Balloon-Occluded Transarterial Chemoembolization: In Which Size Range Does It Perform Best? A Comparison of Its Efficacy versus Conventional Transarterial Chemoembolization, Using Propensity Score Matching

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this multicenter comparison of balloon-occluded transarterial chemoembolization (B-TACE) versus conventional TACE (cTACE) in treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was to assess in which size range the 2 techniques offered higher complete response (CR) and objective response (OR) rates in a single session, and to evaluate the possibility of using B-TACE to reduce the need for re-treatment.

METHODS

325 patients were retrospectively evaluated: 91 patients in the B-TACE group (22 with cTACE [B-cTACE] and 69 with drug-eluting microsphere TACE [B-DEM-TACE]) and 234 in the cTACE group. The results were compared according to tumor size: (A) <30 mm, (B) 30-50 mm, and (C) >50 mm; OR and CR rates after the first session and the number of TACE re-interventions within a 6-month period were also evaluated using propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

The best target ORs were very high (93.2%) and similar between the 2 treatments both before (94.4% for cTACE and 90.1% for B-TACE) and after PSM (94.5% for cTACE and 90.1%; p = 0.405), with slightly better results for the cTACE cohort probably due to better cTACE effectiveness in smaller lesions. In lesions <30 mm, cTACE obtained a slightly higher CR rate than B-TACE (61.9 vs. 56.3%, p = 0.680), whereas in intermediate-sized HCCs (30-50 mm), B-TACE showed a significant superiority in achieving a CR (72.3 vs. 54.1%, respectively; p = 0.047). In larger lesions (>50 mm), cTACE and B-TACE performed equally, with a poor CR rate (22.6 vs. 23.1%, respectively; p = 1.000). These results were additionally confirmed using PSM. The patients treated with B-TACE had a significantly lower re-treatment rate than the cTACE cohort (12.1 vs. 26.9%, respectively; p = 0.005). B-cTACE and B-DEM-TACE demonstrated similar ORs, with a slightly better CR rate for B-cTACE (68.2 vs. 56.5%, respectively; p = 0.456).

CONCLUSION

In HCCs of 30-50 mm, B-TACE should be preferred to cTACE, whereas in smaller nodules (<30 mm), cTACE can suffice in achieving a good CR rate. The statistically significant lower re-treatment rate of the B-TACE cohort after a single procedure reduced the risk of complications due to multiple TACE, which could worsen the patient prognosis.

Retrospective European Multicentric Evaluation of Selective Transarterial Chemoembolisation with and without Balloon-Occlusion in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this retrospective multicentric study was to compare the tumour response rates of Balloon-occluded Transarterial Chemoembolisation (B-TACE) to non-B-TACE using propensity score matching (PSM) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and to investigate the clinical benefit, such as lower rates of TACE re-intervention achieved using B-TACE.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The B-TACE procedures (n = 96 patients) were compared with a control group of non-B-TACE treatments (n = 434 pts), performed with conventional (cTACE) or drug-eluting microspheres TACE (DEM-TACE). Data were collected from six European centres from 2015 to 2019. Objective responses (OR) and complete response (CR) rates after the first session and the number of TACE re-interventions were evaluated using PSM (91 patients per arm).

RESULTS

The best target OR after PSM were similar for both B-TACE and non-B-TACE (90.1% and 86.8%, p = 0.644); however, CR at 1-6 months was significantly higher for B-TACE (59.3% vs. 41.8%, p = 0.026). Patients treated with B-TACE had a significantly lower retreatment rate during the first 6 months (9.9%% vs. 22.0%, p = 0.041). Post-embolisation syndrome (PES) rates were 8.8% in non-B-TACE and 41.8% in B-TACE (p < 0.001), with no significant differences between groups regarding major adverse events.

CONCLUSION

B-TACE is safe and effective, achieving higher CR rates than non-B-TACE. Patients undergoing B-TACE had a significantly lower retreatment rate within the first 6 months but higher PES rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

Level 3, retrospective study.