Survival analysis of transarterial radioembolization with yttrium-90 for hepatocellular carcinoma patients with HBV infection

Transarterial radioembolization versus chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis

Background

Currently, inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is treated by both transarterial radioembolization (TARE) and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). However, their relative efficacy and outcomes remain unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to compare TARE and TACE to evaluate their safety and efficacy in treating inoperable HCC patients.

Methods

Relevant studies were identified by searching the Web of Science, PubMed, and Wanfang databases. Pooled analyses were used to compare treatment response rates, complications, and overall survival (OS) outcomes between the TARE and TACE groups.

Results

This analysis selected 8 studies comprising 1026 and 358 patients that respectively underwent TACE and TARE treatment. The results revealed that the TARE group had significantly higher pooled total response, disease control, and 1-year OS rates compared to the TACE group (P = 0.04, 0.003, and 0.02, respectively), with a corresponding increase in OS (P = 0.0002). Furthermore, rates of complications including fever and abdominal pain were also reduced in the TARE group (P = 0.006 and 0.02, respectively). Moreover, there were no significant differences in the pooled analyses of complete response rates, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, 3-year OS, or 5-year OS between these groups (P = 0.24, 0.69, 0.15, 0.73, and 0.38, respectively). Significant heterogeneity was detected for endpoints including fatigue, nausea/vomiting, fever, abdominal pain, OS duration, and 3-year OS (I2 = 89%, 82%, 72%, 90%, 96%, and 66%, respectively). All endpoints exhibited no significant risk of publication bias.

Conclusions

This study revealed that relative to TACE, TARE performed using 90Y can yield significantly higher treatment response rates and prolong HCC patient survival with fewer treatment-related side effects.The PRISMA guidelines were used to guide the execution and publication of this meta-analysis. The study is registered at INPLASY.COM (No. INPLASY202380017).

Systematic review registration

INPLASY.COM, identifier INPLASY202380017.

Selective internal radiation therapy across Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stages of hepatocellular carcinoma: literature review

Background and Objective

Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) represents an endovascular treatment option for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Its use is widely recognized in the intermediate and advanced HCC, but it has become more prevalent in recent years in different Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stages. The aim of this review is to summarize the role of SIRT and its clinical implications through different stages of HCC.

Methods

A literature review of papers on this topic was performed using PubMed MEDLINE, focusing exclusively on the role of yttrium-90 SIRT across all BCLC stages and comparing it with other treatments. Only English-language papers currently available until September 2023 were considered.

Key Content and Findings

Many studies have shown that SIRT is a promising tool with multiple uses, such as tumour control in the context of bridge-to-liver transplantation or resection, tumour downstaging, and curative therapy in selected patients. Therefore, according to the recent update of BCLC staging system criteria, SIRT now emerges as a potential curative treatment for early-stage HCC patients, serving as an alternative when ablation or resection is not feasible. It is also a promising treatment compared to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) as well as in combination with immunotherapies.

Conclusions

SIRT is a safe and effective treatment for selected patients at all BCLC stages of HCC. Therefore, due to its numerous advantages, SIRT may prove useful in many complex HCC treatment situations in the near future.

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); radioembolization; yttrium-90 (90Y); selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT); transarterial radioembolization (TARE).

Co-relation of Portal Vein Tumour Thrombus Response With Survival Function Following Robotic Radiosurgery in Vascular Invasive Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background/aims

The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with robotic radiosurgery in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with macrovascular invasion (HCC-PVT).

Materials and methods

Patients with inoperable HCC-PVT, good performance score (PS0-1) and preserved liver function [up to Child-Pugh (CP) B7] were accrued after ethical and scientific committee approval [Clinical trial registry-India (CTRI): 2022/01/050234] for treatment on robotic radiosurgery (M6) and planned with Multiplan (iDMS V2.0). Triple-phase contrast computed tomography (CT) scan was performed for contouring, and gross tumour volume (GTV) included contrast-enhancing mass within main portal vein and adjacent parenchymal disease. Dose prescription was as per risk stratification protocol (22-50 Gy in 5 fractions) while achieving the constraints of mean liver dose <15 Gy, 800 cc liver <8 Gy and the duodenum max of <24 Gy). Response assessment was done at 2 months' follow-up for recanalization. Patient- and treatment-related factors were evaluated for influence in survival function.

Results

Between Jan 2017 and May 2022, 318 consecutive HCC with PVT patients were screened and 219 patients were accrued [male 92%, CP score: 5-7 90%, mean age: 63 years (38-85 yrs), Cancer of the Liver Italian Program <3: 84 (40%), 3-6117 (56%), infective aetiology 9.5%, performance status (PS): 0-37%; 1-56%]. Among 209 consecutive patients accrued for SBRT treatment (10 patients were excluded after accrual due to ascites and decompensation), 139 were evaluable for response assessment (>2 mo follow-up). At mean follow-up of 12.21 months (standard deviation: 10.66), 88 (63%) patients expired and 51 (36%) were alive. Eighty-two (59%) patients had recanalization of PVT (response), 57 (41%) patients did not recanalize and 28 (17%) had progressive/metastatic disease prior to response evaluation (<2 months). Mean overall survival (OS) in responders and non-responders were 18.4 [standard error (SE): 2.52] and 9.34 month (SE 0.81), respectively (P < 0.001). Mean survival in patients with PS0, PS1 and PS2 were 17, 11.7 and 9.7 months (P = 0.019), respectively. OS in partial recanalization, bland thrombus and complete recanalization was 12.4, 14.1 and 30.3 months, respectively (P-0.002). Adjuvant sorafenib, Barcelona Clinic Liver Classification stage, gender, age and RT dose did not influence response to treatment. Recanalization rate was higher in good PS patients (P-0.019). OS in patients with response to treatment, in those with no response to treatment, in those who are fit but not accrued and in those who are not suitable were 18.4, 9.34, 5.9 and 2.6 months, respectively (P-<0.001). Thirty-six of 139 patients (24%) had radiation-induced liver disease (RILD) [10 (7.2%) had classic RILD & 26 (19%) had non-classic RILD]. Derangement in CP score (CP score change) by more than 2 was seen in 30 (24%) within 2-month period after robotic radiosurgery. Eighteen (13%) had unplanned admissions, two patients required embolization due to fiducial-related bleeding and 20 (14%) had ascites, of which 9 (6%) patients required abdominocentesis.

Conclusion

PVT response or recanalization after SBRT is a statistically significant prognostic factor for survival function in HCC-PVT.

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is characterized by low resection and high postoperative recurrence rates, and conventional treatment strategies have failed to meet clinical needs. Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is widely employed in the routine management of several solid tumors because it increases resectability and reduces the rate of postoperative recurrence. However, a consensus has not been reached regarding the effects of NAT on HCC. As systemic therapy, particularly targeted therapy and immunotherapy, is given for HCC treatment, accumulating evidence shows that the "spring" of NAT for HCC is imminent. In the future, HCC researchers should focus on identifying biomarkers for treatment response, explore the mechanisms of resistance, and standardize the endpoints of NAT.

TACE versus TARE for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Overall and individual patient level meta analysis

BACKGROUND

Transarterial radioembolization (TARE) is increasingly used as an alternative to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to perform an overall and individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of studies comparing TACE and TARE.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search using pre-specified keywords with the aid of an informationist for articles from inception to 3/2020. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoint was time to progression (TTP).

RESULTS

Seventeen studies met inclusion criteria with 2465 unique patients, with one randomized trial, 4 prospective studies and 12 retrospective studies. Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B (42.8%) was the most common stage followed by BCLC A (30.3%) and BCLC C (29.0%). There was no difference in OS between the two modalities (-0.55 months, 95% CI -1.95 to 3.05). In three studies with available TTP data, TARE resulted in a longer TTP than TACE (mean TTP 17.5 vs. 9.8 months; mean TTP difference 4.8 months, 95% CI 1.3-8.3 months). IPD-level meta-analysis of 311 patients from three studies showed no difference in overall OS between the two modalities including among subgroups stratified by tumor stage and liver function. Limitations of the current literature include inconsistent length of follow-up, inconsistency in response criteria, and safety reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Current data suggest TARE provides significantly longer TTP than TACE, although the two treatments do not significantly differ in terms of OS. Given limitations of the current data, there is rationale for prospective studies comparing these modalities.

An overview in management of hepatocellular carcinoma in Hong Kong using the Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) staging system

In Hong Kong, liver cancer is the fifth most common cancer and the third most common cause of cancer deaths. The prevalence of hepatitis B is high in Hong Kong because of the high rate of hepatitis B virus infection, and chronic hepatitis B has remained the leading cause of hepatocellular carcinoma in the city, accounting for 80% of all cases in the period from 1992 to 2016. In view of the different etiologies of hepatocellular carcinoma around the world, a group of liver experts in Hong Kong developed the Hong Kong Liver Cancer staging system in order to provide more aggressive treatment guidance (predominantly a wider use of surgical resection) for Asian patients of hepatocellular carcinoma. In this article focussing on the Hong Kong Liver Cancer staging system, we briefly reviewed the screening criteria adopted in Hong Kong for liver resection, local ablation, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, transcatheter arterial radioembolization, stereotactic body radiation therapy, and systemic therapy.

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.

Neoadjuvant therapy and immunotherapy strategies for hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common cancers with high mortality rate worldwide. Due to aggressive and invasive characteristics of HCC, poor prognosis is often displayed at advanced stages while therapeutic options are limited. Liver resection is still an essential curative-intent treatment in HCC management, while locoregional and systematic therapies made promising advances that may improve the proportion and outcomes of patients who are surgical candidates. In this review, we discussed status of currently available neoadjuvant treatments aimed at improving resectability and reducing recurrence rates. More than ever, in order to implement this therapeutic concepts and exploit the full potential of neoadjuvant treatment strategies, it is of utmost importance to use more high-level evidence to guide treatment decision making. Unfortunately, the use of preoperative treatments is not sponsored by tough evidence and consensus guidelines are absent.

Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with portal vein tumor thrombosis: Beyond the known frontiers

Hepatocellular carcinoma is one of the most frequent malignant tumors worldwide: Portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) occurs in about 35%-50% of patients and represents a strong negative prognostic factor, due to the increased risk of tumor spread into the bloodstream, leading to a high recurrence risk. For this reason, it is a contraindication to liver transplantation and in several prognostic scores sorafenib represents its standard of care, due to its antiangiogenetic action, although it can grant only a poor prolongation of life expectancy. Recent scientific evidences lead to consider PVTT as a complex anatomical and clinical condition, including a wide range of patients with different prognosis and new treatment possibilities according to the degree of portal system involvement, tumor biological aggressiveness, complications caused by portal hypertension, patient's clinical features and tolerance to antineoplastic treatments. The median survival has been reported to range between 2.7 and 4 mo in absence of therapy, but it can vary from 5 mo to 5 years, thus depicting an extremely variable scenario. For this reason, it is extremely important to focus on the most adequate strategy to be applied to each group of PVTT patients.

Yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization versus conventional transarterial chemoembolization for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective:

To compare the effects and safety of conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) and yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization [TARE (90Y)] for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)

Methods:

Nine high-quality observational studies, one low bias-risk randomized controlled trial (RCT), and one moderate bias-risk RCT included 1,652 patients [cTACE, 1,124; TARE (90Y), 528], from whom data were extracted for this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Results:

The extracted study outcomes included 1-year and 2-year overall survival (OS) rates, objective responses (ORs), and serious adverse events (AEs). 1-year OS rates: OR = 0.939, 95 % CI: 0.705-1.251, P = 0.66. 2-year OS rates: overall pooled OR = 0.641, 95% CI: 0.382-1.075, P = 0.092; observational study subgroup OR = 0.575, 95% CI: 0.336-0.984, P = 0.043; RCT subgroup OR* = 0.641, 95% CI: 0.382-1.075, P = 0.346. OR: overall pooled OR = 0.781, 95% CI: 0.454-1.343, P = 0.371; mRECIST subgroup OR = 0.584, 95 % CI: 0.349-0.976, P = 0.040; WHO subgroup OR = 1.065; 95% CI: 0.500-2.268, P = 0.870. Serious AEs: overall pooled RR = 1.477, 95% CI: 0.864-2.526, P = 0.154; RCT subgroup RR = 0.680, 95% CI: 0.325-1.423, P = 0.306; observational study subgroup RR = 1.925; 95 % CI: 0.978-3.788, P = 0.058.

Conclusions:

TARE (90Y) increased 2-year OS rates in the observational subgroup and resulted in better OR rates, according to mRECIST criteria, in comparison with cTACE. Furthermore, a lower risk of AEs was observed for TARE (90Y) than for cTACE.

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.

Management of hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis: Review and update at 2016

Portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) is a common phenomenon in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Compared to HCC without PVTT, HCC with PVTT is characterized by an aggressive disease course, worse hepatic function, a higher chance of complications related to portal hypertension and poorer tolerance to treatment. Conventionally, HCC with PVTT is grouped together with metastatic HCC during the planning of its management, and most patients are offered palliative treatment with sorafenib or other systemic agents. As a result, most data on the management of HCC with PVTT comes from subgroup analyses or retrospective series. In the past few years, there have been several updates on management of HCC with PVTT. First, it is evident that HCC with PVTT consists of heterogeneous subgroups with different prognoses. Different classifications have been proposed to stage the degree of portal vein invasion/thrombosis, suggesting that different treatment modalities may be individualized to patients with different risks. Second, more studies indicate that more aggressive treatment, including surgical resection or locoregional treatment, may benefit select HCC patients with PVTT. In this review, we aim to discuss the recent conceptual changes and summarize the data on the management of HCC with PVTT.

[Selective internal radioembolization in nonresectable hepatocellular carcinoma]

INTRODUCTION

The role of selective internal radioembolization (SIRT) in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is currently unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We investigated 52 patients with nonresectable HCC in cirrhosis who underwent SIRT at the Department of General, Visceral and Vascular Surgery in co-operation with the Department of Nuclear Medicine and the Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology between April 2011 and October 2015.

RESULTS

In five patients, SIRT was employed for bridging to liver transplantation. In patients who had undergone pre-treatment with SIRT, histological examination of the explanted livers showed extensive tumor necrosis in the targeted areas with only minor remnant vital tissue at the margins. Four of the patients who underwent SIRT as local bridging treatment are tumor-free after transplantation. In the 47 palliatively treated patients, a total of 76 radioembolizations were performed. The observed 1‑ and 2‑year survival rates in these patients were 58 and 29 %, respectively, after the first SIRT. In the multivariate analysis of the observed survival, AFP before the first SIRT >30ng/ml, time interval of <12 months between the initial diagnosis and the first SIRT, largest tumor diameter >5 cm and portal vein thrombosis were independent negative prognostic factors. In the multi-variate analysis, the time to progression was independently influenced only by the AFP level before the first SIRT. In addition to standard treatment with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), SIRT is feasible in nonresectable HCC, in particular with portal vein thrombosis, with identical results, less interventions and few side effects.

Management of hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein thrombosis

Management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is complex and requires an understanding of multiple therapeutic options. PVT is present in 10%-40% of HCC at the time of diagnosis, and is an adverse prognostic factor. Management options are limited, as transplantation is generally contraindicated, and surgical resection is only rarely performed in select centers. Systemic medical therapy with sorafenib has been shown to modestly prolong survival. Transarterial chemoembolization has been performed in select cases but has shown a high incidence of complications. Emerging data on treatment of PVT with Y-90 radioembolization suggest that this modality is well-tolerated and associated with favorable overall survival. Current society guidelines do not yet specifically recommend radioembolization for patients with PVT, but this may change with the development of newer staging systems and treatment algorithms. In this comprehensive literature review, we present current and available management options with the relative advantages, disadvantages and contraindications of these treatment options with summarized data on overall survival.