| Literature DB >> 23100194 |
Beatrijs A Seinstra1, Otto M van Delden, Karel J van Erpecum, Richard van Hillegersberg, Willem P Th M Mali, Maurice A A J van den Bosch.
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a primary malignant tumor of the liver that accounts for an important health problem worldwide. Only 10-15% of HCC patients are suitable candidates for hepatic resection and liver transplantation due to the advanced stage of the disease at time of diagnosis and shortage of donors. Therefore, several minimally invasive image-guided therapies for locoregional treatment have been developed. Tumor ablative techniques are either based on thermal tumor destruction, as in radiofrequency ablation, cryoablation, microwave ablation, laser ablation and high-intensity focused ultrasound, or chemical tumor destruction, as in percutaneous ethanol injection. Image-guided catheter-based techniques rely on intra-arterial delivery of embolic, chemoembolic or radioembolic agents. These minimally invasive image-guided therapies have revolutionized the management of inoperable HCC. This review provides a description of all minimally invasive image-guided therapies currently available, an up-to-date overview of the scientific evidence for their clinical use, and thoughts for future directions.Entities:
Year: 2010 PMID: 23100194 PMCID: PMC3288853 DOI: 10.1007/s13244-010-0027-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Insights Imaging ISSN: 1869-4101
Fig. 1Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging and treatment approach. PS = performance status. N1 = lymph node involvement. M1 = metastatic spread. CLT = cadaveric liver transplantation. LDLT = live-donor liver transplantation. PEI = percutaneous ethanol injection. RF = radiofrequency. TACE = transarterial chemoembolization. Adapted with permission from [15]
Fig. 2Ultrasound guided RFA. a: HCC lesion in a non-surgical patient pre-treatment (pointed out by arrow). b: Just after start treatment, electrode placed centrally in the tumor. c: Gas formation during ablation causes acoustic shadowing
Fig. 3Contrast-enhanced CT pre- and post-RFA. Same patient as in Fig. 2. a: Hypervascular lesion (biopsy proven HCC) in right liver lobe (pointed out by arrow) before treatment. b: Ablated lesion directly post ablation, with reactive hyperemia around the RFA lesion
Long-term survival data from follow-up studies of HCC patients treated with RFA
| Study | Patients (n) | Type of RFA | Tumor size (cm) | 5-year overall survival (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buscarini et al. (2001)[ | 88 | perc | ≤3.5 | 33 |
| Lencioni et al. (2005)[ | 187 | perc | Mean, 2.8 | 48 |
| Tateishi et al. (2005)[ | 319 (naive) | perc | Mean, 2.6 | 54 (naive) |
| 345 (pretreated) | 38 (pretreated) | |||
| Raut et al. (2005)[ | 194 | 140 perc | Median | 55 |
| 54 open | Total 3.3 | |||
| Perc 3.0 | ||||
| Open 4.0 | ||||
| Machi et al. (2005)[ | 84 | 49 perc | Mean | 40 |
| 20 lap | Total 3.2 | |||
| 15 open | Perc 3.2 | |||
| Lap 3.0 | ||||
| Open 3.1 | ||||
| Cabassa et al. (2006)[ | 59 | perc | Mean, 3.1 | 43 |
| Choi et al. (2006)[ | 570 | perc | Mean, 2.59 | 58 |
| Yan et al. (2007)[ | 266 | perc | Mean, 3.9 | 43 |
| Ueno et al. (2009)[ | 155 | 110 perc, 45 | Mean, 2.0 | 63 |
| lap/open |
Data of studies with ≥ 50 patients included
RFA = radiofrequency ablation, perc = percutaneous, lap = laparoscopic, open = open procedure
Survival data from randomized controlled trials investigating TACE in HCC patients
| Study | Patients (n) | Therapy | 1-year overall survival (%) | 2-year overall survival (%) | 3-year overall survival (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lin et al. (1988)[ | 63 | 21 TAE | 42 | 25 | NR |
| 21 TAE + 5-FU iv | 20 | 20 | NR | ||
| 21 5-FU iv | 13 | 13 | NR | ||
| Pelletier et al. (1990)[ | 42 | 21 TACE | 24 | NR | NR |
| 21 Conservative | 31 | NR | NR | ||
| Groupe d’Etude (1995)[ | 96 | 50 TACE | 62 | 38 | NR |
| 46 Conservative | 43 | 26 | NR | ||
| Pelletier et al. (1998)[ | 73 | 37 TACE | 51 | 24 | NR |
| 36 Tamoxifen | 55 | 26 | NR | ||
| Lo et al. (2002)[ | 79 | 40 TACE | 57 | 31 | 26 |
| 39 Conservative | 32 | 11 | 3 | ||
| Llovet et al. (2002)[ | 112 | 40 TACE | 82 | 63 | 29 |
| 37 TAE | 75 | 50 | 29 | ||
| 35 Conservative | 63 | 27 | 17 |
TACE = transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, TAE = transcatheter arterial (bland) embolization, NR = not reported
Fig. 4Angiogram during TACE-DEB procedure. a: Hypervascular HCC caudal right lobe (segment 6) prior to treatment (arrow). NB: Patient has multifocal lesions and was previously treated with Y90 radioembolization; workup involved coiling of the gastroduodenal artery. b: Precision TACE with DEB shows embolization of the tumor microvasculature
Fig. 5Angiogram during Yttrium-90 radioembolization. a: Replaced right hepatic artery (normal variant branch from superior mesenteric artery) vascularizing a large unifocal HCC lesion in the right liver lobe. b: Selective injection of 90Y microspheres through a microcatheter into the right hepatic artery
Fig. 6Pre- and post-Yttrium-90 radioembolization. a: Fusion image of liver MRI and 99mTc-MAA scintigram showing large HCC lesion in right liver lobe. b: Contrast-enhanced MRI 3 months post-treatment shows necrotic zone centrally in HCC
Tumor response and median survival after 90Y-RE in HCC patients
| Study | Patients (n) | Tumor response on CTa | Median survival (months) | Microspheres | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CR (%) | PR (%) | SD (%) | PD (%) | ||||
| Lau et al. (1998)[ | 71 | 0 | 27 | 65 | 8 | 9.4 | Resin |
| Dancey et al. (2000) [ | 20 (19 evaluated for response) | 5 | 16 | 58 | 21 | 12.5 | Glass |
| Carr et al. (2004)[ | 65 | NR | 38 | NR | NR | Okuda I: 21.3, Okuda II: 9.9 | Glass |
| Geschwind et al. (2004)[ | 80 | NR | NR | NR | NR | Okuda I: 20.6, Okuda II: 12.6 | Glass |
| Goin (2005)[ | 121 | NR | NR | NR | NR | Low risk: 15.3, high risk: 3.5 | Glass |
| Salem (2005)[ | 43 | NR | 47 (79b) | NR | NR | Okuda I: 24.4, Okuda II: 12.5 | Glass |
| Sangro (2006)[ | 24 (21 evaluated for response) | NR | 88c (PR + SD) | NR | 7 | Resin | |
| Young (2007)[ | 41 | NR | NR | NR | NR | Okuda I: 21.7, Okuda II: 14.2 | Glass |
| Kulik (2008)[ | 108 | NR | 42.2 (70b) | 34.7 | 23.1 | No PVT: 15.4, branch PVT: 10.0, main PVT: 4.4 | Glass |
Data of studies including ≥20 patients
CR = complete response, PR = partial response, SD = stable disease, PD = progressive disease
PVT = portal vein thrombosis, NR = not reported
aWHO criteria unless otherwise explained
bEASL modified WHO criteria[151]
cRECIST criteria[152]