| Literature DB >> 30635728 |
Joseph J Titano1, Aaron M Fischman1, Arnav Cherian2, Madeline Tully2, Lance L Stein2, Louis Jacobs3, Raymond A Rubin2, Michael Bosley3, Steve Citron3, Dean W Joelson4, Roshan Shrestha2, Aravind Arepally5.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pre-transplant locoregional therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) during bridge-to-transplant impacts recurrence and survival rates following liver transplantation. Optimizing the effectiveness of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in this population is imperative, and microvalve infusion catheters offer a means of such improvement.Entities:
Keywords: Anti-reflux catheter; Hepatocellular tumor pathology; Liver explant; Liver transplantation; Locoregional therapy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30635728 PMCID: PMC6394778 DOI: 10.1007/s00270-018-2150-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol ISSN: 0174-1551 Impact factor: 2.740
Fig. 1Flowchart demonstrating the derivation of the end-hole and microvalve infusion cohorts
Baseline patient demographics and procedure characteristics
| Characteristics | EH | MVI |
|---|---|---|
| Patients | 70 | 18 |
| Sex (M/F) | 56/14 | 15/3 |
| Mean age | 62 (41–81) | 61 (55–74) |
| BCLC stage 0/A | 70 | 18 |
| Etiology of liver disease | ||
| Hepatitis C | 46 (65.7%) | 8(44.4%) |
| Hepatitis B | 3 (4.3%) | 3 (16.7%) |
| Alcohol abuse | 29 (41.4%) | 8 (44.4%) |
| Hepatitis C + alcohol | 21 (30%) | 5 (27.8%) |
| ECOG 0 | 70 | 18 |
| Treatment naïve | 70 | 18 |
| Mean tumor size (cm) | 3.1 (± 1.2) | 3.1 (± 1.1) |
| Watershed tumors | 10 (14.3%) | 2 (11.1%) |
| AFP > 400 | 5 (7.3%) | 1 (6.6%) |
| Total bilirubin | 1.4 | 1.5 |
| Mean doxorubicin dose (mg) | 81.5 (10–225) | 64 (25–125) |
Data are presented as number (range), number (percentage), or mean (± standard deviation) where appropriate. EH end-hole catheter, MVI microvalve infusion catheter, M male, F female, BCLC Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer, ECOG Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, AFP alpha-fetoprotein. Watershed tumor was defined as a tumor located in segment 4a or 4b
Fig. 2Percentage drug-eluting microsphere deposition within tumor. Comparison of the percentage of drug-eluting microspheres noted within tumor tissue relative to surrounding tissue revealed significantly more microsphere deposition in the MVI explants (p = 0.002)
Fig. 3Percentage tumor necrosis: all explants. Including all available explants—even those of patients who underwent subsequent locoregional therapies—in a comparison of explant target tumor necrosis, MVI specimens showed greater percentage necrosis relative to EH specimens (p = 0.006)
Fig. 4Percentage tumor necrosis: single treatment tumors. Excluding the explants of patients who underwent subsequent locoregional therapies from a comparison of explant target tumor necrosis, MVI specimens showed greater percentage necrosis relative to EH specimens (p = 0.026)
Fig. 5End-hole explant specimen. There is viable tumor tissue (red arrows) identified in this specimen that demonstrated no tumor necrosis. A cluster of drug-eluting microspheres (yellow arrow) is seen distant from the tumor bed
Fig. 6Microvalve infusion explant specimen. There is extensive fibrotic tissue identified compatible with necrotic tumor with a small region of viable tumor tissue (red arrows) still present in this specimen demonstrating 90% tumor necrosis. Several groups of drug-eluting microspheres are also noted within the tumor bed