PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to clarify the adaptation of lenvatinib treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT). METHOD: Fifty-three patients with HCC were treated with lenvatinib. Before and after treatment blood sampling, patients were examined by computed tomography and ultrasonography. In patients with portal trunk invasion (Vp4), the analysis focused on the degree of occlusion due to the tumor in the portal trunk. In patients without major PVTT {ie, invasion of the primary branch of the portal vein [Vp3] or Vp4}, portal blood flow volume was measured by Doppler analysis; however, Doppler analysis is difficult to perform in patients with major PVTT, so the time from administration of the contrast agent to when it reached the primary branch of the portal vein (portal vein arrival time) was evaluated with the contrast agent Sonazoid. RESULTS: Patients with Vp4 had a significantly worse prognosis than patients with Vp3 and a significant increase in Child-Pugh score at 2 months. Patients with major PVTT had a poor prognosis if the degree of occlusion of the portal trunk was 70% or more. In patients without major PVTT, portal blood flow was significantly decreased after administration of lenvatinib; and in patients with major PVTT, the hepatic artery and portal vein arrival times were significantly increased. CONCLUSION: Lenvatinib treatment should be avoided in patients with Vp4 with a high degree of portal trunk occlusion because of concerns about decreased portal blood flow.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to clarify the adaptation of lenvatinib treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT). METHOD: Fifty-three patients with HCC were treated with lenvatinib. Before and after treatment blood sampling, patients were examined by computed tomography and ultrasonography. In patients with portal trunk invasion (Vp4), the analysis focused on the degree of occlusion due to the tumor in the portal trunk. In patients without major PVTT {ie, invasion of the primary branch of the portal vein [Vp3] or Vp4}, portal blood flow volume was measured by Doppler analysis; however, Doppler analysis is difficult to perform in patients with major PVTT, so the time from administration of the contrast agent to when it reached the primary branch of the portal vein (portal vein arrival time) was evaluated with the contrast agent Sonazoid. RESULTS: Patients with Vp4 had a significantly worse prognosis than patients with Vp3 and a significant increase in Child-Pugh score at 2 months. Patients with major PVTT had a poor prognosis if the degree of occlusion of the portal trunk was 70% or more. In patients without major PVTT, portal blood flow was significantly decreased after administration of lenvatinib; and in patients with major PVTT, the hepatic artery and portal vein arrival times were significantly increased. CONCLUSION: Lenvatinib treatment should be avoided in patients with Vp4 with a high degree of portal trunk occlusion because of concerns about decreased portal blood flow.
Authors: Aline Mähringer-Kunz; Verena Steinle; Christoph Düber; Arndt Weinmann; Sandra Koch; Irene Schmidtmann; Sebastian Schotten; Jan B Hinrichs; Dirk Graafen; Daniel Pinto Dos Santos; Peter R Galle; Roman Kloeckner Journal: Liver Int Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 5.828