Hepatic Arterial Chemoembolization Using Drug-Eluting Beads in Gastrointestinal Neuroendocrine Tumor Metastatic to the Liver
- 432 Downloads
This study was designed to evaluate short (<3 months) and intermediate-term (>3 months) follow-up in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumor to the liver who underwent hepatic arterial chemoembolization with drug-eluting beads at a single institution.
Institutional review board approval was obtained for this retrospective review. All patients who were treated with 100–300 or 300–500 μm drug-eluting LC Beads (Biocompatibles, UK) preloaded with doxorubicin (range, 50–100 mg) for GI neuroendocrine tumor metastatic to the liver from June 2004 to June 2009 were included. CT and MRI were evaluated for progression using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) or European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria. Short-term (<3 months) and intermediate-term (>3 months) imaging response was determined and Kaplan–Meier survival curves were plotted.
Thirty-eight drug-eluting bead chemoembolization procedures were performed on 32 hepatic lobes, comprising 21 treatment cycles in 18 patients. All procedures were technically successful with two major complications (biliary injuries). At short-term follow-up (<3 months), 22 of 38 (58%) procedures and 10 of 21 (48%) treatment cycles produced an objective response (OR) with the remainder having stable disease (SD). At intermediate-term follow-up (mean, 445 days; range, 163–1247), 17 of 26 (65%) procedures and 8 of 14 (57%) treatment cycles produced an OR. Probability of progressing was approximately 52% at 1 year with a median time to progression of 419 days.
Drug-eluting bead chemoembolization is a reasonable alternative to hepatic arterial embolization and chemoembolization for the treatment of metastatic neuroendocrine tumor to the liver.
KeywordsEmbolization Chemoembolization Carcinoid Liver Neuroendocrine tumor
SKG was supported by the Society for Interventional Radiology Foundation Student Research Grant and the Paul & Daisy Soros Fellowship.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
- 6.Demeure MJ, Thompson NW, Hanto DW, Nagorney DM, Yao (2001) Indications and results of liver resection and hepatic chemoembolization for metastatic gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors. Surgery 130(4):682–685 (Discussion)Google Scholar
- 30.Ollivier S, Fonck M, Becouarn Y, Brunet R (1998) Dacarbazine, fluorouracil, and leucovorin in patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors: a phase II trial. Am J Clin Oncol Cancer Clinical Trials 21(3):237–240Google Scholar
- 33.Rinke A, Muller HH, Schade-Brittinger C et al (2009) Placebo-controlled, double-blind, prospective, randomized study on the effect of octreotide LAR in the control of tumor growth in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine midgut tumors: a report from the PROMID Study Group. J Clin Oncol 27(28):4656–4663PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar