Advertisement

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 714–723 | Cite as

Efficacy and Safety of Transarterial Radioembolization Versus Chemoembolization in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma

  • Laura E. Moreno-Luna
  • Ju Dong Yang
  • William Sanchez
  • Ricardo Paz-Fumagalli
  • Denise M. Harnois
  • Teresa A. Mettler
  • Denise N. Gansen
  • Piet C. de Groen
  • Konstantinos N. Lazaridis
  • K. V. Narayanan Menon
  • Nicholas F. LaRusso
  • Steven R. Alberts
  • Gregory J. Gores
  • Chad J. Fleming
  • Seth W. Slettedahl
  • William S. Harmsen
  • Terry M. Therneau
  • Gregory A. Wiseman
  • James C. Andrews
  • Lewis R. Roberts
Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Purpose

Intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is usually treated with locoregional therapy using transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Transarterial radioembolization (TARE) using β-emitting yttrium-90 integral to the glass matrix of the microspheres is an alternative to TACE. This retrospective case-control study compared the outcomes and safety of TARE versus TACE in patients with unresectable HCC.

Materials and Methods

Patients with unresectable HCC without portal vein thrombosis treated with TARE between 2005 and 2008 (n = 61) were retrospectively frequency-matched by age, sex, and liver dysfunction with TACE-treated patients (n = 55) in the Mayo Clinic Hepatobiliary Neoplasia Registry. Imaging studies were reviewed, and clinical and safety outcomes were abstracted from the medical records.

Results

Complete tumor response was more common after TARE (12 %) than after TACE (4 %) (p = 0.17). When complete response was combined with partial response and stable disease, there was no difference between TARE and TACE. Median survival did not differ between the two groups (15.0 months for TARE and 14.4 months for TACE; p = 0.47). Two-year survival rates were 30 % for TARE and 24 % for TACE. TARE patients received fewer treatments (p < 0.001). Fifty-nine (97 %) TARE patients received outpatient treatment. In contrast, 53 (98 %) TACE patients were hospitalized for ≥1 day (p < 0.001). Compared with TACE, TARE was more likely to induce fatigue (p = 0.003) but less likely to cause fever (p = 0.02).

Conclusion

There was no significant difference in efficacy between TARE and TACE. TARE patients reported more fatigue but had less fever than TACE patients. Treatment with TARE required less hospitalization than treatment with TACE. These findings require confirmation in randomized trials.

Keywords

Chemoembolization Efficacy Hepatocellular carcinoma Radioembolization Safety Yttrium-90 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Grants from the National Institutes of Health (Grants No. CA100882, CA128633 and CA165076) and Nordion to L. R. R.

Conflict of interest

None.

Supplementary material

270_2012_481_MOESM1_ESM.tiff (1.9 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 1973 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Everhart JE, Ruhl CE (2009) Burden of digestive diseases in the United States part II: lower gastrointestinal diseases. Gastroenterology 136(3):741–754PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM (2010) Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 127(12):2893–2917PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schwartz M, Roayaie S, Konstadoulakis M (2007) Strategies for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 4(7):424–432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yang JD, Roberts LR (2010) Hepatocellular carcinoma: a global view. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 7(8):448–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bruix J, Sherman M, Llovet JM et al (2001) Clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona 2000 EASL conference. European Association for the Study of the Liver. J Hepatol 35(3):421–430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geschwind JF, Salem R, Carr BI et al (2004) Yttrium-90 microspheres for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 127(5 Suppl 1):S194–S205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bruix J, Sherman M (2005) Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 42(5):1208–1236PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Llovet JM, Real MI, Montana X et al (2002) Arterial embolisation or chemoembolisation versus symptomatic treatment in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 359(9319):1734–1739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lo CM, Ngan H, Tso WK et al (2002) Randomized controlled trial of transarterial lipiodol chemoembolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 35(5):1164–1171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Llovet JM, Bruix J (2003) Systematic review of randomized trials for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: chemoembolization improves survival. Hepatology 37(2):429–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carr BI (2004) Hepatic arterial 90Yttrium glass microspheres (Therasphere) for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: Interim safety and survival data on 65 patients. Liver Transpl 10(2 Suppl 1):S107–S110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lewandowski RJ, Kulik LM, Riaz A et al (2009) A comparative analysis of transarterial downstaging for hepatocellular carcinoma: chemoembolization versus radioembolization. Am J Transplant 9(8):1920–1928PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hilgard P, Hamami M, Fouly AE et al (2010) Radioembolization with yttrium-90 glass microspheres in hepatocellular carcinoma: European experience on safety and long-term survival. Hepatology 52(5):1741–1749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kulik LM, Carr BI, Mulcahy MF et al (2008) Safety and efficacy of 90Y radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma with and without portal vein thrombosis. Hepatology 47(1):71–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salem R, Lewandowski RJ, Mulcahy MF et al (2010) Radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma using Yttrium-90 microspheres: a comprehensive report of long-term outcomes. Gastroenterology 138(1):52–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    EASL-EORTC (2012) Clinical practice guidelines Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 56(4):908–943Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carr BI, Kondragunta V, Buch SC, Branch RA (2010) Therapeutic equivalence in survival for hepatic arterial chemoembolization and yttrium 90 microsphere treatments in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a two-cohort study. Cancer 116(5):1305–1314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    D’Avola D, Lnarrairaegui M, Bilbao JI et al (2009) A retrospective comparative analysis of the effect of Y90-radioembolization on the survival of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatogastroenterology 56(96):1683–1688PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kooby DA, Egnatashvili V, Srinivasan S et al (2010) Comparison of yttrium-90 radioembolization and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol 21(2):224–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lambert B, Sturm E, Mertens J et al (2011) Intra-arterial treatment with 90Y microspheres for hepatocellular carcinoma: 4 years experience at the Ghent University Hospital. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 38(12):2117–2124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lance C, McLennan G, Obuchowski N et al (2011) Comparative analysis of the safety and efficacy of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization and yttrium-90 radioembolization in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22(12):1697–1705PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Salem R, Lewandowski RJ, Kulik L, et al. (2011) Radioembolization results in longer time-to-progression and reduced toxicity compared with chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 140(2):497–507, e492Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sangro B, Carpanese L, Cianni R et al (2011) Survival after yttrium-90 resin microsphere radioembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma across Barcelona Clinic liver cancer stages: a European evaluation. Hepatology 54(3):868–878PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lencioni R, Llovet JM (2010) Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis 30(1):52–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bruix J, Sherman M (2011) Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 53(3):1020–1022PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Llovet JM, Di Bisceglie AM, Bruix J et al (2008) Design and endpoints of clinical trials in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 100(10):698–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sangro B, Gil-Alzugaray B, Rodriguez J et al (2008) Liver disease induced by radioembolization of liver tumors: description and possible risk factors. Cancer 112(7):1538–1546PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wong CY, Qing F, Savin M et al (2005) Reduction of metastatic load to liver after intraarterial hepatic yttrium-90 radioembolization as evaluated by [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomographic imaging. J Vasc Interv Radiol 16(8):1101–1106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura E. Moreno-Luna
    • 1
  • Ju Dong Yang
    • 1
  • William Sanchez
    • 1
  • Ricardo Paz-Fumagalli
    • 2
  • Denise M. Harnois
    • 3
  • Teresa A. Mettler
    • 1
  • Denise N. Gansen
    • 6
  • Piet C. de Groen
    • 1
  • Konstantinos N. Lazaridis
    • 1
  • K. V. Narayanan Menon
    • 1
  • Nicholas F. LaRusso
    • 1
  • Steven R. Alberts
    • 4
  • Gregory J. Gores
    • 1
  • Chad J. Fleming
    • 6
  • Seth W. Slettedahl
    • 5
  • William S. Harmsen
    • 5
  • Terry M. Therneau
    • 5
  • Gregory A. Wiseman
    • 6
  • James C. Andrews
    • 6
  • Lewis R. Roberts
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Gastroenterology and HepatologyCollege of Medicine, Mayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyCollege of Medicine, Mayo ClinicJacksonvilleUSA
  3. 3.Division of Gastroenterology and HepatologyCollege of Medicine, Mayo ClinicJacksonvilleUSA
  4. 4.Department of OncologyCollege of Medicine, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Clinic Cancer CenterRochesterUSA
  5. 5.Department of Health Sciences ResearchCollege of Medicine, Mayo ClinicRochesterUSA
  6. 6.Department of RadiologyCollege of Medicine, Mayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations