Advertisement

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 40, Issue 9, pp 1383–1391 | Cite as

Yttrium-90 Radioembolization for Unresectable Combined Hepatocellular-Cholangiocarcinoma

  • Lauren S. Chan
  • Daniel Y. Sze
  • George A. Poultsides
  • John D. Louie
  • Mohammed A. Abdelrazek Mohammed
  • David S. Wang
Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Purpose

Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CC) is a rare mixed cell type primary liver cancer with limited data to guide management. Transarterial radioembolization with yttrium-90 microspheres (RE) is an emerging treatment option for both hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. This study explored the safety and efficacy of RE for unresectable cHCC-CC.

Methods

Patients with histopathologically confirmed cHCC-CC treated with RE were retrospectively evaluated. Clinical and biochemical toxicities were assessed using the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events v4.03. Radiological response was analyzed using the Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 and modified RECIST criteria. Survival times were calculated and prognostic variables identified.

Results

Ten patients (median age 59 years; six men, four women) with unresectable cHCC-CC underwent 14 RE treatments with resin (n = 6 patients) or glass (n = 4 patients) microspheres. Clinical toxicities were limited to grade 1–2 fatigue, anorexia, nausea, or abdominal pain. No significant biochemical toxicities were observed. Median overall survivals from the first RE treatment and from initial diagnosis were 10.2 and 17.7 months, respectively. Six of seven patients with elevated tumor biomarker levels before RE showed decreased levels after treatment (median decrease of 72%, range 13–80%). Best hepatic radiological response was 60% partial response and 40% stable disease by modified RECIST, and 100% stable disease by RECIST v1.1. Poor performance status and the presence of macrovascular invasion were identified as predictors of reduced survival after RE.

Conclusion

RE appears to be a safe and promising treatment option for patients with unresectable cHCC-CC.

Level of Evidence

Level 4.

Keywords

Radioembolization Yttrium-90 microspheres Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma Cholangiohepatoma Efficacy Safety 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Jarrett Rosenberg, Ph.D., for assistance in statistical analyses.

Funding

No financial support was provided for this study.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

D. Sze is on the medical or scientific advisory boards for Boston Scientific, Inc., Koli Medical, Inc., RadiAction Medical, Inc.; is a consultant for Amgen, Inc., BTG International, Inc., EmbolX, Inc., W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., and Viralytics, Inc.; receives institutional research support from Merit Medical, Inc., and W. L. Gore, Inc.; and owns equity interest in Confluent Medical, Inc., and Proteus Digital Health, Inc. J. Louie is a consultant for BTG International, Inc. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. For this retrospective study, formal consent to participate in this study was not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Garancini M, Goffredo P, Pagni F, et al. Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma: a population-level analysis of an uncommon primary liver tumor. Liver Transplant. 2014;20(8):952–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wachtel MS, Zhang Y, Xu T, Chiriva-Internati M, Frezza EE. Combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinomas: analysis of a large database. Clin Med Pathol. 2008;1:43–7.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yin X, Zhang BH, Qiu SJ, et al. Combined hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma: clinical features, treatment modalities, and prognosis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(9):2869–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jarnagin WR, Weber S, Tickoo SK, et al. Combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma: demographic, clinical, and prognostic factors. Cancer. 2002;94(7):2040–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Theise ND, Nakashima O, Park YN, Nakanuma Y. Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma. In: Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH, Theise ND, editors. WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. 4th ed. Lyon: IARC Press; 2010. p. 225–7.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Allen RA, Lisa JR. Combined liver cell and bile duct carcinoma. Am J Pathol. 1949;25(4):647–55.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goodman ZD, Ishak KG, Langloss JM, Sesterhenn IA, Rabin L. Combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma. A histologic and immunohistochemical study. Cancer. 1985;55(1):124–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yeh MM. Pathology of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;25(9):1485–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Potretzke TA, Tan BR, Doyle MB, Brunt EM, Heiken JP, Fowler KJ. Imaging features of biphenotypic primary liver carcinoma (hepatocholangiocarcinoma) and the potential to mimic hepatocellular carcinoma: LI-RADS analysis of CT and MRI features in 61 cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;207(1):25–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fowler KJ, Sheybani A, Parker RA, et al. Combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma (biphenotypic) tumors: imaging features and diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced CT and MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(2):332–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Panjala C, Senecal DL, Bridges MD, et al. The diagnostic conundrum and liver transplantation outcome for combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma. Am J Transplant. 2010;10(5):1263–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wang J, Wang F, Kessinger A. Outcome of combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma of the liver. J Oncol. 2010;. doi: 10.1155/2010/917356.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fowler K, Saad NE, Brunt E, et al. Biphenotypic primary liver carcinomas: assessing outcomes of hepatic directed therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(13):4130–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sapisochin G, Fidelman N, Roberts JP, Yao FY. Mixed hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in patients undergoing transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transplant. 2011;17(8):934–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim JH, Yoon HK, Ko GY, et al. Nonresectable combined hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma: analysis of the response and prognostic factors after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. Radiology. 2010;255(1):270–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salem R, Lewandowski RJ, Kulik L, et al. Radioembolization results in longer time-to-progression and reduced toxicity compared with chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2011;140(2):497–507.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Al-Adra DP, Gill RS, Axford SJ, Shi X, Kneteman N, Liau SS. Treatment of unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with yttrium-90 radioembolization: a systematic review and pooled analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41(1):120–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kennedy A, Nag S, Salem R, et al. Recommendations for radioembolization of hepatic malignancies using yttrium-90 microsphere brachytherapy: a consensus panel report from the radioembolization brachytherapy oncology consortium. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;68(1):13–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coldwell D, Sangro B, Wasan H, Salem R, Kennedy A. General selection criteria of patients for radioembolization of liver tumors: an international working group report. Am J Clin Oncol. 2011;34(3):337–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Abdelmaksoud MH, Louie JD, Kothary N, et al. Consolidation of hepatic arterial inflow by embolization of variant hepatic arteries in preparation for yttrium-90 radioembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22(10):1364–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Abdelmaksoud MH, Louie JD, Kothary N, et al. Embolization of parasitized extrahepatic arteries to reestablish intrahepatic arterial supply to tumors before yttrium-90 radioembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22(10):1355–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Salem R, Thurston KG. Radioembolization with 90Yttrium microspheres: a state-of-the-art brachytherapy treatment for primary and secondary liver malignancies. Part 1: technical and methodologic considerations. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006;17(8):1251–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE), version 4.03. 2010. http://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_4.03_2010-06-14_QuickReference_5x7.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2016.
  24. 24.
    Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lencioni R, Llovet JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis. 2010;30(1):52–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Camacho JC, Kokabi N, Xing M, Prajapati HJ, El-Rayes B, Kim HS. Modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors and European Association for the Study of the Liver criteria using delayed-phase imaging at an early time point predict survival in patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma following yttrium-90 radioembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014;25(2):256–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sangro B, Carpanese L, Cianni R, et al. Survival after yttrium-90 resin microsphere radioembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma across Barcelona clinic liver cancer stages: a European evaluation. Hepatology. 2011;54(3):868–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hoffmann RT, Paprottka PM, Schon A, et al. Transarterial hepatic yttrium-90 radioembolization in patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: factors associated with prolonged survival. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012;35(1):105–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Valle J, Wasan H, Palmer DH, et al. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine for biliary tract cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(14):1273–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Riaz A, Gates VL, Atassi B, et al. Radiation segmentectomy: a novel approach to increase safety and efficacy of radioembolization. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79(1):163–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chi M, Mikhitarian K, Shi C, Goff LW. Management of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma: a case report and literature review. Gastrointest Cancer Res. 2012;5(6):199–202.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kim GM, Jeung HC, Kim D, et al. A case of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma with favorable response to systemic chemotherapy. Cancer Res Treat. 2010;42(4):235–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vogl TJ, Naguib NN, Nour-Eldin NE, et al. Transarterial chemoembolization in the treatment of patients with unresectable cholangiocarcinoma: results and prognostic factors governing treatment success. Int J Cancer. 2012;131(3):733–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hong K, McBride JD, Georgiades CS, et al. Salvage therapy for liver-dominant colorectal metastatic adenocarcinoma: comparison between transcatheter arterial chemoembolization versus yttrium-90 radioembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009;20(3):360–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sato K, Lewandowski RJ, Bui JT, et al. Treatment of unresectable primary and metastatic liver cancer with yttrium-90 microspheres (TheraSphere): assessment of hepatic arterial embolization. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2006;29(4):522–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Katyal S, Oliver JH, Peterson MS, Chang PJ, Baron RL, Carr BI. Prognostic significance of arterial phase CT for prediction of response to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175(6):1665–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sato KT, Omary RA, Takehana C, et al. The role of tumor vascularity in predicting survival after yttrium-90 radioembolization for liver metastases. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009;20(12):1564–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shin CI, Lee JM, Kim SH, et al. Recurrence patterns of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma on enhanced computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2007;31(1):109–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lin G, Toh CH, Wu RC, et al. Combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma: prognostic factors investigated by computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Clin Pract. 2008;62(8):1199–205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bruix J, Sherman M. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology. 2011;53(3):1020–2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lauren S. Chan
    • 1
  • Daniel Y. Sze
    • 1
  • George A. Poultsides
    • 2
  • John D. Louie
    • 1
  • Mohammed A. Abdelrazek Mohammed
    • 1
  • David S. Wang
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Interventional RadiologyStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations