Advertisement

Outcomes After Transarterial Embolization of Neuroendocrine Tumor Liver Metastases Using Spherical Particles of Different Sizes

  • Rebecca Zener
  • Hyukjun Yoon
  • Etay Ziv
  • Anne Covey
  • Karen T. Brown
  • Constantinos T. Sofocleous
  • Raymond H. Thornton
  • F. Edward Boas
Clinical Investigation Interventional Oncology
  • 24 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Interventional Oncology
  2. Interventional Oncology

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate initial response and overall survival of neuroendocrine tumor (NET) liver metastases initially treated with transarterial embolization (TAE) using spherical particles of different sizes.

Methods

A single-institution retrospective review was performed of 160 patients with NET liver metastases initially treated with TAE using < 100 µm (n = 77) or only ≥ 100 µm (n = 83) spherical particles. For each patient, we evaluated: initial response by mRECIST, time to progression, overall survival, complications, primary site, tumor grade and degree of differentiation, volume of liver disease, extrahepatic disease, NET-related symptoms, comorbidities, Child–Pugh score, performance status, lobar versus selective embolization, and arteriovenous shunting.

Results

Initial response was higher for TAE using particles < 100 versus TAE using only particles ≥ 100 μm (64 vs 42%, p = 0.007). Multivariate logistic regression showed that use of particles < 100 μm and liver < 50% replaced with tumor were independent predictors of a better initial response rate. There was no difference in major or minor complications between the two particle size groups. Median overall survival after TAE was 55 months for well- to moderately differentiated NET and 13 months for poorly differentiated or undifferentiated NET. There was no significant difference in survival between TAE patients treated with < 100 versus only ≥ 100-μm particles.

Conclusion

NET patients treated with TAE using particles < 100 μm had better initial response, but the same overall survival, compared to TAE using only particles ≥ 100 μm.

Keywords

Neuroendocrine tumor Carcinoid Transarterial embolization Particle size 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded in part through an NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA008748).

Funding

This research was funded in part through an NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA008748). The funding source played no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, or writing the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

FEB is a co-founder of Claripacs, LLC. He received research funding (investigator-initiated) and support for research meetings from Guerbet. He received research support (investigator-initiated) from GE. He received research supplies (investigator-initiated) from Bayer. He received a research grant and speaker fees from Society of Interventional Oncology, which were sponsored by Guerbet. He is an investor in Labdoor, Qventus, CloudMedx, and Notable Labs. AC is on the advisory board for Accurate Medical and is a stockholder in Amgen. EZ received an investigator-initiated industry research grant from Johnson & Johnson and has a pending investigator-initiated research grant from AAA-Novartis.

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 type of study, formal consent is not required. This HIPAA-compliant retrospective study was approved by the IRB.

Informed Consent

For this type of study, informed consent is not required. This study has obtained IRB approval from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and the need for informed consent was waived.

References

  1. 1.
    NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: neuroendocrine and adrenal tumors. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/neuroendocrine.pdf. Accessed 04 June 2018
  2. 2.
    Chen JX, Rose S, White SB, et al. Embolotherapy for neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases: prognostic factors for hepatic progression-free survival and overall survival. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2017;40(1):69–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yang TX, Chua TC, Morris DL. Radioembolization and chemoembolization for unresectable neuroendocrine liver metastases—a systematic review. Surg Oncol. 2012;21(4):299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tomozawa Y, Jahangiri Y, Pathak P, et al. Long-term toxicity after transarterial radioembolization with Yttrium-90 using resin microspheres for neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018;29(6):858–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhagat N, Reyes DK, Lin M, et al. Phase II study of chemoembolization with drug-eluting beads in patients with hepatic neuroendocrine metastases: high incidence of biliary injury. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2013;36(2):449–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee KH, Liapi E, Vossen JA, et al. Distribution of iron oxide-containing Embosphere particles after transcatheter arterial embolization in an animal model of liver cancer: evaluation with MR imaging and implication for therapy. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008;19(10):1490–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levy EB, Gacchina Johnson C, Jacobs G, et al. Direct quantification and comparison of intratumoral hypoxia following transcatheter arterial embolization of VX2 liver tumors with different diameter microspheres. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26(10):1567–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cho KJ, Lunderquist A. Experimental hepatic artery embolization with Gelfoam powder. Microfil perfusion study of the rabbit liver. Invest Radiol. 1983;18(2):189–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown KT, Do RK, Gonen M, et al. Randomized trial of hepatic artery embolization for hepatocellular carcinoma using doxorubicin-eluting microspheres compared with embolization with microspheres alone. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(17):2046–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alexander ES, Soulen MC. Liver-directed therapies for neuroendocrine metastases. In: Cardona K, Maithel S, editors. Primary and metastatic liver tumors. Cham: Springer; 2018.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Khalilzadeh O, Baerlocher MO, Shyn PB, et al. Proposal of a new adverse event classification by the society of interventional radiology standards of practice committee. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017;28(10):1432–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47(11):1245–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vilgrain V, Pereira H, Assenat E, et al. Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(12):1624–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wasan HS, Gibbs P, Sharma NK, et al. First-line selective internal radiotherapy plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer (FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-Global): a combined analysis of three multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trials. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(9):1159–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Boas FE, Ziv E, Yarmohammadi H, et al. Adjuvant medications that improve survival after locoregional therapy. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017;28(7):971–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhou B, Yan Z, Liu R, et al. Prospective study of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) with ginsenoside Rg3 versus TACE alone for the treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiology. 2016;280(2):630–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brown KT. Fatal pulmonary complications after arterial embolization with 40–120 μm tris-acryl gelatin microspheres. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2004;15(2 Pt 1):197–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boas FE, Sofocleous CT. Embolotherapy for the management of liver malignancies other than hepatocellular carcinoma. In: Mauro MA, Murphy KPJ, Thomson K, Venbrux A, Morgan R, editors. Image-guided interventions. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2019.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sofocleous CT, Petre EN, Gonen M, et al. Factors affecting periprocedural morbidity and mortality and long-term patient survival after arterial embolization of hepatic neuroendocrine metastases. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014;25(1):22–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Strosberg J, El-Haddad G, Wolin E, et al. Phase 3 trial of (177)Lu-Dotatate for midgut neuroendocrine tumors. N Engl J Med. 2017;376(2):125–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Interventional Radiology Service, Department of RadiologyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations