Advertisement

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 42, Issue 10, pp 1420–1428 | Cite as

Safety and Feasibility of Helical I-125 Seed Implants Combined with Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization in Hepatocellular Carcinomas with Main Portal Vein Tumor Thrombus

  • Wansheng Wang
  • Jian Shen
  • Chen Wang
  • Baosheng Ren
  • Xiaoli ZhuEmail author
  • Caifang NiEmail author
Clinical Investigation Interventional Oncology

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the feasibility and safety of a helical iodine-125 (I-125) seed implant combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with main portal vein tumor thrombus (MPVTT).

Methods

From December 2016 to February 2018, 26 cases of HCC with MPVTT patients were enrolled in this prospective study. Helical I-125 seed implants were placed into the portal vein through the percutaneous transhepatic route. Subsequently, TACE was performed. Follow-up with enhanced CT was performed every 6–8 weeks and TACE was repeated if the residual or recurrent tumor was found. Treatment response was measured with the modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors. Complication rates and overall survival were also evaluated.

Results

Implantation and TACE were successful in all patients. There were no grade ≥ 3 complications observed in the patients. The objective response rates (ORR) and disease control rates (DCR) of MPVTT at 3 months after implantation were 42.3% and 84.6%, respectively, whereas ORR and DCR of the liver lesions were 34.6% and 46.2%, respectively. The median overall survival was 10.7 months (95% CI 6.2–15.2 months).

Conclusion

Helical I-125 seed implants can be safely placed into the human main portal vein. Helical I-125 seed implants combined with TACE for HCC with MPVTT are safe and feasible.

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma MPVTT Helical I-125 seed implant Endovascular brachytherapy TACE 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by Jiangsu Provincial Medical Talent funding (No. ZDRCA2016038).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have 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 national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for Publication

Consent for publication was obtained for every individual person’s data included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(2):87–108.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Llovet JM, Bustamante J, Castells A, Vilana R, Ayuso Mdel C, Sala M, et al. Natural history of untreated nonsurgical hepatocellular carcinoma: rationale for the design and evaluation of therapeutic trials. Hepatology. 1999;29(1):62–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Villa E, Moles A, Ferretti I, Buttafoco P, Grottola A, Del Buono M, et al. Natural history of inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma: estrogen receptors’ status in the tumor is the strongest prognostic factor for survival. Hepatology. 2000;32(2):233–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Minagawa M, Makuuchi M. Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma accompanied by portal vein tumor thrombus. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12(47):7561–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheng AL, Kang YK, Chen Z, Tsao CJ, Qin S, Kim JS, et al. Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(1):25–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, Hilgard P, Gane E, Blanc JF, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(4):378–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huang M, Lin Q, Wang H, Chen J, Bai M, Wang L, et al. Survival benefit of chemoembolization plus Iodine125 seed implantation in unresectable hepatitis B-related hepatocellular carcinoma with PVTT: a retrospective matched cohort study. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(10):3428–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang ZH, Zhang W, Gu JY, Liu QX, Ma JQ, Liu LX, et al. Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with tumor thrombus with the use of iodine-125 seed strand implantation and transarterial chemoembolization: a propensity-score analysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018;29(8):1085–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Geschwind JF, Kudo M, Marrero JA, Venook AP, Chen XP, Bronowicki JP, et al. TACE treatment in patients with sorafenib-treated unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in clinical practice: final analysis of GIDEON. Radiology. 2016;279(2):630–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chao Y, Chung YH, Han G, Yoon JH, Yang J, Wang J, et al. The combination of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization and sorafenib is well tolerated and effective in Asian patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: final results of the START trial. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(6):1458–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yu JI, Park HC. Radiotherapy as valid modality for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(30):6851–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang FJ, Li CX, Jiao DC, Zhang NH, Wu PH, Duan GF, et al. CT guided 125iodine seed implantation for portal vein tumor thrombus in primary hepatocellular carcinoma. Chin Med J (Engl). 2008;121(23):2410–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luo J, Yan Z, Liu Q, Qu X, Wang J. Endovascular placement of iodine-125 seed strand and stent combined with chemoembolization for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with tumor thrombus in main portal vein. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22(4):479–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Luo JJ, Zhang ZH, Liu QX, Zhang W, Wang JH, Yan ZP. Endovascular brachytherapy combined with stent placement and TACE for treatment of HCC with main portal vein tumor thrombus. Hepatol Int. 2016;10(1):185–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lu J, Guo JH, Zhu HD, Zhu GY, Chen L, Teng GJ. Safety and efficacy of irradiation stent placement for malignant portal vein thrombus combined with transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: a single-center experience. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017;28(6):786–94 e3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang C, Wang W, Shen J, Ren B, Zhu X, Ni C. Feasibility of helical I-125 seed implant in the portal vein. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019;42(1):121–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shuqun C, Mengchao W, Han C, Feng S, Jiahe Y, Guanghui D, et al. Tumor thrombus types influence the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma with the tumor thrombi in the portal vein. Hepatogastroenterology. 2007;54(74):499–502.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yang M, Fang Z, Yan Z, Luo J, Liu L, Zhang W, et al. Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) combined with endovascular implantation of an iodine-125 seed strand for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumour thrombosis versus TACE alone: a two-arm, randomised clinical trial. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2014;140(2):211–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yao LH, Su L, Liu L, Sun HT, Wang JJ. Stenting of the portal vein combined with different numbers of iodine-125 seed strands: dosimetric analyses. Chin Med J (Engl). 2017;130(18):2183–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lawrence TS, Robertson JM, Anscher MS, Jirtle RL, Ensminger WD, Fajardo LF. Hepatic toxicity resulting from cancer treatment. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;31(5):1237–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yamakado K, Tanaka N, Nakatsuka A, Matsumura K, Takase K, Takeda K. Clinical efficacy of portal vein stent placement in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma invading the main portal vein. J Hepatol. 1999;30(4):660–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yamakado K, Nakatsuka A, Tanaka N, Fujii A, Terada N, Takeda K. Malignant portal venous obstructions treated by stent placement: significant factors affecting patency. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001;12(12):1407–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yu TZ, Zhang W, Liu QX, Li WH, Ma JQ, Zhang ZH, et al. Endovascular brachytherapy combined with portal vein stenting and transarterial chemoembolization improves overall survival of hepatocellular carcinoma patients with main portal vein tumor thrombus. Oncotarget. 2017;8(7):12108–19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ling CC. Permanent implants using Au-198, Pd-103 and I-125: radiobiological considerations based on the linear quadratic model. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1992;23(1):81–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.Department of Interventional Radiology, The First Affiliated HospitalSoochow UniversitySuzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Third Affiliated HospitalShihezi UniversityShiheziChina
  3. 3.Department of Interventional RadiologyThe Affiliated Changzhou NO. 2 People’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical UniversityChangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations