Advertisement

Journal of Gastroenterology

, Volume 47, Issue 3, pp 343–346 | Cite as

Early evaluation of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization-refractory hepatocellular carcinoma

  • Kenya Yamanaka
  • Etsuro Hatano
  • Koji Kitamura
  • Taku Iida
  • Takamichi Ishii
  • Takahumi Machimito
  • Kojiro Taura
  • Kentaro Yasuchika
  • Hiroyoshi Isoda
  • Toshiya Shibata
  • Shinji Uemoto
Rapid Communication

Abstract

Background

There is no standard therapy for patients with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE)-refractory hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study examined whether evaluating the tumor effect (TE) at 1 week after TACE was useful for predicting refractoriness to TACE.

Methods

We performed a historical cohort study involving 54 patients and 119 tumors. TE was evaluated at 1 week and 3 months after TACE, and an overall evaluation was also performed at 3 months based on the response evaluation criteria in cancer of the liver.

Results

Among 45 tumors evaluated as TE2 at 1 week, 43 tumors (95.6%) were classified as TE1 or TE2 at 3 months. Of the 24 patients whose tumors were categorized as TE2 at 1 week, none achieved a complete or partial response.

Conclusions

Evaluating the TE at 1 week after TACE is useful for the early diagnosis of TACE-refractory HCC and allows alternative treatment options, such as sorafenib, to be employed before the disease progresses.

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization Tumor effects 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Llovet JM, Real MI, Montana X, Planas R, Coll S, Aponte J, et al. Arterial embolisation or chemoembolisation versus symptomatic treatment in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;359:1734–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arii S, Sata M, Sakamoto M, Shimada M, Kumada T, Shiina S, et al. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: report of consensus meeting in the 45th annual meeting of the Japan Society of Hepatology (2009). Hepatol Res. 2010;40:667–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, Hilgard P, Gane E, Blanc JF, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:378–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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;10:25–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Furuse J. Sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Biologics. 2008;2:779–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kudo M, Ueshima K. Positioning of a molecular-targeted agent, sorafenib, in the treatment algorithm for hepatocellular carcinoma and implication of many complete remission cases in Japan. Oncology. 2010;78:154–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kudo M, Kubo S, Takayasu K, Sakamoto M, Tanaka M, Ikai I, et al. Response Evaluation Criteria in Cancer of the Liver (RECICL) proposed by the Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan (2009 Revised Version). Hepatol Res. 2010;40:686–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Llovet JM, Bruix J. Novel advancements in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma in 2008. J Hepatol. 2008;48:20–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bruix J, Sala M, Llovet JM. Chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2004;127:179–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kudo M, Imanaka K, Chiba N, Nakachi K, Tak W, Takayama T, et al. Phase III study of sorafenib after transarterial chemoembolization in Japanese and Korean patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:2117–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Adriana S, Chiara C, Romilda C, Giorgio P, Roberto R, Anna B, et al. Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): the role of angiogenesis and invasiveness. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:914–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yodono H, Matsuo K, Shinohara A. A retrospective comparative study of epirubicin-lipiodol emulsion and cisplatin-lipiodol suspension for use with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Anticancer Drugs. 2011;22:277–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yamanaka K, Hatano E, Narita M, Taura K, Yasuchika K, Nitta T, et al. Comparative study of cisplatin and epirubicin in transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Res. 2011;41:303–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenya Yamanaka
    • 1
  • Etsuro Hatano
    • 1
  • Koji Kitamura
    • 1
  • Taku Iida
    • 1
  • Takamichi Ishii
    • 1
  • Takahumi Machimito
    • 1
  • Kojiro Taura
    • 1
  • Kentaro Yasuchika
    • 1
  • Hiroyoshi Isoda
    • 2
  • Toshiya Shibata
    • 2
  • Shinji Uemoto
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Surgery, Graduate School of MedicineKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Graduate School of MedicineKyoto UniversityKyotoJapan

Personalised recommendations