Advertisement

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 40, Issue 12, pp 1927–1932 | Cite as

Parameters for Stable Water-in-Oil Lipiodol Emulsion for Liver Trans-Arterial Chemo-Eembolization

  • F. Deschamps
  • L. Moine
  • T. Isoardo
  • L. Tselikas
  • A. Paci
  • L. M. Mir
  • N. Huang
  • E. Fattal
  • T. de Baère
Laboratory Investigation

Abstract

Purpose

Water-in-oil type and stability are important properties for Lipiodol emulsions during conventional trans-arterial chemo-embolization. Our purpose is to evaluate the influence of 3 technical parameters on those properties.

Materials and Methods

The Lipiodol emulsions have been formulated by repetitive back-and-forth pumping of two 10-ml syringes through a 3-way stopcock. Three parameters were compared: Lipiodol/doxorubicin ratio (2/1 vs. 3/1), doxorubicin concentration (10 vs. 20 mg/ml) and speed of incorporation of doxorubicin in Lipiodol (bolus vs. incremental vs. continuous). The percentage of water-in-oil emulsion obtained and the duration until complete coalescence (stability) for water-in-oil emulsions were, respectively, evaluated with the drop-test and static light scattering technique (Turbiscan).

Results

Among the 48 emulsions formulated, 32 emulsions (67%) were water-in-oil. The percentage of water-in-oil emulsions obtained was significantly higher for incremental (94%) and for continuous (100%) injections compared to bolus injection (6%) of doxorubicin. Emulsion type was neither influenced by Lipiodol/doxorubicin ratio nor by doxorubicin concentration. The mean stability of water-in-oil emulsions was 215 ± 257 min. The emulsions stability was significantly longer when formulated using continuous compared to incremental injection (326 ± 309 vs. 96 ± 101 min, p = 0.018) and using 3/1 compared to 2/1 ratio of Lipiodol/doxorubicin (372 ± 276 vs. 47 ± 43 min, p = <0.0001). Stability was not influenced by the doxorubicin concentration.

Conclusion

The continuous and incremental injections of doxorubicin in the Lipiodol result in highly predictable water-in-oil emulsion type. It also demonstrates a significant increase in stability compared to bolus injection. Higher ratio of Lipiodol/doxorubicin is a critical parameter for emulsion stability too.

Keywords

Emulsions Lipiodol Chemotherapy Liver Hepatocarcinoma 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Miss Fanny E. Hory for her gracious editing of this manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

Video 1

Incremental injection of 1 ml of doxorubicin in 3 ml of Lipiodol using 2 consecutive aliquots of 0.5 ml, each followed by 35 back-and-forth through the 3-way stopcock during 35 s

Video 2

Continuous injection of doxorubicin (1 ml during 1 min) in 3 ml Lipiodol using an electric syringe pump during 60 back-and-forth through the 3-way stopcock, followed by 10 additional back-and-forth after the end of the injection

Video 3

Drop-test of 3 emulsions formulated with a doxorubicin concentration of 20 mg/ml and 3/1 Lipiodol/doxorubicin ratio but 3 different speeds of incorporation of doxorubicin in Lipiodol. The bolus injection (on the left) resulted in an oil-in-water emulsion (no miscibility of the droplet in the Lipiodol), whereas the incremental injection (in the middle) and the continuous injection (on the right) resulted in a water-in-oil emulsion (miscibility of the droplets in the Lipiodol)

References

  1. 1.
    European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2012;56:908–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gaba RC, Baumgarten S, Omene BO, et al. Ethiodized oil uptake does not predict doxorubicin drug delivery after chemoembolization in VX2 liver tumours. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23:265–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Choi JW, Cho HJ, Park JH, et al. Comparison of drug release and pharmacokinetics after transarterial chemoembolization using diverse lipiodol emulsions and drug-eluting beads. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e115898.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Baere T, Zhang X, Aubert B, et al. Quantification of tumour uptake of iodized oils and emulsions of iodized oils: experimental study. Radiology. 1996;201:731–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deschamps F, Farouil G, Walter G, et al. Stabilization improves theranostic properties of lipiodol®-based emulsion during liver trans-arterial chemo-embolization in a VX2 rabbit model. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2017;40:907–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Boulin M, Schmitt A, Delhom E, et al. Improved stability of lipiodol-drug emulsion for transarterial chemoembolisation of hepatocellular carcinoma results in improved pharmacokinetic profile: proof of concept using idarubicin. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(2):601–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jahanzad F, Josephides D, Mansourian A, Sajjadi S. Dynamics of transitional phase inversion emulsification: effect of addition time on the type of inversion and drop size. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2010;49:7631–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Baere T, Arai Y, Lencioni R, et al. Treatment of liver tumors with lipiodol TACE: technical recommendations from experts opinion. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2016;39:334–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Idée JM, Guiu B. Use of Lipiodol as a drug-delivery system for transcatheter arterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma: a review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2013;88(3):530–49.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sinko PJ. Martin’s physical pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences. 6th ed. Philadelphia: LWW; 2010. p. 420–5.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mengual O, Meunier G, Cayré I, et al. TURBISCAN MA 2000: multiple light scattering measurement for concentrated emulsion and suspension instability analysis. Talanta. 1999;50:445–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Deschamps
    • 1
    • 2
  • L. Moine
    • 3
    • 4
  • T. Isoardo
    • 3
  • L. Tselikas
    • 1
    • 4
  • A. Paci
    • 2
    • 4
  • L. M. Mir
    • 2
    • 4
  • N. Huang
    • 3
  • E. Fattal
    • 3
    • 4
  • T. de Baère
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Département de Radiologie Interventionnelle, Gustave RoussyUniversité Paris-SaclayVillejuifFrance
  2. 2.UMR 8203Université Paris-SaclayVillejuifFrance
  3. 3.Institut Galien, CNRS, UMR 8612, Faculté de PharmacieUniversité Paris-SaclayChâtenay-MalabryFrance
  4. 4.Université Paris-Sud, Université Paris-SaclayLe Kremlin-BicêtreFrance

Personalised recommendations