Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About the Ochsner Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
  • Other Publications
    • Ochsner Journal Blog

User menu

  • My alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Ochsner Journal
  • Other Publications
    • Ochsner Journal Blog
  • My alerts
  • Log in
Ochsner Journal

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
  • About Us
    • About the Ochsner Journal
    • Editorial Board
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
Review ArticleReviews and Contemporary Updates

Intraarterial Liver-Directed Therapies: The Role of Interventional Oncology

Jenson Ma, Juan Martin Gimenez, Tyler Sandow, Daniel Devun, David Kirsch, Paul Gulotta, Patrick Gilbert and Dennis Kay
Ochsner Journal December 2017, 17 (4) 412-416;
Jenson Ma
1Department of Radiology, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Juan Martin Gimenez
1Department of Radiology, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA
2The University of Queensland School of Medicine, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tyler Sandow
1Department of Radiology, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Daniel Devun
1Department of Radiology, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA
2The University of Queensland School of Medicine, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David Kirsch
1Department of Radiology, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA
2The University of Queensland School of Medicine, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Gulotta
1Department of Radiology, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Patrick Gilbert
1Department of Radiology, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dennis Kay
1Department of Radiology, Ochsner Clinic Foundation, New Orleans, LA
2The University of Queensland School of Medicine, Ochsner Clinical School, New Orleans, LA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background: Since the early 1990s, the minimally invasive image-guided therapies used in interventional oncology to treat hepatocellular carcinoma have continued to evolve. Additionally, the range of applications has been expanded to the treatment of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer, neuroendocrine tumors, cholangiocarcinoma, breast cancer, melanoma, and sarcoma.

Methods: We searched the literature to identify publications from 1990 to the present on various image-guided intraarterial therapies and their efficacy, as well as their role in the management of primary and secondary liver malignancies.

Results: Chemoembolization and radioembolization are considered a standard of care in treating, delaying progression of disease, and downstaging to bridge to liver transplantation. Progression-free survival and overall survival outcomes are promising in patients with colorectal cancer and neuroendocrine tumors with liver metastases. Applications in the treatment of hepatic metastases from cholangiocarcinoma, breast cancer, melanoma, and sarcoma also show potential.

Conclusion: Interventional oncology and its image-guided intraarterial therapies continue to gain recognition as treatment options for primary and secondary liver cancers. Growing evidence supports their role as a standard of care alongside medical oncology, surgery, and radiation oncology.

Keywords
  • Chemoembolization–therapeutic
  • gastrointestinal neoplasms
  • neoplasm metastasis
  • radiology–interventional
  • yttrium radioisotopes

INTRODUCTION

Evidence supporting the role of image-guided transarterial cancer therapies for palliation and as a bridge to resection or transplant continues to increase. Additionally, some interventional oncology therapies have garnered significant evidence to gain inclusion in standards of care.1,2 The range of treatments and applications for image-directed therapy has expanded to meet the growing demand from referring clinicians. Interventional oncology progressively continues to establish itself as a key pillar of cancer care, alongside medical oncology, surgery, and radiation oncology.

Different modalities are available in the interventional oncology armamentarium for the locoregional treatment of primary and metastatic liver tumors: hepatic artery embolization (HAE), transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), transarterial radioembolization (TARE) using yttrium-90 (Y-90), and chemoinfusion therapy. Intraarterial treatments of hepatic neoplasms take advantage of the liver's dual blood supply, in which primary liver tumors and metastatic tumors derive up to 95% of their blood supply from the hepatic arterial system, while the majority of blood supply (up to 75%) to normal hepatocytes is derived from the portal vein.3,4 Therefore, a significantly higher concentration of chemotherapeutic drugs (up to 16 times higher) can be delivered to the tumor via the hepatic arterial system with less consequential systemic side effects than conventional chemotherapy.4

The goal of HAE is tumor ischemia via terminal arterial obstruction using particles. TACE—either with ethiodized oil (Lipiodol) (conventional TACE [cTACE]) or with drug-eluting beads (DEB-TACE)—combines targeted delivery of chemotherapeutic agents with embolization of the tumor arterial supply. Radioembolization's mechanism of action is delivery of internal radiation to liver tumors without significant embolic phenomenon. Chemoinfusion therapy selectively delivers local chemotherapeutic drugs in high concentrations, greater than can be safely administered systemically and with fewer systemic side effects.

HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the principal causes of cancer-related mortality and is currently the primary cause of death in patients with cirrhosis.5 Locoregional intraarterial cancer therapies, aimed at a cure or palliation, are well established in the treatment of HCC and play an integral role in hepatic transplantation for HCC by downsizing or controlling the tumor growth while patients await liver transplant surgery.6

In the PRECISION V trial, the first international, multicenter, randomized study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cTACE compared with DEB-TACE in the treatment of HCC, DEB-TACE showed a trend toward higher response rates in complete and partial response and disease control compared to cTACE.7 Additionally, the DEB-TACE cohort demonstrated better tolerability without increased liver toxicity, especially for higher risk patients, despite higher doses of chemotherapy administered in the DEB-TACE arm. The improved tolerability of DEB-TACE allows quicker repeat doses to achieve tumor control, if necessary.7

In 2016, the PREMIERE trial demonstrated that TARE with Y-90 glass microspheres had significantly longer time to progression (26 months vs 6.4 months) compared to the current standard of practice with cTACE. Although longer time to progression did not produce a significant difference in overall survival, TARE achieved improved local tumor control and decreased dropout from transplant wait listing compared to cTACE.8,9 TARE had previously been advocated for patients with intermediate stage HCC who responded poorly to TACE, based on large tumor burden or vascular invasion.10 However, the PREMIERE trial demonstrated a potential role for transplant bridging in HCC with a longer time to progression and delayed transplant waitlist dropout.8,9 Similarly, the SARAH trial demonstrated no survival benefit between Y-90 resin microspheres and sorafenib in patients with locally advanced HCC.11,12 However, similar to the findings in the PREMIERE trial, participants receiving Y-90 resin microspheres in the SARAH trial had reduced side effects, better quality of life, higher response rates, and improved tumor progression in the liver compared to the patients who received sorafenib.12

COLORECTAL CANCER LIVER METASTASIS

The most common neoplasm identified in the liver is related to metastatic disease. In cases of colorectal metastasis, the liver is frequently the first and only metastatic site. Up to 80% of patients with colorectal cancer will have a liver metastasis, 50% at initial presentation.13 While surgical resection remains the standard of care for select patients with limited liver metastases, <20% of patients are candidates for resection, and recurrence rates are as high as 75%.14 Patients who are not candidates for resection are typically treated with systemic 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin, with a mean survival time of approximately 12 months.15 Median survival time is longer, up to 19.5 months, with oxaliplatin and infused fluorouracil plus leucovorin (FOLFOX).16

Regional intraarterial liver therapies can be used as a neoadjuvant therapeutic regimen to reduce tumor size, and the tumor can later be percutaneously ablated or surgically resected for definitive treatment. The SIRFLOX trial demonstrated the value of TARE with Y-90 resin microspheres in combination with first-line chemotherapy in patients with unresectable liver-only or liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients were randomized to receive TARE with Y-90 resin microspheres (SIR-Spheres) in combination with modified FOLFOX chemotherapy (± bevacizumab) or modified FOLFOX chemotherapy (± bevacizumab) alone. Analysis of progression-free survival in the liver revealed that treatment with radioembolization showed improvement from 12.6 to 20.5 months and a decreased risk of tumor progression of 31%.17 Despite higher response rates and improved liver-specific progression-free survival with the addition of Y-90 to first-line chemotherapy, no improvement in overall survival or overall progression-free survival was seen in patients with liver-only and liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer.18 As of the latest update of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for colon and rectal cancer, treatment with Y-90 resin microspheres is included as a Category 2A recommended treatment for patients with liver-dominant, chemotherapy-resistant colorectal disease.2

Similar to TARE, drug-eluting bead treatment with irinotecan (DEBIRI) results in median survival of approximately 15-25 months. This median survival is comparable to outcomes from standard systemic chemotherapy and may be useful in downstaging unresectable metastatic disease to resectable status with minimal toxicity.19 Additionally, DEBIRI showed improvement in disease-free survival, with partial and complete response rates ranging from 36%-78%, based on Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors criteria, and durable response to 12 months.19 However, when compared to TARE, patients treated with DEBIRI experienced worse postembolization syndrome and required a total of 4 sessions to complete 1 cycle of treatment.20

NEUROENDOCRINE TUMORS

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) represent a large heterogeneous spectrum of disease that arises from embryonic neural crest tissue and can be functioning or nonfunctioning.21,22 NETs are characterized by their site of origin and the ability to make biologically active peptides. These tumors range from medullary thyroid carcinomas, pancreatic NETs (islet cell carcinomas), carcinoid tumors, pheochromocytomas/paragangliomas, and poorly differentiated small cell/large cell NETs.21 Liver resection is associated with prolonged overall survival of approximately 10 years. However, resection is not curative, with recurrence rates up to 94% at 5 years.23,24 Symptomatic patients with liver-dominant NET metastases who are treated with HAE, TACE, or TARE with Y-90 show 90%-100% symptom response.25 While studies have shown a higher response rate for HAE compared to TACE, whether TACE offers any therapeutic benefit compared to particulate embolization alone remains uncertain.26-31 In patients with carcinoid tumors, no improvement in overall survival or progression-free survival was shown when intraarterial chemotherapy was added to embolization. However, in patients with islet cell carcinomas, a tendency toward prolonged survival (31.5 months vs 18.2 months) and improved response rate (50% vs 25%) was observed in patients who received TACE as opposed to HAE, although the differences did not reach statistical significance.30 No significant differences were seen in complications or severe toxicities between HAE and TACE.30 To date, no clear advantage of one embolotherapy has been established in the literature. The Randomized Embolization Trial for NeuroEndocrine Tumor Metastases to the Liver (RETNET) will estimate the duration of hepatic progression-free survival in participants treated with HAE, cTACE, and DEB-TACE. The primary hypothesis is that chemoembolization will be nearly twice as durable as bland embolization.32

TARE with Y-90 microspheres is safe with high response rates, even with extensive tumor burden of the liver.33 Median survival has been demonstrated up to 70 months, with a low incidence of acute and delayed toxicity.33 The advent of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) has raised concerns about possible added toxicity to the liver from excessive radiation, but in a cohort of 20 patients, sequential treatment with TARE and PRRT was considered safe.34 Despite TARE being considered safe, 2 cases of delayed toxicity to the liver have been reported.35,36 Prospective randomized trials are needed to evaluate the long-term effects of Y-90. A study presented in 2016 that evaluated the survival outcomes for cTACE, DEB-TACE, and Y-90 TARE suggests significant survival benefits with cTACE and supports the therapeutic decision for cTACE as the mainstay intraarterial therapy option for NET liver metastases.37

CHOLANGIOCARCINOMA

Cholangiocarcinoma, either intrahepatic or extrahepatic, is a rare malignancy with poor prognosis even for patients undergoing surgery. The 5-year overall survival rate for patients with cholangiocarcinoma is <5%.38 Only 30% of patients present at a resectable stage, and recurrence is common even after complete resection.39 Transarterial therapies are safe and effective for treating unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Response rates are similar for TARE, TACE, and chemoinfusion, even though higher rates of partial and stable response were reported with TARE. The overall and 1-year survival rates were also similar between chemotherapy and radiotherapy approaches.40 Median overall survival for intraarterial therapies was 13 months, which is higher than median overall survival of 11 months for systemic chemotherapy.41 Randomized studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of combined intraarterial therapies and systemic therapies in the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma.

BREAST CANCER

Breast cancer is the second most common cancer in the United States and worldwide, as well as the second leading cause of cancer death, following lung cancer.42 Up to 48% of women with metastatic breast cancer develop liver metastasis, and the median overall survival is 14.2-16.8 months if they present with extrahepatic metastases and 22.7-27.1 months if metastasis is confined to the liver.43 The use of Lipiodol-based cTACE with various chemotherapeutic agents has been compared in several studies to the use of DEB-TACE with doxorubicin.44-47 Treatment with either DEB-TACE with doxorubicin or TACE with mitomycin C plus gemcitabine shows compelling support for their use in the treatment algorithm for breast cancer, with overall survival rates up to 47 and 35 months, respectively.46,47 Evaluation of TARE with Y-90 in patients with progressive liver metastases on standard polychemotherapy reveals median survival of 2.6-14 months.48-50

MELANOMA

Ocular melanomas, the most common intraocular tumor in adults, and cutaneous melanomas generally metastasize to the liver.51 Median survival is usually poor with liver involvement, only averaging 2-7 months.52-53 While the verdict is still out on whether TACE offers greater benefit than standard immunotherapy and targeted therapies, several studies show that responders perform significantly better and TACE should be considered as a treatment option for patients with bulky uveal melanoma hepatic metastases.54-56 The overall survival in patients who received hepatic arterial infusion, TACE, or immunoembolization as first-line treatment ranges from 6-21 months.57 TARE demonstrated superior overall survival and is a safe and effective salvage therapy for limited metastasis of uveal melanoma. Additional studies are needed to determine whether TARE should be used as a first-line alternative for hepatic metastasis of uveal melanoma.57

SARCOMA

Metastatic soft tissue sarcomas are an uncommon group of malignancies and are particularly difficult to treat. The outcome for unresectable metastatic sarcoma is poor, with a median overall survival of 12-16 months.58 Systemic chemotherapy is the standard of care. However, systemic toxicity frequently limits its use. Although data are limited, intraarterial-directed therapy has been found to be safe and effective in the treatment of unresectable liver sarcomas, achieving local control of the target lesion in >65% of cases, with the highest rates of complete remission seen with TARE and radiofrequency ablation.58 TARE using Y-90 has demonstrated improved safety as well as a median survival of 26.2 months, suggesting its use as a favorable alternative therapeutic option compared to systemic chemotherapy.59

CONCLUSION

Interventional oncology continues to establish itself as a pillar of cancer care because of its rapid advancement and innovative applications. Growing evidence supports image-guided intraarterial liver-directed therapies in the treatment of both primary and secondary liver malignancies. These outcome-changing therapies allow for an increasing number of patients with HCC who are eligible for transplant. Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after Y-90 therapy can become surgical candidates for potential curative intent or benefit from consolidation treatment after first-line chemotherapy. Multiple therapeutic options that prolong overall survival exist for NETs. Exciting times are on the horizon for interventional oncology with improvements in imaging technologies, development of new delivery platforms, and the advent of precision medicine with new drugs that target tumors as well as immune oncology.

This article meets the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Medical Specialties Maintenance of Certification competencies for Patient Care, Medical Knowledge, and Practice-Based Learning and Improvement.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors have no financial or proprietary interest in the subject matter of this article.

  • © Academic Division of Ochsner Clinic Foundation 2017

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Muallem N,
    2. Solomon SB
    Advances in interventional oncology: percutaneous therapies. Curr Radiol Rep. 2014 6; 2: 52.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    NCCN Guidelines in Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Colon Cancer. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp. Accessed July 14, 2017.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Gyves JW,
    2. Ziessman HA,
    3. Ensminger WD,
    4. et al.
    Definition of hepatic tumor microcirculation by single photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT). J Nucl Med. 1984 9; 25 9: 972- 977. pmid:6088735
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Cohen AD,
    2. Kemeny NE
    An update on hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy for colorectal cancer. Oncologist. 2003; 8 6: 553- 566. pmid:14657534
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Bruix J,
    2. Gores GJ,
    3. Mazzaferro V
    Hepatocellular carcinoma: clinical frontiers and perspectives. Gut. 2014 5; 63 5: 844- 855. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306627. pmid:24531850
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Yao FY,
    2. Ferrell L,
    3. Bass NM,
    4. et al.
    Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: expansion of the tumor size limits does not adversely impact survival. Hepatology. 2001 6; 33 6: 1394- 1403. pmid:11391528
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Lammer J,
    2. Malagari K,
    3. Vogl T,
    4. et al.
    PRECISION V Investigators. Prospective randomized study of doxorubicin-eluting-bead embolization in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: results of the PRECISION V study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2010 2; 33 1: 41- 52. doi: 10.1007/s00270-009-9711-7. pmid:19908093
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Gordon A,
    2. Lewandowski R,
    3. Hickey R,
    4. et al.
    Prospective randomized phase 2 study of chemoembolization versus radioembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma: results from the PREMIERE trial. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016 3; 27 3: S61- S62.
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Salem R,
    2. Gordon AC,
    3. Mouli S,
    4. et al.
    Y90 radioembolization significantly prolongs time to progression compared with chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2016 12; 151 6: 1155- 1163.e2. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.08.029. pmid:27575820
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Mosconi C,
    2. Cappelli A,
    3. Pettinato C,
    4. Golfieri R
    Radioembolization with yttrium-90 microspheres in hepatocellular carcinoma: role and perspectives. World J Hepatol. 2015 4 18; 7 5: 738- 752. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v7.i5.738. pmid:25914774
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Vilgrain V,
    2. Abdel-Rehim M,
    3. Sibert A,
    4. et al.
    SARAH Trial Group. Radioembolisation with yttrium–90 microspheres versus sorafenib for treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2014 12 3; 15: 474 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-474. pmid:25472660
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Vilgrain V,
    2. Bouattour M,
    3. Sibert A,
    4. et al.
    SARAH: a randomised controlled trial comparing efficacy and safety of selective internal radiation therapy (with yttrium-90 microspheres) and sorafenib in patients with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2017; 66 1: S85- S86.
    OpenUrl
  13. 13.↵
    1. Vogl TJ,
    2. Zangos S,
    3. Balzer JO,
    4. Thalhammer A,
    5. Mack MG
    Transarterial chemoembolization of liver metastases: indication, technique, results [in German]. Rofo. 2002 6; 174 6: 675- 683. pmid:12063595
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Lintoiu-Ursut B,
    2. Tulin A,
    3. Constantinoiu S
    Recurrence after hepatic resection in colorectal cancer liver metastasis -review article-. J Med Life. 2015; 8 Spec Issue:12-14.
  15. 15.↵
    1. Thirion P,
    2. Michiels S,
    3. Pignon JP,
    4. et al.
    Meta-Analysis Group in Cancer. Modulation of fluorouracil by leucovorin in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: an updated meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2004 9 15; 22 18: 3766- 3775. pmid:15365073
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    1. Goldberg RM,
    2. Sargent DJ,
    3. Morton RF,
    4. et al.
    A randomized controlled trial of fluorouracil plus leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin combinations in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004 1 1; 22 1: 23- 30. pmid:14665611
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. van Hazel GA,
    2. Heinemann V,
    3. Sharma NK,
    4. et al.
    SIRFLOX: randomized phase III trial comparing first-line mFOLFOX6 (plus or minus bevacizumab) versus mFOLFOX6 (plus or minus bevacizumab) plus selective internal radiation therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016 5 20; 34 15: 1723- 1731. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.66.1181. pmid:26903575
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Sharma RA,
    2. Wasan HS,
    3. van Hazel GA,
    4. et al.
    Overall survival analysis of the FOXFIRE prospective randomized studies of first-line selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017; 35(15_suppl):3507.
  19. 19.↵
    1. Richardson AJ,
    2. Laurence JM,
    3. Lam VW
    Transarterial chemoembolization with irinotecan beads in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases: systematic review. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013 8; 24 8: 1209- 1217. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2013.05.055. pmid:23885916
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Wang DS,
    2. Louie JD,
    3. Sze DY
    Intra-arterial therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2013 3; 30 1: 12- 20. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1333649. pmid:24436513
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Rindi G,
    2. Wiedenmann B
    Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the gut and pancreas: new insights. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2011 8 2; 8 1: 54- 64. doi: 10.1038/nrendo.2011.120. pmid:21808296
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Bilimoria KY,
    2. Tomlinson JS,
    3. Merkow RP,
    4. et al.
    Clinicopathologic features and treatment trends of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: analysis of 9,821 patients. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007 11; 11 11: 1460- 1467; discussion 1467-1469. pmid:17846854
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Mayo SC,
    2. de Jong MC,
    3. Pulitano C,
    4. et al.
    Surgical management of hepatic neuroendocrine tumor metastasis: results from an international multi-institutional analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 12; 17 12: 3129- 3136. doi: 10.1245/s10434-010-1154-5. pmid:20585879
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Glazer ES,
    2. Tseng JF,
    3. Al-Refaie W,
    4. et al.
    Long-term survival after surgical management of neuroendocrine hepatic metastases. HPB (Oxford). 2010 8; 12 6: 427- 433. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2010.00198.x. pmid:20662794
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. de Baere T,
    2. Deschamps F,
    3. Tselikas L,
    4. et al.
    GEP-NETS update: interventional radiology: role in the treatment of liver metastases from GEP-NETs. Eur J Endocrinol. 2015 4; 172 4: R151- R166. doi: 10.1530/EJE-14-0630. pmid:25385817
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. 26.↵
    1. Ajani JA,
    2. Carrasco CH,
    3. Charnsangavej C,
    4. Samaan NA,
    5. Levin B,
    6. Wallace S
    Islet cell tumors metastatic to the liver: effective palliation by sequential hepatic artery embolization. Ann Intern Med. 1988 3; 108 3: 340- 344. pmid:2449109
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.
    1. Dominguez S,
    2. Denys A,
    3. Madeira I,
    4. et al.
    Hepatic arterial chemoembolization with streptozotocin in patients with metastatic digestive endocrine tumours. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2000 2; 12 2: 151- 157. pmid:10741928
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.
    1. Hajarizadeh H,
    2. Ivancev K,
    3. Mueller CR,
    4. Fletcher WS,
    5. Woltering EA
    Effective palliative treatment of metastatic carcinoid tumors with intra-arterial chemotherapy/chemoembolization combined with octreotide acetate. Am J Surg. 1992 5; 163 5: 479- 483. pmid:1374222
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.
    1. Kim YH,
    2. Ajani JA,
    3. Carrasco CH,
    4. et al.
    Selective hepatic arterial chemoembolization for liver metastases in patients with carcinoid tumor or islet cell carcinoma. Cancer Invest. 1999; 17 7: 474- 478. pmid:10518191
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. Gupta S,
    2. Johnson MM,
    3. Murthy R,
    4. et al.
    Hepatic arterial embolization and chemoembolization for the treatment of patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumors: variables affecting response rates and survival. Cancer. 2005 10 15; 104 8: 1590- 1602. pmid:16134179
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Díez M,
    2. Teulé A,
    3. Salazar R
    Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: diagnosis and treatment. Ann Gastroenterol. 2013; 26 1: 29- 36. pmid:24714698
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    Randomized Embolization Trial for NeuroEndocrine Tumor Metastases To The Liver. ClinicalTrials.gov website. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT02724540. Updated September 23, 2016. Accessed April 11, 2017.
  33. 33.↵
    1. Kennedy AS,
    2. Dezarn WA,
    3. McNeillie P,
    4. et al.
    Radioembolization for unresectable neuroendocrine hepatic metastases using resin 90Y-microspheres: early results in 148 patients. Am J Clin Oncol. 2008 6; 31 3: 271- 279. doi: 10.1097/COC.0b013e31815e4557. pmid:18525307
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Geisler J,
    2. Auernhammer C,
    3. Zech C,
    4. Bartenstein P,
    5. Hacker M,
    6. Haug A
    Toxicity of sequential treatment with radioembolization and PRRT in hepatic metastasized neuroendocrine tumors. J Nucl Med. 2012 5; 53 supplement 1: 1189.
    OpenUrl
  35. 35.↵
    1. Su YK,
    2. Mackey RV,
    3. Riaz A,
    4. et al.
    Long-term hepatotoxicity of yttrium-90 radioembolization as treatment of metastatic neuroendocrine tumor to the liver. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017 6 30 doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2017.05.011. [Epub ahead of print].
  36. 36.↵
    1. Loree JM,
    2. Hiruki T,
    3. Kennecke HF
    Case report of cirrhosis following yttrium-90 radioembolization for pancreatic neuroendocrine liver metastases. Case Rep Oncol. 2016 1 30; 9 1: 76- 82. doi: 10.1159/000443985. pmid:26933423
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Do Minh D,
    2. Chapiro J,
    3. Gorodetski B,
    4. et al.
    Comparing cTACE, DEB-TACE and 90Yttrium Radioembolization as Treatment Options for Patients with Neuroendocrine Tumor Liver Metastases. Radiological Society of North America 2016 Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL. November 27-December 2, 2016. http://archive.rsna.org/2016/16014987.html. Accessed July 29, 2017.
  38. 38.↵
    1. Khan SA,
    2. Thomas HC,
    3. Davidson BR,
    4. Taylor-Robinson SD
    Cholangiocarcinoma. Lancet. 2005 10 8; 366 9493: 1303- 1314. pmid:16214602
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Yamamoto M,
    2. Ariizumi S
    Surgical outcomes of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Surg Today. 2011 7; 41 7: 896- 902. doi: 10.1007/s00595-011-4517-z. pmid:21748603
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Yang L,
    2. Shan J,
    3. Shan L,
    4. Saxena A,
    5. Bester L,
    6. Morris DL
    Trans-arterial embolisation therapies for unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a systematic review. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2015 10; 6 5: 570- 588. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2078-6891.2015.055. pmid:26487951
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    1. Valle JW,
    2. Furuse J,
    3. Jitlal M,
    4. et al.
    Cisplatin and gemcitabine for advanced biliary tract cancer: a meta-analysis of two randomised trials. Ann Oncol. 2014 2; 25 2: 391- 398. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt540. pmid:24351397
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Burton R,
    2. Bell R
    The global challenge of reducing breast cancer mortality. Oncologist. 2013; 18 Suppl: 3- 5. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.18-S2-3. pmid:24334476
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  43. 43.↵
    1. Atalay G,
    2. Biganzoli L,
    3. Renard F,
    4. et al.
    EORTC Breast Cancer and Early Clinical Studies Groups. Clinical outcome of breast cancer patients with liver metastases alone in the anthracycline-taxane era: a retrospective analysis of two prospective, randomised metastatic breast cancer trials. Eur J Cancer. 2003 11; 39 17: 2439- 2449. pmid:14602130
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. 44.↵
    1. Lin YT,
    2. Médioni J,
    3. Amouyal G,
    4. Déan C,
    5. Sapoval M,
    6. Pellerin O
    Doxorubicin-loaded 70-150 μm microspheres for liver-dominant metastatic breast cancer: results and outcomes of a pilot study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2017 1; 40 1: 81- 89. doi: 10.1007/s00270-016-1465-4. pmid:27646519
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.
    1. Eichler K,
    2. Jakobi S,
    3. Gruber-Rouh T,
    4. Hammerstingl R,
    5. Vogl TJ,
    6. Zangos S
    Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) with gemcitabine: phase II study in patients with liver metastases of breast cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2013 12; 82 12: e816- e822. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.08.046. pmid:24055389
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. 46.↵
    1. Martin RC,
    2. Robbins K,
    3. Fagés JF,
    4. et al.
    Optimal outcomes for liver-dominant metastatic breast cancer with transarterial chemoembolization with drug-eluting beads loaded with doxorubicin. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 4; 132 2: 753- 763. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1926-z. pmid:22200868
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. Vogl TJ,
    2. Naguib NN,
    3. Nour-Eldin NE,
    4. Eichler K,
    5. Zangos S,
    6. Gruber-Rouh T
    Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) with mitomycin C and gemcitabine for liver metastases in breast cancer. Eur Radiol. 2010 1; 20 1: 173- 180. doi: 10.1007/s00330-009-1525-0. pmid:19657653
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. 48.↵
    1. Memon K,
    2. Lewandowski RJ,
    3. Kulik L,
    4. Riaz A,
    5. Mulcahy MF,
    6. Salem R
    Radioembolization for primary and metastatic liver cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2011 10; 21 4: 294- 302. doi: 10.1016/j.semradonc.2011.05.004. pmid:21939859
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. 49.
    1. Bangash AK,
    2. Atassi B,
    3. Kaklamani V,
    4. et al.
    90Y radioembolization of metastatic breast cancer to the liver: toxicity, imaging response, survival. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2007 5; 18 5: 621- 628. pmid:17494843
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. 50.↵
    1. Coldwell DM,
    2. Kennedy AS,
    3. Nutting CW
    Use of yttrium-90 microspheres in the treatment of unresectable hepatic metastases from breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007 11 1; 69 3: 800- 804. pmid:17524567
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Gragoudas ES,
    2. Egan KM,
    3. Seddon JM,
    4. et al.
    Survival of patients with metastases from uveal melanoma. Ophthalmology. 1991 3; 98 3: 383- 389; discussion 390. pmid:2023760
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. 52.↵
    1. Rajpal S,
    2. Moore R,
    3. Karakousis CP
    Survival in metastatic ocular melanoma. Cancer. 1983 7 15; 52 2: 334- 336. pmid:6190546
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. 53.↵
    1. Bedikian AY,
    2. Legha SS,
    3. Mavligit G,
    4. et al.
    Treatment of uveal melanoma metastatic to the liver: a review of the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center experience and prognostic factors. Cancer. 1995 11 1; 76 9: 1665- 1670. pmid:8635073
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    1. Gonsalves CF,
    2. Eschelman DJ,
    3. Thornburg B,
    4. Frangos A,
    5. Sato T
    Uveal melanoma metastatic to the liver: chemoembolization with 1,3-bis-(2-chloroethyl)-1-nitrosourea. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 8; 205(2):429-433. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.14001.
  55. 55.
    1. Huppert PE,
    2. Fierlbeck G,
    3. Pereira P,
    4. et al.
    Transarterial chemoembolization of liver metastases in patients with uveal melanoma. Eur J Radiol. 2010 6; 74 3: e38- e44. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.03.064. pmid:19467811
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. 56.↵
    1. Gupta S,
    2. Bedikian AY,
    3. Ahrar J,
    4. et al.
    Hepatic artery chemoembolization in patients with ocular melanoma metastatic to the liver: response, survival, and prognostic factors. Am J Clin Oncol. 2010 10; 33 5: 474- 480. doi: 10.1097/COC.0b013e3181b4b065. pmid:19935383
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Gonsalves CF,
    2. Eschelman DJ,
    3. Sullivan KL,
    4. Anne PR,
    5. Doyle L,
    6. Sato T
    Radioembolization as salvage therapy for hepatic metastasis of uveal melanoma: a single-institution experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 2; 196 2: 468- 473. doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.4881. pmid:21257902
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  58. 58.↵
    1. Pierce D,
    2. Monroe E,
    3. Johnson G,
    4. et al.
    Promising efficacy with liver-directed therapies for the treatment of metastatic and unresectable hepatic sarcomas. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016 3; 27 3: S173.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.↵
    1. Transue DL,
    2. Hackworth J,
    3. Johnson MS,
    4. et al.
    Multi-institutional experience treating metastatic soft tissue sarcomas using yttrium-90 microspheres. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015 2; 26 2: S133.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Ochsner Journal
Vol. 17, Issue 4
Dec 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Ochsner Journal.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Intraarterial Liver-Directed Therapies: The Role of Interventional Oncology
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Ochsner Journal
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Ochsner Journal web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Intraarterial Liver-Directed Therapies: The Role of Interventional Oncology
Jenson Ma, Juan Martin Gimenez, Tyler Sandow, Daniel Devun, David Kirsch, Paul Gulotta, Patrick Gilbert, Dennis Kay
Ochsner Journal Dec 2017, 17 (4) 412-416;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Intraarterial Liver-Directed Therapies: The Role of Interventional Oncology
Jenson Ma, Juan Martin Gimenez, Tyler Sandow, Daniel Devun, David Kirsch, Paul Gulotta, Patrick Gilbert, Dennis Kay
Ochsner Journal Dec 2017, 17 (4) 412-416;
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA
    • COLORECTAL CANCER LIVER METASTASIS
    • NEUROENDOCRINE TUMORS
    • CHOLANGIOCARCINOMA
    • BREAST CANCER
    • MELANOMA
    • SARCOMA
    • CONCLUSION
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Impact of Coffee Consumption on Cardiovascular Health
  • Brief History of Opioids in Perioperative and Periprocedural Medicine to Inform the Future
  • COVID-19 Physician Burnout: Louisiana's Workforce Vulnerability and Strategies for Mitigation
Show more REVIEWS AND CONTEMPORARY UPDATES

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Chemoembolization–therapeutic
  • gastrointestinal neoplasms
  • neoplasm metastasis
  • radiology–interventional
  • yttrium radioisotopes

Current Post at the Blog

No Author Credit for ChatGPT

Our Content

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Featured Contributors
  • Ochsner Journal Blog
  • Archive at PubMed Central

Information & Forms

  • Instructions for Authors
  • Instructions for Reviewers
  • Submission Checklist
  • FAQ
  • License for Publishing-Author Attestation
  • Patient Consent Form
  • Submit a Manuscript

Services & Contacts

  • Permissions
  • Sign up for our electronic table of contents
  • Feedback Form
  • Contact Us

About Us

  • Editorial Board
  • About the Ochsner Journal
  • Ochsner Health
  • University of Queensland-Ochsner Clinical School
  • Alliance of Independent Academic Medical Centers

© 2023 Ochsner Clinic Foundation

Powered by HighWire