1
|
Hendriks P, Rietbergen DDD, van Erkel AR, Coenraad MJ, Arntz MJ, Bennink RJ, Braat AE, Crobach S, van Delden OM, Dibbets-Schneider P, van der Hulle T, Klümpen HJ, van der Meer RW, Nijsen JFW, van Rijswijk CSP, Roosen J, Ruijter BN, Smit F, Stam MK, Takkenberg RB, Tushuizen ME, van Velden FHP, de Geus-Oei LF, Burgmans MC. Adjuvant holmium-166 radioembolization after radiofrequency ablation in early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma patients: a dose-finding study (HORA EST HCC trial). Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2024; 51:2085-2097. [PMID: 38329507 PMCID: PMC11139702 DOI: 10.1007/s00259-024-06630-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/06/2023] [Accepted: 01/27/2024] [Indexed: 02/09/2024]
Abstract
PURPOSE The aim of this study was to investigate the biodistribution of (super-)selective trans-arterial radioembolization (TARE) with holmium-166 microspheres (166Ho-MS), when administered as adjuvant therapy after RFA of HCC 2-5 cm. The objective was to establish a treatment volume absorbed dose that results in an absorbed dose of ≥ 120 Gy on the hyperemic zone around the ablation necrosis (i.e., target volume). METHODS In this multicenter, prospective dose-escalation study in BCLC early stage HCC patients with lesions 2-5 cm, RFA was followed by (super-)selective infusion of 166Ho-MS on day 5-10 after RFA. Dose distribution within the treatment volume was based on SPECT-CT. Cohorts of up to 10 patients were treated with an incremental dose (60 Gy, 90 Gy, 120 Gy) of 166Ho-MS to the treatment volume. The primary endpoint was to obtain a target volume dose of ≥ 120 Gy in 9/10 patients within a cohort. RESULTS Twelve patients were treated (male 10; median age, 66.5 years (IQR, [64.3-71.7])) with a median tumor diameter of 2.7 cm (IQR, [2.1-4.0]). At a treatment volume absorbed dose of 90 Gy, the primary endpoint was met with a median absorbed target volume dose of 138 Gy (IQR, [127-145]). No local recurrences were found within 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION Adjuvant (super-)selective infusion of 166Ho-MS after RFA for the treatment of HCC can be administered safely at a dose of 90 Gy to the treatment volume while reaching a dose of ≥ 120 Gy to the target volume and may be a favorable adjuvant therapy for HCC lesions 2-5 cm. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03437382 . (registered: 19-02-2018).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pim Hendriks
- Interventional Radiology Research (IR2) Group, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
| | - Daphne D D Rietbergen
- Section of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Arian R van Erkel
- Interventional Radiology Research (IR2) Group, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Minneke J Coenraad
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Mark J Arntz
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Roel J Bennink
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Andries E Braat
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Stijn Crobach
- Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Otto M van Delden
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Petra Dibbets-Schneider
- Section of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Tom van der Hulle
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Heinz-Josef Klümpen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rutger W van der Meer
- Interventional Radiology Research (IR2) Group, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - J Frank W Nijsen
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Catharina S P van Rijswijk
- Interventional Radiology Research (IR2) Group, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Joey Roosen
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Bastian N Ruijter
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Frits Smit
- Section of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Mette K Stam
- Section of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - R Bart Takkenberg
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten E Tushuizen
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Floris H P van Velden
- Section of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei
- Section of Nuclear Medicine, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
- Biomedical Photonic Imaging Group, TechMed Center, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands
- Department of Radiation Sciences & Technology, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
| | - Mark C Burgmans
- Interventional Radiology Research (IR2) Group, Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Chen JJ, Jin ZC, Zhong BY, Fan W, Zhang WH, Luo B, Wang YQ, Teng GJ, Zhu HD. Locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma: The current status and future perspectives. United European Gastroenterol J 2024; 12:226-239. [PMID: 38372444 PMCID: PMC10954431 DOI: 10.1002/ueg2.12554] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2023] [Accepted: 01/07/2024] [Indexed: 02/20/2024] Open
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common cancers and a leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Locoregional therapies (LRTs) play a crucial role in HCC management and are selectively adopted in real-world practice across various stages. Choosing the best form of LRTs depends on technical aspects, patient clinical status and tumour characteristics. Previous studies have consistently highlighted the efficacy of combining LRTs with molecular targeted agents in HCC treatment. Recent studies propose that integrating LRTs with immune checkpoint inhibitors and molecular targeted agents could provide substantial therapeutic benefits, a notion underpinned by both basic and clinical evidence. This review summarised the current landscape of LRTs in HCC and discussed the anticipated outcomes of combinations with immunotherapy regimens.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jian-Jian Chen
- Department of Radiology, Center of Interventional Radiology & Vascular Surgery, Zhongda Hospital, Medical School, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
| | - Zhi-Cheng Jin
- Department of Radiology, Center of Interventional Radiology & Vascular Surgery, Zhongda Hospital, Medical School, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
| | - Bin-Yan Zhong
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Soochow University, Suzhou, China
| | - Wenzhe Fan
- Department of Interventional Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Wei-Hua Zhang
- Department of Radiology, Center of Interventional Radiology & Vascular Surgery, Zhongda Hospital, Medical School, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
| | - Biao Luo
- Department of Radiology, Center of Interventional Radiology & Vascular Surgery, Zhongda Hospital, Medical School, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
| | - Yu-Qing Wang
- Department of Radiology, Center of Interventional Radiology & Vascular Surgery, Zhongda Hospital, Medical School, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
| | - Gao-Jun Teng
- Department of Radiology, Center of Interventional Radiology & Vascular Surgery, Zhongda Hospital, Medical School, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
| | - Hai-Dong Zhu
- Department of Radiology, Center of Interventional Radiology & Vascular Surgery, Zhongda Hospital, Medical School, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Chiang J, Rajendran PS, Hao F, Sayre J, Raman SS, Lu DSK, McWilliams JP. Combination transarterial chemoembolization and microwave ablation vs. microwave ablation monotherapy for hepatocellular carcinomas greater than 3 cm: a comparative study. Diagn Interv Radiol 2023; 29:805-812. [PMID: 37665139 PMCID: PMC10679555 DOI: 10.4274/dir.2023.232159] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/05/2023] [Accepted: 07/01/2023] [Indexed: 09/05/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy of combination therapy using transarterial chemoembolization with microwave ablation (MWA) therapy vs. MWA monotherapy for hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) >3 cm in size. METHODS This two-arm retrospective observational study included patients with HCCs >3 cm who underwent either combination therapy (29 patients) or MWA monotherapy (35 patients) between 2014 and 2020. The treatment outcomes related to primary treatment efficacy, local tumor progression (LTP), tumor control rate, and overall survival were compared between each cohort. RESULTS The technical success and primary efficacy were 96.56% and 100.00% in the combination therapy cohort, and 91.42% and 100.00% in the MWA cohort, respectively, over a mean follow-up period of 27.6 months. The 1- and 3-year rates of LTP-free survival were 78.57% and 69.56% in the combination therapy cohort, vs. 72.45% and 35.44% in the MWA cohort, respectively (P = 0.001). The overall progression-free survival was longer in the combination therapy cohort compared with the MWA cohort (median: 56.0 vs. 13.0 months; P = 0.017). With the incorporation of additional locoregional therapy, the overall survival rates were not significantly different, with 1- and 3-year overall survival rates of 100.00% and 88.71% in the combination therapy cohort and rates of 90.15% and 82.76% in the MWA cohort, respectively (P = 0.235). CONCLUSION The combination therapy provided significantly longer upfront LTP-free survival in HCCs >3 cm when compared with the MWA treatment alone, albeit with similar local tumor control and overall survival rates when accounting for additional locoregional therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jason Chiang
- Department of Radiology, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Pradeep S. Rajendran
- Department of Radiology, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Frank Hao
- Department of Radiology, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - James Sayre
- Department of Radiology, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Steven S. Raman
- Department of Radiology, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - David S. K. Lu
- Department of Radiology, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Justin P. McWilliams
- Department of Radiology, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
South E, Wade R, Anwer S, Sharif‐Hurst S, Harden M, Fulbright H, Dias S, Simmonds M, Rowe I, Thornton P, Wah TM, Eastwood A. The effectiveness of ablative and non-surgical therapies for early hepatocellular carcinoma: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Cancer Med 2023; 12:20759-20772. [PMID: 37902128 PMCID: PMC10709740 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6643] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2023] [Revised: 09/26/2023] [Accepted: 10/15/2023] [Indexed: 10/31/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS Non-surgical therapies are frequently used for patients with early or very early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of ablative and non-surgical therapies for patients with small HCC. METHODS Nine databases were searched (March 2021) along with clinical trial registries. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any ablative or non-surgical therapy versus any comparator in patients with HCC ≤3 cm were eligible. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The effectiveness of therapies was compared using NMA. Threshold analysis was undertaken to identify which NMA results had less robust evidence. RESULTS Thirty-seven eligible RCTs were included (including over 3700 patients). Most were from China (n = 17) or Japan (n = 7). Sample sizes ranged from 30 to 308 patients. The majority had a high RoB or some RoB concerns. No RCTs were identified for some therapies and no RCTs reported quality of life outcomes. The results of the NMA and treatment effectiveness rankings were very uncertain. However, the evidence demonstrated that percutaneous ethanol injection was worse than radiofrequency ablation for overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.45, 95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.16-1.82), progression-free survival (HR: 1.36, 95% CrI: 1.11-1.67), overall recurrence (relative risk [RR]: 1.19, 95% CrI: 1.02-1.39) and local recurrence (RR: 1.80, 95% CrI: 1.19-2.71). The threshold analysis suggested that robust evidence was lacking for some comparisons. CONCLUSIONS It is unclear which treatment is most effective for patients with small HCC because of limitations in the evidence base. It is also not known how these treatments would impact on quality of life. Further high quality RCTs are needed to provide robust evidence but may be difficult to undertake.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily South
- Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkYorkUK
| | - Ros Wade
- Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkYorkUK
| | - Sumayya Anwer
- Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkYorkUK
| | | | - Melissa Harden
- Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkYorkUK
| | - Helen Fulbright
- Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkYorkUK
| | - Sofia Dias
- Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkYorkUK
| | - Mark Simmonds
- Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkYorkUK
| | - Ian Rowe
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS TrustLeedsUK
| | | | | | - Alison Eastwood
- Centre for Reviews and DisseminationUniversity of YorkYorkUK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lin YM, Paolucci I, Anderson BM, O'Connor CS, Rigaud B, Briones-Dimayuga M, Jones KA, Brock KK, Fellman BM, Odisio BC. Study Protocol COVER-ALL: Clinical Impact of a Volumetric Image Method for Confirming Tumour Coverage with Ablation on Patients with Malignant Liver Lesions. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2022; 45:1860-1867. [PMID: 36058995 PMCID: PMC9712233 DOI: 10.1007/s00270-022-03255-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/14/2022] [Accepted: 08/09/2022] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE This study aims to evaluate the intra-procedural use of a novel ablation confirmation (AC) method, consisting of biomechanical deformable image registration incorporating AI-based auto-segmentation, and its impact on tumor coverage by quantitative three-dimensional minimal ablative margin (MAM) CT-generated assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS This single-center, randomized, phase II, intent-to-treat trial is enrolling 100 subjects with primary and secondary liver tumors (≤ 3 tumors, 1-5 cm in diameter) undergoing microwave or radiofrequency ablation with a goal of achieving ≥ 5 mm MAM. For the experimental arm, the proposed novel AC method is utilized for ablation applicator(s) placement verification and MAM assessment. For the control arm, the same variables are assessed by visual inspection and anatomical landmarks-based quantitative measurements aided by co-registration of pre- and post-ablation contrast-enhanced CT images. The primary objective is to evaluate the impact of the proposed AC method on the MAM. Secondary objectives are 2-year LTP-free survival, complication rates, quality of life, liver function, other oncological outcomes, and impact of AC method on procedure workflow. DISCUSSION The COVER-ALL trial will provide information on the role of a biomechanical deformable image registration-based ablation confirmation method incorporating AI-based auto-segmentation for improving MAM, which might translate in improvements of liver ablation efficacy. CONCLUSION The COVER-ALL trial aims to provide information on the role of a novel intra-procedural AC method for improving MAM, which might translate in improvements of liver ablation efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04083378.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuan-Mao Lin
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Iwan Paolucci
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Brian M Anderson
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, TX, 77030, Houston, USA
| | - Caleb S O'Connor
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, TX, 77030, Houston, USA
| | - Bastien Rigaud
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, TX, 77030, Houston, USA
| | - Maria Briones-Dimayuga
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Kyle A Jones
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, TX, 77030, Houston, USA
| | - Kristy K Brock
- Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, TX, 77030, Houston, USA
| | - Bryan M Fellman
- Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA
| | - Bruno C Odisio
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd, Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Yin L, Li XY, Zhu LL, Chen GL, Xiang Z, Wang QQ, Bi JW, Wang Q. Clinical application status and prospect of the combined anti-tumor strategy of ablation and immunotherapy. Front Immunol 2022; 13:965120. [PMID: 36131929 PMCID: PMC9483102 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.965120] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2022] [Accepted: 08/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Image-guided tumor ablation eliminates tumor cells by physical or chemical stimulation, which shows less invasive and more precise in local tumor treatment. Tumor ablation provides a treatment option for medically inoperable patients. Currently, clinical ablation techniques are widely used in clinical practice, including cryoablation, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and microwave ablation (MWA). Previous clinical studies indicated that ablation treatment activated immune responses besides killing tumor cells directly, such as short-term anti-tumor response, immunosuppression reduction, specific and non-specific immune enhancement, and the reduction or disappearance of distant tumor foci. However, tumor ablation transiently induced immune response. The combination of ablation and immunotherapy is expected to achieve better therapeutic results in clinical application. In this paper, we provided a summary of the principle, clinical application status, and immune effects of tumor ablation technologies for tumor treatment. Moreover, we discussed the clinical application of different combination of ablation techniques with immunotherapy and proposed possible solutions for the challenges encountered by combined therapy. It is hoped to provide a new idea and reference for the clinical application of combinate treatment of tumor ablation and immunotherapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Li Yin
- Oncology Department, Shandong Second Provincial General Hospital, Jinan, China
| | - Xing-yu Li
- Key Laboratory of Marine Drugs, Ministry of Education, School of Medicine and Pharmacy, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China
| | - Lin-lin Zhu
- Oncology Department, Shandong Second Provincial General Hospital, Jinan, China
| | - Gui-lai Chen
- Oncology Department, Shandong Second Provincial General Hospital, Jinan, China
| | - Zhuo Xiang
- Oncology Department, Shandong Second Provincial General Hospital, Jinan, China
| | - Qing-qing Wang
- Oncology Department, Shandong Second Provincial General Hospital, Jinan, China
| | - Jing-wang Bi
- Oncology Department, Shandong Second Provincial General Hospital, Jinan, China
| | - Qiang Wang
- Oncology Department, Shandong Second Provincial General Hospital, Jinan, China
- Key Laboratory of Marine Drugs, Ministry of Education, School of Medicine and Pharmacy, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China
- *Correspondence: Qiang Wang,
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Tang MJ, Eslick GD, Lubel JS, Majeed A, Majumdar A, Kemp W, Roberts SK. Outcomes of microwave versus radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Meta-Anal 2022; 10:220-237. [DOI: 10.13105/wjma.v10.i4.220] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/24/2022] [Revised: 07/01/2022] [Accepted: 08/11/2022] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Studies to date comparing outcomes of microwave ablation (MWA) with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) on patients with hepatocellular carcinoma have yielded conflicting results, with no clear superiority of one technique over the other. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of MWA with RFA.
AIM To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of MWA with RFA.
METHODS A systematic literature search was performed using Ovid Medline, Embase, PubMed, Reference Citation Analysis, Cochrane Central and Cochrane Systematic Review databases, and Web of Science. Abstracts and full manuscripts were screened for inclusion utilising predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria comparing outcomes of MWA and RFA. A random-effects model was used for each outcome. Meta-regression analysis was performed to adjust for the difference in follow-up period between the studies. Primary outcome measures included complete ablation (CA) rate, local recurrence rate (LRR), survival [local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), overall survival (OS)] and adverse events.
RESULTS A total of 42 published studies [34 cohort and 8 randomised controlled trials (RCT)] with 6719 patients fulfilled the selection criteria. There was no significant difference in tumour size between the treatment groups. CA rates between MWA and RFA groups were similar in prospective cohort studies [odds ratio (OR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28–3.23] and RCTs (OR 1.18, 95%CI 0.64–2.18). However, retrospective studies reported higher rates with MWA (OR 1.29, 95%CI 1.06–1.57). Retrospective cohort studies reported higher OS (OR 1.54, 95%CI 1.15–2.05 and lower LRR (OR 0.67, 95%CI 0.51–0.87). No difference in terms of LRFS or 30-d mortality was observed between both arms. MWA had an increased rate of adverse respiratory events when compared to RFA (OR 1.99, 95%CI 1.07–3.71, P = 0.03).
CONCLUSION MWA achieves similar CA rates and as good or better longer-term outcomes in relation to LRR and OS compared to RFA. Apart from an increased rate of respiratory events post procedure, MWA is as safe as RFA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Myo Jin Tang
- Department of Gastroenterology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne 3004, Victoria, Australia
- Monash Medical School, Monash University, Melbourne 3004, Victoria, Australia
| | - Guy D Eslick
- Department of Statistics, Clued Pty Ltd, Sydney 2006, New South Wales, Australia
| | - John S Lubel
- Department of Gastroenterology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne 3004, Victoria, Australia
- Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne 3004, Victoria, Australia
| | - Ammar Majeed
- Department of Gastroenterology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne 3004, Victoria, Australia
- Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne 3004, Victoria, Australia
| | - Avik Majumdar
- Department of Gastroenterology, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg 3084, Victoria, Australia
- Department of Medicine, Austin Campus, University of Medicine, Melbourne 3084, Victoria, Australia
| | - William Kemp
- Department of Gastroenterology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne 3004, Victoria, Australia
- Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne 3004, Victoria, Australia
| | - Stuart K Roberts
- Department of Gastroenterology, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne 3004, Victoria, Australia
- Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne 3004, Victoria, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Mercan-Stanciu A, Isac T, Rababoc R, Rusie D, Toma L, Vacaroiu IA, Tulin R, Iliescu EL. Multimodal Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients With Hepatitis C Virus Infection Treated With Direct-Acting Antivirals. Cureus 2022; 14:e25487. [PMID: 35800821 PMCID: PMC9246468 DOI: 10.7759/cureus.25487] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/29/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) opened a new era in the management of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-associated liver disease. However, hepatic cancer screening should not be stopped after obtaining a sustained virologic response (SVR). Current guidelines offer several treatment options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), mainly depending on its stage and the extent of liver disease, including tumor resection, liver transplantation (LT), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), and systemic agents. This article provides an overview of treatment modalities for hepatocellular carcinoma and associated survival rates based on the experience of the Internal Medicine Center at Fundeni Clinical Institute while bringing into light previous medical research. Methods: We included 59 patients with a personal history of hepatitis C virus infection, diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma at least one year after achieving a sustained virologic response through direct-acting antivirals. The albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) score and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) classification were assessed in each case, and all patients were treated accordingly. The subjects were monitored by liver function tests, tumor markers, blood cell count, coagulation profile, and imaging explorations. We investigated the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, the response to applied treatments, and survival. Results: Cirrhotic patients and multinodular tumor patterns were predominant. Most patients only experienced one therapeutic procedure, while the rest of the study group went through multiple treatment modalities (2-4), with a better outcome in terms of survival parameters. A large proportion presented with disease progression despite the therapeutic measures applied. A total of two liver transplants were performed, resulting in a 12-month disease-free period among these patients. The presence of diabetes mellitus (DM), multinodular disease, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) over 300 ng/mL, and tumor dimension over 6 cm indicate poor overall survival. Both overall survival and progression-free survival were better in subjects who presented complete responses (CR) to HCC treatment. In patients undergoing a single intervention, the best overall survival was associated with surgical resection and RFA. Conclusion: The multimodal treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma represents the best approach, in order to maintain patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation. In hepatitis C virus infection, viral clearance is important to obtain. At the same time, particular attention should be paid to liver cancer screening even after obtaining a sustained virologic response.
Collapse
|
9
|
Hendriks P, Rietbergen DDD, van Erkel AR, Coenraad MJ, Arntz MJ, Bennink RJ, Braat AE, Crobach ASLP, van Delden OM, van der Hulle T, Klümpen HJ, van der Meer RW, Nijsen JFW, van Rijswijk CSP, Roosen J, Ruijter BN, Smit F, Stam MK, Takkenberg RB, Tushuizen ME, van Velden FHP, de Geus-Oei LF, Burgmans MC. Study Protocol: Adjuvant Holmium-166 Radioembolization After Radiofrequency Ablation in Early-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients-A Dose-Finding Study (HORA EST HCC Trial). Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2022; 45:1057-1063. [PMID: 35618860 PMCID: PMC9307549 DOI: 10.1007/s00270-022-03162-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2021] [Accepted: 04/23/2022] [Indexed: 12/07/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To investigate the biodistribution of holmium-166 microspheres (166Ho-MS) when administered after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim is to establish a perfused liver administration dose that results in a tumoricidal dose of holmium-166 on the hyperaemic zone around the ablation necrosis (i.e. target volume). MATERIALS AND METHODS This is a multicentre, prospective, dose-escalation study in HCC patients with a solitary lesion 2-5 cm, or a maximum of 3 lesions of ≤ 3 cm each. The day after RFA patients undergo angiography and cone-beam CT (CBCT) with (super)selective infusion of technetium-99 m labelled microalbumin aggregates (99mTc-MAA). The perfused liver volume is segmented from the CBCT and 166Ho-MS is administered to this treatment volume 5-10 days later. The dose of holmium-166 is escalated in a maximum of 3 patient cohorts (60 Gy, 90 Gy and 120 Gy) until the endpoint is reached. SPECT/CT is used to determine the biodistribution of holmium-166. The endpoint is met when a dose of ≥ 120 Gy has been reached on the target volume in 9/10 patients of a cohort. Secondary endpoints include toxicity, local recurrence, disease-free and overall survival. DISCUSSION This study aims to find the optimal administration dose of adjuvant radioembolization with 166Ho-MS after RFA. Ultimately, the goal is to bring the efficacy of thermal ablation up to par with surgical resection for early-stage HCC patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03437382.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pim Hendriks
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
| | - Daphne D D Rietbergen
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Arian R van Erkel
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Minneke J Coenraad
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Mark J Arntz
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Roel J Bennink
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Andries E Braat
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - A Stijn L P Crobach
- Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Otto M van Delden
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Tom van der Hulle
- Department of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Heinz-Josef Klümpen
- Department of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rutger W van der Meer
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - J Frank W Nijsen
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Carla S P van Rijswijk
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Joey Roosen
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Bastian N Ruijter
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Frits Smit
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Mette K Stam
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - R Bart Takkenberg
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten E Tushuizen
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Floris H P van Velden
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Mark C Burgmans
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Oosterveer TTM, van Erp GCM, Hendriks P, Broersen A, Overduin CG, van Rijswijk CSP, van Erkel AR, van der Meer RW, Tushuizen ME, Moelker A, Meijerink MR, van Delden OM, de Jong KP, van der Leij C, Smits MLJ, Urlings TAJ, Braak JPBM, Meershoek-Klein Kranenbarg E, van Duijn-de Vreugd B, Zeijdner E, Goeman JJ, Fütterer JJ, Coenraad MJ, Dijkstra J, Burgmans MC. Study Protocol PROMETHEUS: Prospective Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Correlation Between Safety Margin and Local Recurrence After Thermal Ablation Using Image Co-registration in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2022; 45:606-612. [PMID: 35233662 PMCID: PMC9018632 DOI: 10.1007/s00270-022-03075-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2021] [Accepted: 01/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
Purpose The primary objective is to determine the minimal ablation margin required to achieve a local recurrence rate of < 10% in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing thermal ablation. Secondary objectives are to analyze the correlation between ablation margins and local recurrence and to assess efficacy. Materials and Methods This study is a prospective, multicenter, non-experimental, non-comparative, open-label study. Patients > 18 years with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0/A hepatocellular carcinoma (or B with a maximum of two lesions < 5 cm each) are eligible. Patients will undergo dual-phase contrast-enhanced computed tomography directly before and after ablation. Ablation margins will be quantitatively assessed using co-registration software, blinding assessors (i.e. two experienced radiologists) for outcome. Presence and location of recurrence are evaluated independently on follow-up scans by two other experienced radiologists, blinded for the quantitative margin analysis. A sample size of 189 tumors (~ 145 patients) is required to show with 80% power that the risk of local recurrence is confidently below 10%. A two-sided binomial z-test will be used to test the null hypothesis that the local recurrence rate is ≥ 10% for patients with a minimal ablation margin ≥ 2 mm. Logistic regression will be used to find the relationship between minimal ablation margins and local recurrence. Kaplan–Meier estimates are used to assess local and overall recurrence, disease-free and overall survival. Discussion It is expected that this study will result in a clear understanding of the correlation between ablation margins and local recurrence. Using co-registration software in future patients undergoing ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma may improve intraprocedural evaluation of technical success. Trial registration The Netherlands Trial Register (NL9713), https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/9713.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timo T M Oosterveer
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
| | - Gonnie C M van Erp
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Pim Hendriks
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Alexander Broersen
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.,Division of Image Processing, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Christiaan G Overduin
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Carla S P van Rijswijk
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Arian R van Erkel
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Rutger W van der Meer
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten E Tushuizen
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Adriaan Moelker
- Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Martijn R Meijerink
- Department of Radiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Otto M van Delden
- Department of Radiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Koert P de Jong
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Maarten L J Smits
- Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Thijs A J Urlings
- Department of Radiology, Haaglanden Medical Center, Hague, The Netherlands
| | - Jeffrey P B M Braak
- Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | | | - Bianca van Duijn-de Vreugd
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | | | - Jelle J Goeman
- Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Jurgen J Fütterer
- Department of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Minneke J Coenraad
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Jouke Dijkstra
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands.,Division of Image Processing, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Mark C Burgmans
- Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Chen QF, Li W, Yu SCH, Chou YH, Rhim H, Yang X, Shen L, Dong A, Huang T, Huang J, Zhang F, Fan W, Zhao M, Gu Y, Huang Z, Zuo M, Zhai B, Xiao Y, Kuang M, Li J, Han J, Song W, Ma J, Wu P. Consensus of Minimally Invasive and Multidisciplinary Comprehensive Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma - 2020 Guangzhou Recommendations. Front Oncol 2021; 11:621834. [PMID: 34277397 PMCID: PMC8284077 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.621834] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2020] [Accepted: 06/15/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
In China, the majority of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) result from long-term infection of hepatitis B. Pathologically, HCC is characterized by rich blood supply, multicentric origins, early vascular invasion and intrahepatic metastasis. Therefore, HCC is not a local disease but a systemic disease at the beginning of its occurrence. For this reason, a comprehensive treatment strategy should be adopted in the management of HCC, including local treatments (such as surgical resection, radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, chemical ablation and cryoablation, etc.), organ-level treatments [such as transcatheter arterial infusion of chemotherapy and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE)], and systemic treatments (such as immunotherapy, antiviral therapy and molecular targeted therapy, etc.). This consensus sets forth the minimally-invasive and multidisciplinary comprehensive guideline of HCC, focusing on the following eight aspects (1) using hepaticarteriography, CT hepatic arteriography (CTHA), CT arterial portography (CTAP), lipiodol CT (Lp-CT), TACE-CT to find the intrahepatic lesion and make precise staging (2) TACE combined with ablation or ablation as the first choice of treatment for early stage or small HCC, while other therapies are considered only when ablation is not applicable (3) infiltrating HCC should be regarded as an independent subtype of HCC (4) minimally-invasive comprehensive treatment could be adopted in treating metastatic lymph nodes (5) multi-level subdivision of M-staging should be used for individualized treatment and predicting prognosis (6) HCC with severe hepatic decompensation is the only candidate criterion for liver transplantation (7) bio-immunotherapy, traditional Chinese medicine therapy, antiviral therapy, and psychosocial and psychopharmacological interventions should be advocated through the whole course of HCC treatment (8) implementation of multicenter randomized controlled trials of minimally-invasive therapy versus surgery for early and intermediate stage HCC is recommended.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qi-Feng Chen
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Wang Li
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Simon Chun-Ho Yu
- Department of Imaging and Interventional Radiology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
| | - Yi-Hong Chou
- Department of Medical Imaging and Radiological Technology, Yuanpei University of Medical Technology, Hsinchu, China.,Department of Radiology, Taipei General Hospital and School of Medicine, National YangMing University, Taipei, China.,Department of Radiology, Yeezen General Hospital, Taoyuan, China
| | - Hyunchul Rhim
- Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Xiaoming Yang
- Image-Guided Bio-Molecular Intervention Research and Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, United States
| | - Lujun Shen
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Annan Dong
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Tao Huang
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.,Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jinhua Huang
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Fujun Zhang
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Weijun Fan
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Ming Zhao
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Yangkui Gu
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zhimei Huang
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Mengxuan Zuo
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Bo Zhai
- Department of Surgery, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine Renji Hospital, Shanghai, China
| | - Yueyong Xiao
- Department of Radiology, The First Medical Centre, Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Ming Kuang
- Department of Liver Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jiaping Li
- Department of Interventional Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jianjun Han
- Department of Intervention, Shandong Cancer Hospital, Jinan, China
| | - Wei Song
- Department of Oncology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, China
| | - Jie Ma
- Department of Biotherapy, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Peihong Wu
- Department of Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Microwave ablation compared with radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of liver cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiol Oncol 2021; 55:247-258. [PMID: 34167181 PMCID: PMC8366737 DOI: 10.2478/raon-2021-0030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/05/2021] [Accepted: 05/10/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Guidelines have reported that although microwave ablation (MWA) has potential advantages over radiofrequency ablation (RFA), superiority in efficacy and safety remain unclear. Aim of the study is to compare MWA with RFA in the treatment of liver cancer. METHODS Meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines for studies published from 2010 onwards. A random-effects model was used for the meta-analyses. Complete ablation (CA), local tumor progression (LTP), intrahepatic distant recurrence (IDR), and complications were analyzed. RESULTS Four randomized trials and 11 observational studies with a total of 2,169 patients met the inclusion criteria. Although overall analysis showed no significant difference in LTP between MWA and RFA, subgroup analysis including randomized trials for patients with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) demonstrated statistically decreased rates of LTP in favor of MWA (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18-0.92; p = 0.03). No significant differences were found between the two procedures in CA, IDR, complications, and tumor diameter less or larger than 3 cm. CONCLUSIONS MWA showed promising results and demonstrated better oncological outcomes in terms of LTP compared to RFA in patients with HCC. MWA can be utilized as the ablation method of choice in patients with HCC.
Collapse
|
13
|
Cheung TT, Ma KW, She WH. A review on radiofrequency, microwave and high-intensity focused ultrasound ablations for hepatocellular carcinoma with cirrhosis. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr 2021; 10:193-209. [PMID: 33898560 DOI: 10.21037/hbsn.2020.03.11] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
Importance Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is usually accompanied by liver cirrhosis, which makes treatment of this disease challenging. Liver transplantation theoretically provides an ultimate solution to the disease, but the maximal surgical stress and the scarcity of liver graft make this treatment option impossible for some patients. In an ideal situation, a treatment that is safe and effective should provide a better outcome for patients with the dilemma. Objective This article aims to give a comprehensive review of various types of loco-ablative treatment for HCC. Evidence Review Loco-ablative treatment bridges the gap between surgical resection and transarterial chemotherapy. Various types of ablative therapy have their unique ability, and evidence-based outcome analysis is the most important key to assisting clinicians to choose the most suitable treatment modality for their patients. Findings Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has a relatively longer history and more evidence to support its effectiveness. Microwave ablation (MWA) is gaining momentum because of its shorter ablation time and consistent ablation zone. High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) ablation is a relatively new technology that provides non-invasive treatment for patients with HCC. It has been carried out at centers of excellence and it is a safe and effective treatment option for selected patients with HCC and liver cirrhosis. Conclusion and Relevance Selective use of different loco-ablative therapies will enhance clinicians' treatment options for treatment of HCC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tan To Cheung
- Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong, 102 Pok Fu Lam Road, Hong Kong, China
| | - Ka Wing Ma
- Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong, 102 Pok Fu Lam Road, Hong Kong, China
| | - Wong Hoi She
- Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong, 102 Pok Fu Lam Road, Hong Kong, China
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Facciorusso A, Abd El Aziz MA, Tartaglia N, Ramai D, Mohan BP, Cotsoglou C, Pusceddu S, Giacomelli L, Ambrosi A, Sacco R. Microwave Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:cancers12123796. [PMID: 33339274 PMCID: PMC7766963 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12123796] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2020] [Revised: 12/09/2020] [Accepted: 12/15/2020] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Through a meta-analysis of seven randomized-controlled trials we found difference in terms of complete response and survival rates between microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). While local recurrence rate was similar between MWA and RFA, distant recurrence rate was significantly lower with MWA. As a consequence, disease-free survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was similar between the two groups whereas disease-free survival at 5 years was significantly in favor of MWA. Adverse event rate was similar between the two treatments. Our results indicate a similar efficacy and safety profile between the two techniques. MWA seems to decrease the rate of long-term recurrences, but this finding needs to be confirmed in further trials. Abstract There are limited and discordant results on the comparison between microwave ablation (MWA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This meta-analysis aims to compare the two treatments in terms of efficacy and safety, based on a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials (RCTs). A computerized bibliographic search was performed on the main databases throughout August 2020. The primary outcome was the complete response rate, while survival rate (at 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year), disease-free survival rate (at 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year), local and distant recurrence rate, adverse event rate, and number of treatment sessions were the secondary outcomes. Seven RCTs enrolling 921 patients were included. No difference in terms of complete response between the two treatments was observed (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.99–1.02). Survival rates were constantly similar, with RRs ranging from 1.05 (0.96–1.15) at 1 year to 0.91 (0.81–1.03) at 5 years. While local recurrence rate was similar between MWA and RFA (RR 0.70, 0.43–1.14), distant recurrence rate was significantly lower with MWA (RR 0.60, 0.39–0.92). Disease-free survival at 1, 2, and 3 years was similar between the two groups with RR 1.00 (0.96–1.04), 0.94 (0.84–1.06), and 1.06 (0.93–1.21), respectively. On the other hand, RR for disease-free survival at 5 years was significantly in favor of MWA (3.66, 1.32–42.27). Adverse event rate was similar between the two treatments (RR 1.06, 0.48–2.34), with bleeding and hematoma representing the most frequent complications. Our results indicate a similar efficacy and safety profile between the two techniques. MWA seems to decrease the rate of long-term recurrences, but this finding needs to be confirmed in further trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antonio Facciorusso
- Department of Medical Sciences, Gastroenterology Unit, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy;
| | | | - Nicola Tartaglia
- Department of Medical Sciences, General Surgery Unit, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy; (N.T.); (A.A.)
| | - Daryl Ramai
- Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Brooklyn Hospital Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA;
| | - Babu P. Mohan
- Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA;
| | | | - Sara Pusceddu
- Fondazione IRCCS—Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori Via G. Venezian 1 IT, 20133 Milan, Italy;
| | - Luca Giacomelli
- Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, University of Genoa, 16126 Genoa, Italy;
- Polistudium SRL, 20124 Milan, Italy
| | - Antonio Ambrosi
- Department of Medical Sciences, General Surgery Unit, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy; (N.T.); (A.A.)
| | - Rodolfo Sacco
- Department of Medical Sciences, Gastroenterology Unit, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy;
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +39-08-8173-2110; Fax: +39-08-8173-3545
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Zhou J, Sun H, Wang Z, Cong W, Wang J, Zeng M, Zhou W, Bie P, Liu L, Wen T, Han G, Wang M, Liu R, Lu L, Ren Z, Chen M, Zeng Z, Liang P, Liang C, Chen M, Yan F, Wang W, Ji Y, Yun J, Cai D, Chen Y, Cheng W, Cheng S, Dai C, Guo W, Hua B, Huang X, Jia W, Li Y, Li Y, Liang J, Liu T, Lv G, Mao Y, Peng T, Ren W, Shi H, Shi G, Tao K, Wang W, Wang X, Wang Z, Xiang B, Xing B, Xu J, Yang J, Yang J, Yang Y, Yang Y, Ye S, Yin Z, Zhang B, Zhang B, Zhang L, Zhang S, Zhang T, Zhao Y, Zheng H, Zhu J, Zhu K, Liu R, Shi Y, Xiao Y, Dai Z, Teng G, Cai J, Wang W, Cai X, Li Q, Shen F, Qin S, Dong J, Fan J. Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma (2019 Edition). Liver Cancer 2020; 9:682-720. [PMID: 33442540 PMCID: PMC7768108 DOI: 10.1159/000509424] [Citation(s) in RCA: 435] [Impact Index Per Article: 108.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2020] [Accepted: 06/12/2020] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Primary liver cancer, around 90% are hepatocellular carcinoma in China, is the fourth most common malignancy and the second leading cause of tumor-related death, thereby posing a significant threat to the life and health of the Chinese people. SUMMARY Since the publication of Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of Primary Liver Cancer (2017 Edition) in 2018, additional high-quality evidence has emerged with relevance to the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of liver cancer in and outside China that requires the guidelines to be updated. The new edition (2019 Edition) was written by more than 70 experts in the field of liver cancer in China. They reflect the real-world situation in China regarding diagnosing and treating liver cancer in recent years. KEY MESSAGES Most importantly, the new guidelines were endorsed and promulgated by the Bureau of Medical Administration of the National Health Commission of the People's Republic of China in December 2019.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jian Zhou
- Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Huichuan Sun
- Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Zheng Wang
- Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Wenming Cong
- Department of Pathology, The Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
| | - Jianhua Wang
- Department of Interventional Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Mengsu Zeng
- Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Weiping Zhou
- The Third Department of Hepatic Surgery, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
| | - Ping Bie
- Institute of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Lianxin Liu
- Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China
| | - Tianfu Wen
- Department of Liver Surgery, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Guohong Han
- Department of Liver Diseases and Digestive Interventional Radiology, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China
| | - Maoqiang Wang
- Department of Interventional Radiology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Ruibao Liu
- Department of Interventional Radiology, The Tumor Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China
| | - Ligong Lu
- Department of Interventional Oncology, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zhengang Ren
- Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Minshan Chen
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zhaochong Zeng
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Ping Liang
- Department of Interventional Ultrasound, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Changhong Liang
- Department of Radiology, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China
| | - Min Chen
- Editorial Department of Chinese Journal of Digestive Surgery, Chongqing, China
| | - Fuhua Yan
- Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Wenping Wang
- Department of Ultrasound, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Yuan Ji
- Department of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Jingping Yun
- Department of Pathology, Tumor Prevention and Treatment Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Dingfang Cai
- Department of Integrative Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Yongjun Chen
- Department of Hematology, Ruijin Hospital North, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
| | - Wenwu Cheng
- Department of Integrated Therapy, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai, China
| | - Shuqun Cheng
- The Third Department of Hepatic Surgery, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
| | - Chaoliu Dai
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Spleenary Surgery, The Affiliated Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China
| | - Wenzhi Guo
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
| | - Baojin Hua
- Graduate School, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China
| | - Xiaowu Huang
- Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Weidong Jia
- Department of Hepatic Surgery, Affiliated Provincial Hospital, Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China
| | - Yaming Li
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
| | - Yexiong Li
- Department of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Jun Liang
- Department of Oncology, Peking University International Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Tianshu Liu
- Department of Oncology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Guoyue Lv
- Department of General Surgery, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Jilin, China
| | - Yilei Mao
- Department of Liver Surgery, Peking Union Medical College (PUMC) Hospital, PUMC and Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Tao Peng
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China
| | - Weixin Ren
- Department of Interventional Radiology The First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi, China
| | - Hongcheng Shi
- Department of Nuclear Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Guoming Shi
- Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Kaishan Tao
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China
| | - Wentao Wang
- Department of Liver Surgery, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Xiaoying Wang
- Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Zhiming Wang
- Department of Infectious Diseases, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China
| | - Bangde Xiang
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China
| | - Baocai Xing
- Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing, China
| | - Jianming Xu
- Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Affiliated Hospital Cancer Center, Academy of Military Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Jiamei Yang
- The Third Department of Hepatic Surgery, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
| | - Jianyong Yang
- Department of Interventional Oncology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Yefa Yang
- Department of Hepatic Surgery & Interventional Radiology, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
| | - Yunke Yang
- Department of Integrative Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Shenglong Ye
- Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Zhengyu Yin
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital of Xiamen University, Hubing South Road, Xiamen, China
| | - Bixiang Zhang
- Department of Surgery, Hepatic Surgery Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
| | - Boheng Zhang
- Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Leida Zhang
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery Institute, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China
| | - Shuijun Zhang
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, ZhengZhou, China
| | - Ti Zhang
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin, China
| | - Yongfu Zhao
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, ZhengZhou, China
| | - Honggang Zheng
- Department of Oncology, Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Jiye Zhu
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Kangshun Zhu
- Department of Minimally Invasive Interventional Radiology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Rong Liu
- Department of Interventional Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Yinghong Shi
- Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Yongsheng Xiao
- Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Zhi Dai
- Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Gaojun Teng
- Department of Radiology, Zhongda Hospital, Medical School, Southeast University, Nanjing, China
| | - Jianqiang Cai
- Department of Abdominal Surgical Oncology, Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
| | - Weilin Wang
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
| | - Xiujun Cai
- Department of General Surgery, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
| | - Qiang Li
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin, China
| | - Feng Shen
- The Third Department of Hepatic Surgery, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
| | - Shukui Qin
- Department of Medical Oncology, PLA Cancer Center, Nanjing Bayi Hospital, Nanjing, China
| | - Jiahong Dong
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreas Surgery, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital (BTCH), School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
| | - Jia Fan
- Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma is one of the leading causes of cancer related death in the world. Biannual surveillance for the disease in patients with cirrhosis and in high risk carriers of hepatitis B virus allows early stage cancer detection and treatment with good long term outcomes. Liver ultrasonography and serum α fetoprotein are the most commonly used surveillance tests. If suspicious results are found on the surveillance test, multiphasic computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging should be undertaken to confirm the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. If radiologic tests show inconclusive results, liver biopsy or repeat imaging could be considered for confirmation of hepatocellular carcinoma. Management of the disease is complex. Patients should be evaluated by a multidisciplinary team, and the selection of treatment should consider factors such as tumor burden, severity of liver dysfunction, medical comorbidities, local expertise, and preference of patients. Early stage hepatocellular carcinoma is best managed by curative treatment, which includes resection, ablation, or transplantation. Patients with intermediate stage disease often receive locoregional treatment. Systemic treatment is reserved for patients with advanced disease. Several positive, phase III, randomized controlled trials have expanded the systemic treatment options for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with promising long term outcomes, especially trials using combination treatments, which could also have eventual implications for the treatment of earlier stage disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ju Dong Yang
- Karsh Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Comprehensive Transplant Center, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
| | - Julie K Heimbach
- Division of Transplant Surgery, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Huang W, Lu J, Tang R, Wu Z, Wang Q, Ding X, Wang Z, Chen K. Phase Contrast Imaging Based Microbubble Monitoring of Radiofrequency Ablation: An ex vivo Study. Front Oncol 2020; 10:1709. [PMID: 32984051 PMCID: PMC7477093 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.01709] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/25/2019] [Accepted: 07/30/2020] [Indexed: 01/15/2023] Open
Abstract
Background To explore the potential of synchrotron radiation (SR) phase contrast imaging (PCI) for real-time microbubble formation monitoring during radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Methods RFA was performed on ex vivo porcine muscle tissue using unipolar and multi-tined expandable electrodes. Images of microbubble formation in the samples were captured by both SR PCI and absorption contrast imaging. The synchronous ablation temperature was recorded. Each RFA electrode type group contained 6 samples. Ablation size was assessed by histologic examination. Results Microbubble formation during RFA could be visualized by SR PCI. The diameter of the microbubbles revealed on the image ranged from tens of microns to several millimeters, and these microbubbles first appeared at the edge of the RFA electrode when the target region temperature reached approximately 60°C and rapidly extended outwards. The average microbubble range measured on PCI was 17.66 ± 0.74 mm. The average range of coagulation necrosis measured by histological examination was 17.22 ± 0.38 mm. There was no significant difference between them (P > 0.05). The range of microbubbles corresponded to the ablation zone. Conclusion PCI enabled real-time high-resolution visualization of microbubble formation during RFA, indicating a potential for its use in ablation monitoring.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wei Huang
- Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China
| | - Jian Lu
- Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital/Luwan Branch, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China
| | - Rongbiao Tang
- Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China
| | - Zhiyuan Wu
- Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China
| | - Qingbing Wang
- Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China
| | - Xiaoyi Ding
- Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China
| | - Zhongmin Wang
- Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital/Luwan Branch, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China
| | - Kemin Chen
- Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Lu X, Li Z, Liu Y, Wang Z, Peng F, Yu Q, Fu X, Ji B. The Long-Term Efficacy of Radiofrequency Ablation Versus Laparoscopic Hepatectomy for Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma in East Asia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. IRANIAN RED CRESCENT MEDICAL JOURNAL 2020; 22. [DOI: 10.5812/ircmj.102876] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2020] [Revised: 06/21/2020] [Accepted: 07/19/2020] [Indexed: 07/28/2023]
Abstract
Context: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common malignant cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths around the world. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) have been adopted for the treatment of HCC. The aim of the meta-analysis was to explore the long-term efficacy of RFA compared with LH for small HCC (sHCC) patients in the East Asian population. Evidence Acquisition: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis by the literature search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Chinese Biological Medical Literature (CBM), Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang from their inception until October 10, 2019, for comparing the long-term efficacy outcomes of RFA with LH. Results: Fourteen retrospective studies with 1,390 subjects were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with the LH-treated group, RFA could raise the local recurrence rate under median follow-up duration and reduce disease-free survival (DFS) rates at 1 - 3 years. However, it failed to affect 5-year overall survival (OS) and DFS rates. In the subgroup analyses, different RFA approaches had significantly higher local recurrence rates than the LH group. A similar effect on OS and DFS rates within five years for single early (≤ 3 cm) HCCs and on the 1- and 5-year DFS rates for nodules ≤ 5 cm were observed between the two groups, but RFA approaches could reduce the 3-y OS and DFS rates for single nodules ≤ 5 cm. The percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRFA) group had significantly lower 3- and 5-year OS and the 1- and 3-year DFS rates than the LH group, while no significant difference in OS and DFS rates in the laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation (LRFA) approach. The RFA approach improved the 3-year OS compared with the LH group in Japan, but reduced the 3-year OS and DFS rates within 3 years in China. Conclusions: Our results support that LH treating sHCC had a better long-term efficacy and a lower local recurrence rate than RFA in the East Asian population. Further high-quality prospective studies are required to confirm the long-term efficacy.
Collapse
|
19
|
Resection or radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma? Assessment of validity of current studies, meta-analyses and their influence on guidelines. HPB (Oxford) 2020; 22:1206-1215. [PMID: 31959487 DOI: 10.1016/j.hpb.2019.12.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2019] [Revised: 12/04/2019] [Accepted: 12/15/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Two Cochrane reviews compared overall survival following liver resection (LR) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. The first from 2013, found moderate evidence for a survival advantage for LR over RFA when limiting the analysis to trials at low risk of bias. The second (2017), found no evidence for a difference in all-cause mortality for LR versus RFA. Aim was to assess the validity of the randomized controlled trials included in both Cochrane reviews and to investigate their impact on current guidelines. METHODS The validity of the studies was analyzed using the CONSORT checklist. Two meta-analyses were then performed with all eligible studies from both meta-analyses. Finally, the impact of the result of the original meta-analyses on eight international guidelines was assessed. RESULTS The four randomized controlled trials showed several inconsistencies (unclear or inadequate randomization, absence of sample-size calculation, missing blinded setup and/or conflicts of interest). All guidelines used recommendations based on the results of the meta-analyses or on studies included in the meta-analyses. CONCLUSION The analyzed studies showed a substantial lack of overall validity. However the results of these studies and subsequent meta-analyses are used as the evidence base for the majority of current guidelines.
Collapse
|
20
|
Locoregional Therapy Approaches for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Recent Advances and Management Strategies. Cancers (Basel) 2020; 12:cancers12071914. [PMID: 32679897 PMCID: PMC7409274 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12071914] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2020] [Revised: 07/12/2020] [Accepted: 07/14/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver malignancy and third leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. While surgical resection and transplantation are the standard first-line treatments for early-stage HCC, most patients do not fulfill criteria for surgery. Fortunately, catheter-directed and percutaneous locoregional approaches have evolved as major treatment modalities for unresectable HCC. Improved outcomes have been achieved with novel techniques which can be employed for diverse applications ranging from curative-intent for small localized tumors, to downstaging or bridging to resection and transplantation for early and intermediate disease, and locoregional control and palliation for advanced disease. This review explores recent advances in liver-directed techniques for HCC including bland transarterial embolization, chemoembolization, radioembolization, and ablative therapies, with a focus on patient selection, procedural technique, periprocedural management, and outcomes.
Collapse
|
21
|
Shi H, Ong YT, Gogna A, Venkatanarasimha N, Sanamandra SK, Leong S, Irani FG, Lo RHG, Too CW. Perfluorobutane contrast-enhanced ultrasonography: a new standard for ultrasonography-guided thermal ablation of sonographically occult liver tumours? Singapore Med J 2020; 62:546-553. [PMID: 32299186 DOI: 10.11622/smedj.2020061] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Image-guided thermal ablation, preferably with ultrasonography (US), is increasingly used for treatment of small liver tumours. Perfluorobutane-contrast enhanced US (pCEUS) is a promising tool that may allow for targeting of tumours that are otherwise imperceptible on greyscale US. Although pCEUS has been reported to be effective, the literature has been limited outside of Japan and South Korea. We aimed to provide data that supports the use of pCEUS in thermal ablation of sonographically occult liver tumours. METHODS We conducted a retrospective single-centre study of 35 consecutive patients who underwent pCEUS-guided ablation of 48 liver tumours with a median size of 1.2 cm. Periprocedural, one-month post-treatment, and relevant follow-up imaging studies were reviewed. Electronic records were also obtained, with long-term follow-up data of 12-28 months being available for 32 patients. RESULTS 36 (75%) of tumours that were imperceptible on greyscale US became visible with pCEUS. Overall, complete tumour ablation at one month was 89%. 1 (3%) patient developed a major complication following treatment, while 6 (17%) had minor post-treatment complaints. The local tumour progression rate was 17% with a median time of 14 months. CONCLUSION pCEUS has a role in US-guided thermal ablation of liver tumours, offering a high technical success rate that is comparable to reported data. Additional benefits may include improved procedural time and freedom from ionising radiation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Haiyuan Shi
- Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Changi General Hospital, Singapore
| | | | - Apoorva Gogna
- Department of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
| | - Nanda Venkatanarasimha
- Department of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
| | - Sarat Kumar Sanamandra
- Department of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
| | - Sum Leong
- Department of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
| | - Farah Gillan Irani
- Department of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
| | - Richard Hoau Gong Lo
- Department of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
| | - Chow Wei Too
- Department of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Abdel‐Rahman O, Elsayed Z. Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolisation for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 1:CD011313. [PMID: 31978267 PMCID: PMC6984619 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011313.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common liver neoplasm and the sixth most common cancer worldwide. Its incidence has increased dramatically since the mid-2000s. Although surgical resection and liver transplantation are the main curative treatments, only about 20% of people with early hepatocellular carcinoma may benefit from these interventions. Treatment options for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma include ablative and transarterial interventions - selective yttrium-90 microsphere transarterial radioembolisation - in addition to the drug sorafenib. OBJECTIVES To determine the benefits and harms of yttrium-90 (Y-90) microsphere transarterial radioembolisation given as monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional interventions versus placebo, no treatment, or other similar systemic or locoregional interventions for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. SEARCH METHODS We performed electronic searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group (CHBG) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Science Citation Index - Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science until September 2019. We manually checked the reference lists of primary studies and review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA We searched for randomised clinical trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard Cochrane methods. We extracted information on participants, interventions, outcomes, trial design, and trial methods. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials using pre-defined domains and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Our primary review outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, and serious adverse events; our secondary outcomes were cancer-related mortality, time to progression of the tumour, tumour response, non-serious adverse events, and liver transplantation. For dichotomous variables, we calculated risk ratio (RR), and for continuous variables, we planned to calculate mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We based time-to-event data analyses on hazard ratios (HRs). MAIN RESULTS Six randomised trials with 1340 participants in total fulfilled the review inclusion criteria and provided data for one or more of our analysed outcomes. All trials were at high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence as low to very low. One trial compared radioembolisation plus sorafenib versus sorafenib alone in people with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. All-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, cancer-related mortality, time to progression, and tumour response rates were not reported. Serious adverse events were reported in 63 trial participants (39.6%) in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group versus 70 trial participants (38.5%) in the sorafenib group (very low-certainty evidence). Hyperbilirubinaemia was approximately three times more common in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group versus the sorafenib group (14.5% versus 4.4%; very low-certainty evidence). Fatigue was more common in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group than in the sorafenib group, at 35.2% versus 24.2% of trial participants. Two trials compared radioembolisation versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in people with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. From the data we could extract, one-year all-cause mortality was 62.7% in the radioembolisation group versus 53.0% in the sorafenib group (1 trial; n = 360; very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences in the quality of life between radioembolisation and sorafenib groups (1 trial). Global health status subscore was better in the radioembolisation group than in the sorafenib group (P = 0.0048; 1 trial). Fewer participants had serious adverse events in the radioembolisation group than in the sorafenib group (27 (20.8%) in the radioembolisation group versus 57 (35.2%) in the sorafenib group; 1 trial). Median time to progression of the tumour in the radioembolisation group was 6.1 months versus 5.4 months in the sorafenib group (1 trial). The RR for disease control rate was 0.94 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.05; n = 748; 2 trials; very low-certainty evidence), favouring neither radioembolisation nor sorafenib. In two trials with 734 participants, radioembolisation seemed to be less likely to be associated with hand-foot skin reaction (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; P < 0.001; low-certainty evidence), skin rash (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; low-certainty evidence), diarrhoea (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; low-certainty evidence), and hypertension (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.88; low-certainty evidence). No trial reported cancer-related mortality. Three trials compared radioembolisation versus chemoembolisation in people with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. From the data we could extract, none of these trials reported all-cause mortality and cancer-related mortality. The RR for serious adverse events was 1.41 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.14; n = 97; very low-certainty evidence), favouring neither radioembolisation nor chemoembolisation. One trial reported quality of life and noted no differences between intervention groups with regard to this outcome at week 12 (very low-certainty evidence). Median time to progression was not reached in the radioembolisation group and was 6.8 months in the chemoembolisation group (HR 0.122, 95% CI 0.027 to 0.557; 1 trial). Median time to progression of the tumour in the radioembolisation group was 371 days versus 336 days in the chemoembolisation group (P = 0.5764; 1 trial). Disease control rates (complete response + partial response + stable disease) were 73.3% with radioembolisation versus 76.9% with chemoembolisation (1 trial). According to World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, tumour response was reported in 52% of participants who received radioembolisation versus 63% of those who received chemoembolisation (1 trial). Patients in the chemoembolisation group experienced diarrhoea (P = 0.031; 1 trial) and hypoalbuminaemia (P < 0.001; 1 trial) more frequently. Four trials were sponsored by industry, and two by University. We found two ongoing trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Evidence showing effects of radioembolisation with or without sorafenib compared with sorafenib alone in people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is highly insufficient. We cannot determine if radioembolisation plus sorafenib compared with sorafenib alone affects all-cause mortality or the occurrence of adverse events. Radioembolisation compared with sorafenib seemed to achieve equivalent survival and to cause fewer adverse effects, but our certainty was very low. Evidence showing effects of radioembolisation versus chemoembolisation in people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is also highly insufficient. Radioembolisation did not seem to differ from chemoembolisation in terms of serious adverse events and quality of life, but the certainty of evidence was very low. Further high-quality placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials are needed to assess patient-centred outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Omar Abdel‐Rahman
- University of Alberta and Cross Cancer InstituteDepartment of OncologyEdmontonAlbertaCanadaT6G 1Z2
| | - Zeinab Elsayed
- Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams UniversityClinical OncologyCairoEgypt11661
| | | |
Collapse
|
23
|
Patel V, Ritchie CA, Padula C, McKinney JM. Radiofrequency Ablation, Where It Stands in Interventional Radiology Today. Semin Intervent Radiol 2019; 36:398-404. [PMID: 31798214 PMCID: PMC6887522 DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1697945] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is one of the first developed minimally invasive definitive cancer therapies. The safety and efficacy of RFA is well documented and has led to its incorporation into multiple international societal guidelines. By expanding on the body of knowledge acquired during the clinical use of RFA, alternative ablative technologies have emerged and are successfully competing for locoregional therapy market share. The adaption of newer ablative technologies is leading to a rapid decline in the utilization of RFA by interventional radiologists despite the lack of proven superiority. In their 2010 article, Hong and Georgiades stated "… RFA is likely to remain the mainstay of ablations for small tumors until sufficient experience emerges for the widespread acceptance for alternative ablative modalities." Within a decade of this publication, has this time arrived?
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Carlos Padula
- Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
| | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Inchingolo R, Posa A, Mariappan M, Spiliopoulos S. Locoregional treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma: Current evidence and future directions. World J Gastroenterol 2019; 25:4614-4628. [PMID: 31528090 PMCID: PMC6718039 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i32.4614] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2019] [Revised: 07/12/2019] [Accepted: 07/19/2019] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Liver cancers are the second most frequent cause of global cancer-related mortality of which 90% are attributable to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Despite the advent of screening programmes for patients with known risk factors, a substantial number of patients are ineligible for curative surgery at presentation with limited outcomes achievable with systemic chemotherapy/external radiotherapy. This has led to the advent of numerous minimally invasive options including but not limited to trans-arterial chemoembolization, radiofrequency/microwave ablation and more recently selective internal radiation therapy many of which are often the first-line treatment for select stages of HCC or serve as a conduit to liver transplant. The authors aim to provide a comprehensive overview of these various image guided minimally invasive therapies with a brief focus on the technical aspects accompanied by a critical analysis of the literature to assess the most up-to-date evidence from comparative systematic reviews and meta-analyses finishing with an assessment of novel combination regimens and future directions of travel.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Riccardo Inchingolo
- Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Madonna delle Grazie Hospital, Matera 75100, Italy
- Department of Radiology, King´s College Hospital, London SE5 9RS, United Kingdom
| | - Alessandro Posa
- Department of Radiology, IRCSS Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Roma 00186, Italy
| | - Martin Mariappan
- Interventional Radiology Department, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary Hospital, Aberdeen AB25 2ZN, United Kingdom
| | - Stavros Spiliopoulos
- 2nd Radiology Department, School of Medicine; National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Chaidari Athens 12461, Greece
| |
Collapse
|
25
|
Li X, Wu YS, Chen D, Lin H. Laparoscopic hepatectomy versus radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Manag Res 2019; 11:5711-5724. [PMID: 31417314 PMCID: PMC6600087 DOI: 10.2147/cmar.s189777] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/04/2018] [Accepted: 04/18/2019] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim: To compare the effectiveness of laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) with that of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: We conducted a literature search without a language restriction to identify relevant available articles that had been published with the EMBASE and PubMed databases and the Cochrane Library. Studies comparing the outcomes of LH versus RFA for HCC were eligible for inclusion. Results: A total of 10 studies with 1570 patients was included in this meta-analysis. The pooled results revealed that LH was superior to RFA in terms of the 5-year overall survival rate (OR=0.53, 95% CI=0.40, 0.69, p<0.001). In the subgroup analysis of small HCCs, there was still a significantly better 5-year overall survival rate in the LH group compared with the RFA group (OR=0.47, 95% CI=0.33, 0.66, p<0.001). Additionally, the LH group had better 1- and 3-year disease-free survival rate and a lower local recurrence rate, compared with the RFA group. However, the complication rate was higher in the LH group than the RFA group (OR=0.64, 95% CI=0.46, 0.89, p=0.008). Conclusion: Patients who underwent LH had a better long-term prognosis and a lower recurrence rate than those who received RFA. However, we did not obtain conclusive evidence for the superiority of LH over RFA for the treatment of HCCs due to the inclusion of retrospective studies in the present meta-analysis, and well-designed RCTs are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xiaocheng Li
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Hunan University of Medicine, Huaihua, Hunan, People's Republic of China
| | - Yu-Shen Wu
- Chongqing Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology and Epigenetics, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
| | - Duke Chen
- Department of Oncology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
| | - Huapeng Lin
- Department of Intensive Care Unit, Affiliated Hangzhou First People's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, People's Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
26
|
Rochigneux P, Nault JC, Mallet F, Chretien AS, Barget N, Garcia AJ, Del Pozo L, Bourcier V, Blaise L, Grando-Lemaire V, N’Kontchou G, Nahon P, Seror O, Ziol M, Ganne-Carrié N, Olive D. Dynamic of systemic immunity and its impact on tumor recurrence after radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncoimmunology 2019; 8:1615818. [PMID: 31413924 PMCID: PMC6682367 DOI: 10.1080/2162402x.2019.1615818] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2019] [Revised: 04/30/2019] [Accepted: 05/01/2019] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is one of the main treatments of small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, it remains unclear whether this local treatment can induce systemic immune variations. Methods: We conducted a prospective study in a tertiary center including consecutive cirrhotic patients with unifocal HCC<5 cm treated by a first RFA between 2010 and 2014. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were isolated on the day before (D0), day after (D1) and month after RFA (M1). Frequencies and phenotypes of myeloid cells, T cells, and NK cells were compared between timepoints. Overall recurrence and associated variables were estimated using Kaplan-Meier, log-rank and Cox proportional-hazards models. Results: 80 patients were included (69% male, median age: 67 years old). Main aetiologies of HCC were alcohol (51%), hepatitis C virus (45%), non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (36%) and hepatitis B virus (9%). Median overall survival was 55 months (M); median progression-free survival was 29.5M. Among innate immune populations, we observed variations between D0, D1 and M1 in NKp30+ NK cells (p < .0001) and in plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDC, p < .01). Concerning adaptive immunity, we observed variations in CD8 Central Memory (p < .05) and CD28+ CD8 Central Memory (p < .01). An early dynamic (D0/D1) of activated NKp30+ NK cells was associated with a decreased overall recurrence (log-rank, p = .016, median delay 25.1 vs 40.6 months). In contrast, a late dynamic (D1/M1) of immature NK cells (CD56bright) and altered myeloid DC (PDL1+) was associated with an increased overall recurrence (log-rank, p = .011 and p = .0044, respectively). In multivariate analysis, variation of immature NK cells predicts tumor recurrence independently of classical clinical prognostic features (HR = 2.41, 95% CI: 1.15-5.057), p = .019). Conclusions: Percutaneous RFA of small HCC leads to systemic modifications of innate and adaptive immunity closely linked with overall tumor recurrence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philippe Rochigneux
- Medical Oncology Department, Paoli-Calmettes Institute, Marseille, France
- Team Immunity and Cancer, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Marseille (CRCM), Inserm, U1068, CNRS, UMR7258, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
| | - Jean-Charles Nault
- Inserm UMR 1162, Génomique fonctionnelle des Tumeurs solides, Université Paris Descartes, Université Paris Diderot, Université Paris 13, Labex Immuno-Oncology, Paris, France
- Liver Unit, Hôpital Jean Verdier, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Seine-Saint-Denis, APHP, Bondy, Unité de Formation et de Recherche Santé Médecine et Biologie humaine, Université Paris 13, Communauté d’Universités et Etablissements Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | - Françoise Mallet
- Immunomonitoring Platform, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France
| | - Anne-Sophie Chretien
- Team Immunity and Cancer, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Marseille (CRCM), Inserm, U1068, CNRS, UMR7258, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
- Immunomonitoring Platform, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France
| | - Nathalie Barget
- Tumor Biobank, Hôpital Jean Verdier, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Seine-Saint-Denis, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, APHP, Bondy, France
| | - Alejandro J. Garcia
- Core Cytometry Laboratory, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA
| | - Lucie Del Pozo
- Liver Unit, Hôpital Jean Verdier, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Seine-Saint-Denis, APHP, Bondy, Unité de Formation et de Recherche Santé Médecine et Biologie humaine, Université Paris 13, Communauté d’Universités et Etablissements Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | - Valérie Bourcier
- Liver Unit, Hôpital Jean Verdier, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Seine-Saint-Denis, APHP, Bondy, Unité de Formation et de Recherche Santé Médecine et Biologie humaine, Université Paris 13, Communauté d’Universités et Etablissements Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | - Lorraine Blaise
- Liver Unit, Hôpital Jean Verdier, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Seine-Saint-Denis, APHP, Bondy, Unité de Formation et de Recherche Santé Médecine et Biologie humaine, Université Paris 13, Communauté d’Universités et Etablissements Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | - Véronique Grando-Lemaire
- Liver Unit, Hôpital Jean Verdier, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Seine-Saint-Denis, APHP, Bondy, Unité de Formation et de Recherche Santé Médecine et Biologie humaine, Université Paris 13, Communauté d’Universités et Etablissements Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | - Gisèle N’Kontchou
- Liver Unit, Hôpital Jean Verdier, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Seine-Saint-Denis, APHP, Bondy, Unité de Formation et de Recherche Santé Médecine et Biologie humaine, Université Paris 13, Communauté d’Universités et Etablissements Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | - Pierre Nahon
- Inserm UMR 1162, Génomique fonctionnelle des Tumeurs solides, Université Paris Descartes, Université Paris Diderot, Université Paris 13, Labex Immuno-Oncology, Paris, France
- Liver Unit, Hôpital Jean Verdier, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Seine-Saint-Denis, APHP, Bondy, Unité de Formation et de Recherche Santé Médecine et Biologie humaine, Université Paris 13, Communauté d’Universités et Etablissements Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | - Olivier Seror
- Inserm UMR 1162, Génomique fonctionnelle des Tumeurs solides, Université Paris Descartes, Université Paris Diderot, Université Paris 13, Labex Immuno-Oncology, Paris, France
- Radiology Department, Hôpital Jean Verdier, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Seine-Saint-Denis, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, APHP, Bondy, France
| | - Marianne Ziol
- Inserm UMR 1162, Génomique fonctionnelle des Tumeurs solides, Université Paris Descartes, Université Paris Diderot, Université Paris 13, Labex Immuno-Oncology, Paris, France
- Pathology Department, Hôpital Jean Verdier, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Seine-Saint-Denis, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, APHP, Bondy, Unité de Formation et de Recherche Santé Médecine et Biologie humaine, Université Paris 13, Communauté d’Universités et Etablissements Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | - Nathalie Ganne-Carrié
- Inserm UMR 1162, Génomique fonctionnelle des Tumeurs solides, Université Paris Descartes, Université Paris Diderot, Université Paris 13, Labex Immuno-Oncology, Paris, France
- Liver Unit, Hôpital Jean Verdier, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris-Seine-Saint-Denis, APHP, Bondy, Unité de Formation et de Recherche Santé Médecine et Biologie humaine, Université Paris 13, Communauté d’Universités et Etablissements Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | - Daniel Olive
- Team Immunity and Cancer, Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Marseille (CRCM), Inserm, U1068, CNRS, UMR7258, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France
- Immunomonitoring Platform, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Dierselhuis EF, Overbosch J, Kwee TC, Suurmeijer AJH, Ploegmakers JJW, Stevens M, Jutte PC. Radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of atypical cartilaginous tumours in the long bones: lessons learned from our experience. Skeletal Radiol 2019; 48:881-887. [PMID: 30267104 PMCID: PMC6476835 DOI: 10.1007/s00256-018-3078-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/16/2018] [Revised: 09/01/2018] [Accepted: 09/12/2018] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgery is the cornerstone of treatment of symptomatic cartilaginous neoplasms. We previously studied the application of radiofrequency ablation of atypical cartilaginous tumours in the long bones. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the additional effect of placing multiple needles and a longer procedure duration on the proportion of completely ablated tumours. Post-ablation MRI findings and the occurrence of complications were also assessed. METHODS We prospectively included 24 patients with atypical cartilaginous tumours in the long bones. Patients underwent CT-guided radiofrequency ablation followed by curettage with adjuvant phenolisation 3 months later, retrieving material assessed for viable tumour. Before curettage, gadolinium-enhanced MRI was performed to check for residual tumour. The occurrence of complications was noted. RESULTS Complete tumour ablation was achieved in 17 out of 24 patients (71%). Complete ablation was achieved in 5 of the 6 cases (83%) when multiple needles were used in tumours ≥30 mm. There was incomplete ablation in 8% of patients. Post-ablation gadolinium-enhanced MRI findings agreed with the histological results in 17 out of 23 cases and there was a negative predictive value of 83%. One patient suffered a fracture after radiofrequency ablation. CONCLUSION Radiofrequency ablation could be an alternative to curettage when treating atypical cartilaginous tumours in the long bones. It was shown that multiple needle placement in addition to longer duration of the ablation procedure is an effective measure in achieving complete ablation in tumours ≥30 mm. Gadolinium-enhanced MRI has a negative predictive value of 83% and could guide post-ablation follow-up.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edwin F Dierselhuis
- Department of Orthopaedics, Radboudumc, Postbus 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
| | - Jelle Overbosch
- Department of Radiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Thomas C Kwee
- Department of Radiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Albert J H Suurmeijer
- Department of Pathology and Medical Biology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Joris J W Ploegmakers
- Department of Orthopaedics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Martin Stevens
- Department of Orthopaedics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Paul C Jutte
- Department of Orthopaedics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Yang A, Xiao W, Chen D, Wei X, Huang S, Lin Y, Zhang C, Lin J, Deng F, Wu C, He X. The power of tumor sizes in predicting the survival of solitary hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Cancer Med 2018; 7:6040-6050. [PMID: 30430769 PMCID: PMC6308097 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.1873] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2018] [Revised: 09/30/2018] [Accepted: 10/22/2018] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Vascular invasion, rather than tumor size, was applied into the 7th edition of the AJCC TNM staging system to predict survival of solitary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. However, does this mean tumor size is of little value in prognostic prediction? The current study was designed to explore the prognostic ability of tumor sizes in solitary HCC. Methods A total of 18 591 patients with solitary HCC categorized as T1 and T2 were retrieved from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. The Cox proportional hazards regression model was adopted to evaluate the impact of tumor sizes on overall survival (OS) and disease‐specific survival (DSS) in general and in subgroups stratified by vascular invasion and surgery type. Results Large tumor sizes (>39 mm) were associated with unfavorable clinicopathologic characteristics. Compared with tumors ≤30 mm, tumors between 31‐50 mm and tumors >50 mm showed significantly worse OS and DSS in general using multivariate analysis (all P < 0.001). In subgroup analyses, for patients without vascular invasion, tumor size was a notable prognostic indicator for OS in the radiofrequency ablation group (P < 0.001), rather than in the liver resection or transplantation group. Nevertheless, for patients with vascular invasion, tumor sizes exhibited a notable impact on OS in the liver resection and transplantation group. Conclusions The AJCC TNM staging system for solitary HCC would be more comprehensive if tumor sizes were integrated into the T2 classification. Additionally, for T1 patients, tumor sizes play no role in the choice between resection and transplantation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anli Yang
- Department of Breast Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China.,Organ Transplant Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Weikai Xiao
- Department of Breast Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Dong Chen
- Department of Pancreatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Xiaoli Wei
- Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Shanzhou Huang
- Organ Transplant Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Ye Lin
- Department of General Surgery, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China
| | - Chuanzhao Zhang
- Department of General Surgery, Guangdong General Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China
| | - Jianwei Lin
- Organ Transplant Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Feiwen Deng
- Organ Transplant Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Chenglin Wu
- Organ Transplant Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Xiaoshun He
- Organ Transplant Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Schäfer H, Tolksdorf S, Vivaldi C. Radiofrequenzablation (Rafaelo®-Prozedur) zur Therapie von prolabierenden Hämorrhoiden III°. COLOPROCTOLOGY 2018. [DOI: 10.1007/s00053-018-0250-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
|
30
|
Girotra M, Soota K, Dhaliwal AS, Abraham RR, Garcia-Saenz-de-Sicilia M, Tharian B. Utility of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopy in diagnosis and management of hepatocellular carcinoma and its complications: What does endoscopic ultrasonography offer above and beyond conventional cross-sectional imaging? World J Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 10:56-68. [PMID: 29467916 PMCID: PMC5807886 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v10.i2.56] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2017] [Revised: 12/28/2017] [Accepted: 01/15/2018] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma constitutes over 90% of the primary liver tumors, the rest being cholangiocarcinoma. It has an insidious presentation, which is responsible for the delayed presentation. Hence, the management strategy relies on screening to diagnose it an early stage for curative resection and/or treatment with local ablative techniques or chemotherapy. However, even with different screening programs, more than 60% of tumors are still detected at an advanced stage, leading to an unchanged mortality rate, thereby implying a room for improvement in the screening and diagnostic process. In the last few years, there has been evolution of utility of endoscopy, specifically endoscopic ultrasonography along with Fine needle aspiration, for this purpose, which we comprehensively review in this article.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohit Girotra
- Division of Gastroenterology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33136, United States
| | - Kaartik Soota
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Iowa School of Medicine, Iowa City, IA 52242, United States
| | - Amaninder S Dhaliwal
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Nebraska School of Medicine, Omaha, NE 68198, United States
| | - Rtika R Abraham
- Department of Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL 33136, United States
| | | | - Benjamin Tharian
- Division of Gastroenterology, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR 72205, United States
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Orcutt ST, Anaya DA. Liver Resection and Surgical Strategies for Management of Primary Liver Cancer. Cancer Control 2018; 25:1073274817744621. [PMID: 29327594 PMCID: PMC5933574 DOI: 10.1177/1073274817744621] [Citation(s) in RCA: 158] [Impact Index Per Article: 26.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2017] [Accepted: 08/30/2017] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Primary liver cancer-including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC)-incidence is increasing and is an important source of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Management of these cancers, even when localized, is challenging due to the association with underlying liver disease and the complex anatomy of the liver. Although for ICC, surgical resection provides the only potential cure, for HCC, the risks and benefits of the multiple curative intent options must be considered to individualize treatment based upon tumor factors, baseline liver function, and the functional status of the patient. The principles of surgical resection for both HCC and ICC include margin-negative resections with preservation of adequate function of the residual liver. As the safety of surgical resection has improved in recent years, the role of liver resection for HCC has expanded to include selected patients with preserved liver function and small tumors (ablation as an alternative), tumors within Milan criteria (transplant as an alternative), and patients with large (>5 cm) and giant (>10 cm) HCC or with poor prognostic features (for whom surgery is infrequently offered) due to a survival benefit with resection for selected patients. An important surgical consideration specifically for ICC includes the high risk of nodal metastasis, for which portal lymphadenectomy is recommended at the time of hepatectomy for staging. For both diseases, onco-surgical strategies including portal vein embolization and parenchymal-sparing resections have increased the number of patients eligible for curative liver resection by improving patient outcomes. Multidisciplinary evaluation is critical in the management of patients with primary liver cancer to provide and coordinate the best treatments possible for these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sonia T. Orcutt
- Department of Surgery, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria, Peoria, IL, USA
| | - Daniel A. Anaya
- Section of Hepatobiliary Tumors, Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Benson AB, D'Angelica MI, Abbott DE, Abrams TA, Alberts SR, Saenz DA, Are C, Brown DB, Chang DT, Covey AM, Hawkins W, Iyer R, Jacob R, Karachristos A, Kelley RK, Kim R, Palta M, Park JO, Sahai V, Schefter T, Schmidt C, Sicklick JK, Singh G, Sohal D, Stein S, Tian GG, Vauthey JN, Venook AP, Zhu AX, Hoffmann KG, Darlow S. NCCN Guidelines Insights: Hepatobiliary Cancers, Version 1.2017. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2017; 15:563-573. [PMID: 28476736 DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2017.0059] [Citation(s) in RCA: 234] [Impact Index Per Article: 33.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers provide treatment recommendations for cancers of the liver, gallbladder, and bile ducts. The NCCN Hepatobiliary Cancers Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding locoregional therapy for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Al B Benson
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center of Northwestern University
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - William Hawkins
- Siteman Cancer Center at Barnes-Jewish Hospital and Washington University School of Medicine
| | | | - Rojymon Jacob
- University of Alabama at Birmingham Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | | | - R Kate Kelley
- UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | - Robin Kim
- Huntsman Cancer Institute at the University of Utah
| | | | - James O Park
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center/Seattle Cancer Care Alliance
| | | | | | - Carl Schmidt
- The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center - James Cancer Hospital and Solove Research Institute
| | | | | | - Davendra Sohal
- Case Comprehensive Cancer Center/University Hospitals Seidman Cancer Center and Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute
| | | | - G Gary Tian
- St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital/The University of Tennessee Health Science Center
| | | | - Alan P Venook
- UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
白 秀, 杨 薇, 严 昆. 乳腺癌肝转移治疗现状及射频消融的应用及前景. Shijie Huaren Xiaohua Zazhi 2017; 25:1143-1149. [DOI: 10.11569/wcjd.v25.i13.1143] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
乳腺癌是女性发病率和死亡率最高的恶性肿瘤. 乳腺癌晚期常发生转移, 好发转移部位依次为骨、肺、肝等. 近年来, 虽然乳腺癌肝转移(breast cancer liver metastases, BCLM)治疗成功率逐渐提高, 但是BCLM的预后仍然较差. 目前, BCLM的治疗方式尚未成熟, 主要以手术切除、化疗、射频消融(radiofrequency ablation, RFA)治疗、肝动脉栓塞灌注化疗等为主. 本文回顾分析了国内外有关治疗BCLM治疗的文献, 其中重点关注BCLM局部治疗中的RFA治疗, 分析RFA治疗BCLM的应用及前景.
Collapse
|
34
|
Majumdar A, Roccarina D, Thorburn D, Davidson BR, Tsochatzis E, Gurusamy KS. Management of people with early- or very early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: an attempted network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 3:CD011650. [PMID: 28351116 PMCID: PMC6464490 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011650.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hepatocellular carcinoma (primary liver cancer) is classified in many ways. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) group staging classifies the cancer based on patient's life expectancy. People with very early- or early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma have single tumour or three tumours of maximum diameter of 3 cm or less, Child-Pugh status A to B, and performance status 0 (fully functional). Management of hepatocellular carcinoma is uncertain. OBJECTIVES To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions used in the treatment of early or very early hepatocellular carcinoma through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available interventions according to their safety and efficacy. However, it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis and instead assessed the benefits and harms of different interventions versus each other or versus sham or no intervention using standard Cochrane methodology. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to September 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) on hepatocellular carcinoma. SELECTION CRITERIA We included only RCTs, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, in participants with very early- or early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of the presence of cirrhosis, portal hypertension, aetiology of hepatocellular carcinoma, size and number of the tumours, and future remnant liver volume. We excluded trials including participants who were previously liver transplanted. We considered interventions compared with each other, sham, or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We calculated the odds ratio, mean difference, rate ratio, or hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed the risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis using Stata, and the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS Eighteen trials met the inclusion criteria for this review. Four trials (593 participants; 574 participants included for one or more analyses) compared surgery versus radiofrequency ablation in people with early hepatocellular carcinoma, eligible to undergo surgery. Fourteen trials (2533 participants; 2494 participants included for various analyses) compared different non-surgical interventions in people with early hepatocellular carcinoma, not eligible to undergo surgery. Overall, the quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes for both comparisons. Surgery versus radiofrequency ablationThe majority of participants had cirrhotic livers, and the hepatocellular carcinoma was of viral aetiology. The trials did not report the participants' portal hypertension status or whether they received adjuvant antiviral treatment or adjuvant immunotherapy. The average follow-up ranged from 29 months to 42 months (3 trials).There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up for surgery versus radiofrequency ablation (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.08; 574 participants; 4 trials; I2 = 68). Cancer-related mortality was lower in the surgery group (20/115 (17.4%)) than in the radiofrequency ablation group (43/115 (37.4%)) (odds ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.65; 230 participants; 1 trial). Serious adverse events (number of participants) was higher in the surgery group (14/60 (23.3%)) than in the radiofrequency ablation group (1/60 (1.7%)) (odds ratio 17.96, 95% CI 2.28 to 141.60; 120 participants; 1 trial). The number of serious adverse events was higher in the surgery group (adjusted rate 11.3 events per 100 participants) than in the radiofrequency ablation group (3/186 (1.6 events per 100 participants)) (rate ratio 7.02, 95% CI 2.29 to 21.46; 391 participants; 2 trials; I2 = 0%). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. One trial was funded by a party with vested interests; three trials were funded by parties without any vested. Non-surgical interventionsThe majority of participants had cirrhotic livers, and the hepatocellular carcinoma was of viral aetiology. Most trials did not report the portal hypertension status of the participants, and none of the trials reported whether the participants received adjuvant antiviral treatment or adjuvant immunotherapy. The average follow-up ranged from 6 months to 37 months (11 trials). Trial participants, who were not eligible for surgery, were treated with radiofrequency ablation, laser ablation, microwave ablation, percutaneous acetic acid injection, percutaneous alcohol injection, a combination of radiofrequency ablation with systemic chemotherapy, a combination of radiofrequency ablation with percutaneous alcohol injection, a combination of transarterial chemoembolisation with percutaneous alcohol injection, or a combination of transarterial chemoembolisation with radiofrequency ablation.The mortality at maximal follow-up was higher in the percutaneous acetic acid injection (hazard ratio 1.77, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.79; 125 participants; 1 trial) and percutaneous alcohol injection (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.88; 882 participants; 5 trials; I2 = 57%) groups compared with the radiofrequency ablation group. There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up for any of the other comparisons. The proportion of people with cancer-related mortality at maximal follow-up was higher in the percutaneous alcohol injection group (adjusted proportion 16.8%) compared with the radiofrequency ablation group (20/232 (8.6%)) (odds ratio 2.18, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.89; 458 participants; 3 trials; I2 = 0%). There was no evidence of a difference in any of the comparisons that reported serious adverse events (number of participants or number of events). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Five trials were funded by parties without any vested interest; the source of funding was not available in the remaining trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The evidence was of low or very low quality. There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up between surgery and radiofrequency ablation in people eligible for surgery. All-cause mortality at maximal follow-up was higher with percutaneous acetic acid injection and percutaneous alcohol injection than with radiofrequency ablation in people not eligible for surgery. There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up for the other comparisons. High-quality RCTs designed to assess clinically important differences in all-cause mortality and health-related quality of life, and having an adequate follow-up period (approximately five years) are needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Avik Majumdar
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, Pond Street, London, UK, NW3 2QG
| | - Davide Roccarina
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, Pond Street, London, UK, NW3 2QG
| | - Douglas Thorburn
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, Pond Street, London, UK, NW3 2QG
| | - Brian R Davidson
- Department of Surgery, Royal Free Campus, UCL Medical School, Pond Street, London, UK, NW3 2QG
| | - Emmanuel Tsochatzis
- Sheila Sherlock Liver Centre, Royal Free Hospital and the UCL Institute of Liver and Digestive Health, Pond Street, London, UK, NW3 2QG
| | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common liver neoplasm, the sixth most common cancer worldwide, and the third most common cause of cancer mortality. Moreover, its incidence has increased dramatically in the past decade. While surgical resection and liver transplantation are the main curative treatments, only around 20% of people with early hepatocellular carcinoma may benefit from these therapies. Current treatment options for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma include various ablative and transarterial therapies in addition to the drug sorafenib. OBJECTIVES To assess the benefits and harms of external beam radiotherapy in the management of localised unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), and clinicaltrials.gov registry. We also checked reference lists of primary original studies and review articles manually for further related articles (cross-references) up to October 6, 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA Eligible studies included all randomised clinical trials comparing external beam radiotherapy either as a monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional therapies versus placebo, no treatment, or other systemic or locoregional therapies for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used a random-effects model as well as a fixed-effect model meta-analysis but in case of discrepancy between the two models (e.g. one giving a significant intervention effect, the other no significant intervention effect), we reported both results; otherwise, we reported only the results from the fixed-effect model meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials using predefined risk of bias domains; assessed risks of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis; and presented the review results incorporating the methodological quality of the trials using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS Nine randomised clinical trials with 879 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. All trials were at high risk of bias, and we rated the evidence as low to very low quality. All of the included trials compared combined external beam radiotherapy plus chemoembolisation versus chemoembolisation alone in people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma; moreover, three of the trials compared external beam radiotherapy alone versus chemoembolisation alone. All trials were conducted in China. The median age in most of the included trials was around 52 years, and most trial participants were male. The median follow-up duration ranged from one to three years. None of the trials reported data on cancer-related mortality, quality of life, serious adverse events, or time to progression of the tumour. For the comparison of radiotherapy plus chemoembolisation versus chemoembolisation alone, the risk ratio for one-year all-cause mortality was 0.51 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 0.62; P < 0.001; 9 trials; low-quality evidence); for complete response rate was 2.14 (95% CI 1.47 to 3.13; P < 0.001; 7 trials; low-quality evidence); and for overall response rate defined as complete response plus partial response was 1.58 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.78; P < 0.001; 7 trials; low-quality evidence), all in favour of combined treatment with external beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation and seemingly supported by our Trial Sequential Analysis. Additionally, the combined treatment was associated with a higher risk of elevated total bilirubin and elevated alanine aminotransferase. The risk ratio for the risk of elevated alanine aminotransferase was 1.41 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.84; P = 0.01; very low-quality evidence), while for elevated total bilirubin it was 2.69 (95% CI 1.34 to 5.40; P = 0.005; very low-quality evidence). For the comparison of radiotherapy versus chemoembolisation, the risk ratio for one-year all-cause mortality was 1.21 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.50; 3 trials; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence) which was not supported by our Trial Sequential Analysis.In addition, we found seven ongoing randomised clinical trials evaluating different external beam radiotherapy techniques for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found very low- and low-quality evidence suggesting that combined external beam radiotherapy and chemoembolisation may be associated with lower mortality and increased complete and overall response rates, despite an increased toxicity as expressed by a higher rise of bilirubin and alanine aminotransferase. A high risk of systematic errors (bias) as well as imprecision and inconsistency suggest that these findings should be considered cautiously and that high-quality trials are needed to assess further the role of external beam radiotherapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Omar Abdel‐Rahman
- Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams UniversityClinical OncologyLofty Elsayed StreetCairoEgypt11335
| | - Zeinab Elsayed
- Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams UniversityClinical OncologyLofty Elsayed StreetCairoEgypt11335
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
De Cobelli F, Marra P, Ratti F, Ambrosi A, Colombo M, Damascelli A, Sallemi C, Gusmini S, Salvioni M, Diana P, Cipriani F, Venturini M, Aldrighetti L, Del Maschio A. Microwave ablation of liver malignancies: comparison of effects and early outcomes of percutaneous and intraoperative approaches with different liver conditions : New advances in interventional oncology: state of the art. Med Oncol 2017; 34:49. [PMID: 28220346 DOI: 10.1007/s12032-017-0903-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2017] [Accepted: 02/12/2017] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
Liver thermal ablation is an alternative treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and secondary liver malignancies. Microwave ablation (MWA) produces large ablation zones (AZ) in short time; however, AZ prediction is based on preclinical ex vivo models, rising concerns about reproducibility and safety in humans. We aimed to investigate the effects produced by a new-generation MWA system on human liver in vivo with different approaches (percutaneous or intraoperative) and liver conditions (cirrhosis or previous chemotherapy treatment), in comparison with manufacturer-provided predictions based on ex vivo animal models. Complete tumor ablation (CA) and early clinical outcomes were also assessed. From October 2014, 60 consecutive patients (cirrhotic = 31; non-cirrhotic = 10; chemotherapy-treated = 19) with 81 liver nodules (HCC = 31; mets = 50) underwent MWA procedures (percutaneous = 30; laparotomic = 18; laparoscopic = 12), with a 2450 MHz/100 W generator with Thermosphere™ Technology (Emprint™, Medtronic). A contrast-enhanced CT or MR was performed after one month to assess CA and measure AZ. A linear correlation between AZ volumes and ablation times was observed in vivo, without differences from manufacturer-provided ex vivo predictions in all operative approaches and liver conditions. Other independent variables (sex, age, nodule location) showed no relationship when added to the model. Median (IQR) longitudinal and transverse roundness-indexes of the AZs were, respectively, 0.77(0.13) and 0.93(0.11). CA at 1 month was 93% for percutaneous and 100% for intraoperative procedures (p = 0.175). Thirty-day morbidity and mortality were 3% and 0%. MWA with Thermosphere™ Technology produces predictable AZs on human liver in vivo, according to manufacturer-provided ex vivo predictions. In our experience, this new-generation MWA system is effective and safe to treat liver malignancies in different operative and clinical settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Francesco De Cobelli
- Department of Radiology and Experimental Imaging Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.,Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Paolo Marra
- Department of Radiology and Experimental Imaging Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy. .,Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
| | - Francesca Ratti
- Department of Surgery, Hepato-biliary Surgery Unit, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | | | - Michele Colombo
- Department of Radiology and Experimental Imaging Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.,Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Anna Damascelli
- Department of Radiology and Experimental Imaging Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.,Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Claudio Sallemi
- Department of Radiology and Experimental Imaging Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Simone Gusmini
- Department of Radiology and Experimental Imaging Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Marco Salvioni
- Department of Radiology and Experimental Imaging Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy
| | - Pietro Diana
- Department of Radiology and Experimental Imaging Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.,Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Federica Cipriani
- Department of Surgery, Hepato-biliary Surgery Unit, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
| | - Massimo Venturini
- Department of Radiology and Experimental Imaging Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.,Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Luca Aldrighetti
- Department of Surgery, Hepato-biliary Surgery Unit, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.,Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| | - Alessandro Del Maschio
- Department of Radiology and Experimental Imaging Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy.,Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Jiang TA, Deng Z, Tian G, Zhao QY, Wang WL. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided interventional treatment for refractory malignant left-sided liver tumors: a case series of 26 patients. Sci Rep 2016; 6:36098. [PMID: 27958384 PMCID: PMC5153850 DOI: 10.1038/srep36098] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2016] [Accepted: 10/06/2016] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EUS-guided ethanol injection and 125I seed brachytherapy for malignant left-sided liver tumors which were difficult for trans-abdominal intervention. The study protocol was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02816944). Twenty-six patients were consecutively and prospectively hospitalized for EUS-guided interventional treatment of refractory malignant left-sided liver tumors between June 2014 and June 2016. Liver masses were detected using EUS in 25 of 26 (96.2%) patients. EUS-guided interventional treatment was completed uneventfully in 23 of 26 (88.5%) patients using anhydrous ethanol injection (n = 10) or iodine-125 seed implantation (n = 13). Six months later, complete response was achieved in 15 of 23 (65.2%) patients and partial response in 8 of 23 (34.8%) patients. Patients with tumor residual have second-look EUS-guided interventional treatment (n = 5), radiotherapy (n = 2) or surgical resection (n = 1). Complete response was achieved after repeated interventional treatment in 3 of 5 patients who underwent second EUS-guided intervention; 2 patients required additional surgical resection but one succeed. No significant complications occurred. Therefore EUS-guided 125I seed brachytherapy is an effective and safe treatment modality for radical operation or promising palliative control of malignant left-sided liver tumors refractory to trans-abdominal intervention.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tian-An Jiang
- Department of Ultrasound Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310003, China
| | - Zhuang Deng
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310003, China
| | - Guo Tian
- Collaborative Innovation Center for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, Hangzhou 310003, China
| | - Qi-Yu Zhao
- Department of Ultrasound Medicine, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310003, China
| | - Wei-Lin Wang
- Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310003, China.,Collaborative Innovation Center for Diagnosis and Treatment of Infectious Diseases, Hangzhou 310003, China
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Wu LL, Hsieh MC, Chow JM, Liu SH, Chang CL, Wu SY. Statins improve outcomes of nonsurgical curative treatments in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95:e4639. [PMID: 27603355 PMCID: PMC5023877 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000004639] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Statins are associated with a reduced risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and have the potential to be an adjuvant agent for HCC. In this study, we examined whether statin use is associated with additional benefits among patients who received curative treatments (CTs) such as surgery, percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI), and radiofrequency ablation (RFA).We conducted a cohort study using the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Data linked to the Taiwan Cancer Registry in 2001 to 2012. The patient cohort consisted of those who received different treatments, and we compared patients who received statins with those who did not. Statin users were defined as patients who received >28 cumulative defined daily doses after their HCC diagnosis. We used a time-dependent Cox proportional method to model the time from the HCC diagnosis to any death and HCC death between men who received statins and those who did not after adjusting for confounders. Data on statin prescriptions were collected every 6 months to define the user status.In total, 18,892 patients were included, and the mean follow-up duration was 1.74 years. The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of all-cause deaths increased in HCC patients who received RFA/PEI compared to those who received surgery (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.05, with aHRs of 1.81 and 1.16, respectively, for hepatitis B virus [HBV] or non-HBV HCC). However, with the addition of statin use to RFA or PEI, the overall survival was statistically equal.Surgical resection is still superior over other therapies. If HCC patients cannot meet the criteria for surgery, the addition of statin use to RFA or PEI might improve HCC survival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Li-Li Wu
- Department of Ophthalmology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei
- Department of Ophthalmology, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital, Buddhist Tzu Chi Medical Foundation, New Taipei
| | | | - Jyh-Ming Chow
- Department of Hemato-Oncology, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University
| | - Shing-Hwa Liu
- Institute of Toxicology, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University
| | - Chia-Lun Chang
- Department of Hemato-Oncology, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University
| | - Szu-Yuan Wu
- Institute of Toxicology, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University
- Department of Radiation Oncology, Wan Fang Hospital
- Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Taipei
- Department of Biotechnology, Hungkuang University, Taichung, Taiwan
- Correspondence: Szu-Yuan Wu, Department of Radiation Oncology, Wan Fang Hospital, Taipei Medical University, No. 111, Section 3, Hsing-Long Rd, Taipei 116, Taiwan, R.O.C (e-mail: )
| |
Collapse
|
39
|
Qi X, Zhao Y, Li H, Guo X, Han G. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an overview of major findings from meta-analyses. Oncotarget 2016; 7:34703-51. [PMID: 27167195 PMCID: PMC5085185 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.9157] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2016] [Accepted: 04/11/2016] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
This paper aims to systematically review the major findings from meta-analyses comparing different treatment options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A total of 153 relevant papers were searched via the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases. They were classified according to the mainstay treatment modalities (i.e., liver transplantation, surgical resection, radiofrequency ablation, transarterial embolization or chemoembolization, sorafenib, and others). The primary outcome data, such as overall survival, diseases-free survival or recurrence-free survival, progression-free survival, and safety, were summarized. The recommendations and uncertainties regarding the treatment of HCC were also proposed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xingshun Qi
- 1 Department of Gastroenterology and Meta-analysis Study Interest Group, General Hospital of Shenyang Military Area, Shenyang, 110840 China
- 2 Department of Liver Diseases and Digestive Interventional Radiology, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, 710032 China
| | - Yan Zhao
- 2 Department of Liver Diseases and Digestive Interventional Radiology, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, 710032 China
- 3 Department of Gastroenterology, First Affiliated Hospital of the Medical College, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710000 China
| | - Hongyu Li
- 1 Department of Gastroenterology and Meta-analysis Study Interest Group, General Hospital of Shenyang Military Area, Shenyang, 110840 China
| | - Xiaozhong Guo
- 1 Department of Gastroenterology and Meta-analysis Study Interest Group, General Hospital of Shenyang Military Area, Shenyang, 110840 China
| | - Guohong Han
- 2 Department of Liver Diseases and Digestive Interventional Radiology, Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, 710032 China
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Abdel-Rahman OM, Elsayed Z. Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolisation for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 2:CD011313. [PMID: 26905230 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011313.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common liver neoplasm and the fifth most common cancer worldwide. Moreover, its incidence has increased dramatically since the mid-2000s. While surgical resection and liver transplantation are the main curative treatments, only around 20% of people with early hepatocellular carcinoma may benefit from these therapies. Current treatment options for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma include various ablative and trans-arterial therapies in addition to the drug sorafenib. OBJECTIVES To determine the benefits and harms of yttrium-90 microsphere trans-arterial radioembolisation either as a monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional therapies versus placebo, no treatment, or other similar systemic or locoregional therapies for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. SEARCH METHODS We reviewed data from the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded. We also checked reference lists of primary original studies and review articles manually for further related articles (cross-references) up to December 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA Eligible studies included all randomised clinical trials comparing yttrium-90-90 microsphere radioembolisation either as a monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional therapies versus placebo, no treatment, or other systemic or locoregional therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS The two review authors independently extracted the relevant information on participant characteristics, interventions, study outcomes, and data on the outcomes for this review, as well as information on the design and methodology of the studies. The two review authors assessed risk of bias of the included trials using pre-defined risk of bias domains. We used Trial Sequential Analysis to control the risk of random errors. We assessed the methodological quality with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS Two randomised clinical trials with 68 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Both trials were at high risk of bias, and we rated the evidence as very low quality. One of the included trials compared radioembolisation versus chemoembolization for intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma as classified by the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system, while the other included trial was an interim analysis of a randomised trial assessing radioembolisation combined with sorafenib versus sorafenib monotherapy in participants with BCLC-advanced stage hepatocellular carcinoma. The available data were insufficient to perform the planned analyses. Neither of the two trials reported data on all-cause mortality, cancer-related mortality, or time to progression of the tumour. The trial comparing radioembolisation with chemoembolization reported quality of life and serious adverse events, and there were no statistically significant differences between the trial groups with regard to these outcomes at week 12. On the basis of the two included randomised clinical trials, single-session radioembolisation appeared to be as safe as multiple sessions of chemoembolization for intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma and had a similar impact on quality of life, but data were too sparse to exclude even major differences. Radioembolisation followed by sorafenib appeared to be as well tolerated as sorafenib alone for advanced stage hepatocellular carcinoma, but data were too sparse to exclude even major differences. We also identified five ongoing studies evaluating the topic of our review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS There was insufficient evidence to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolisation for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Further randomised clinical trials are mandatory to better assess the potential beneficial and harmful outcomes of yttrium-90 microsphere trans-arterial radioembolisation either as a monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional therapies versus placebo, no treatment, or other systemic or locoregional therapies for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Omar M Abdel-Rahman
- Clinical Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Ain Shams University, Lofty Elsayed Street, Cairo, Egypt, 11335
| | | |
Collapse
|
41
|
Fahrner R, Dondorf F, Ardelt M, Dittmar Y, Settmacher U, Rauchfuß F. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma - factors influencing outcome and disease-free survival. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21:12071-12082. [PMID: 26576092 PMCID: PMC4641125 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i42.12071] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/28/2015] [Revised: 08/04/2015] [Accepted: 09/14/2015] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide. Liver transplantation can be a curative treatment in selected patients. However, there are several factors that influence disease-free survival after transplantation. This review addresses the pre-, intra- and postoperative factors that influence the risk of tumor recurrence after liver transplantation.
Collapse
|
42
|
Bellissimo F, Pinzone MR, Cacopardo B, Nunnari G. Diagnostic and therapeutic management of hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21:12003-12021. [PMID: 26576088 PMCID: PMC4641121 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i42.12003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 54] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2015] [Revised: 08/03/2015] [Accepted: 09/30/2015] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an increasing health problem, representing the second cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. The major risk factor for HCC is cirrhosis. In developing countries, viral hepatitis represent the major risk factor, whereas in developed countries, the epidemic of obesity, diabetes and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis contribute to the observed increase in HCC incidence. Cirrhotic patients are recommended to undergo HCC surveillance by abdominal ultrasounds at 6-mo intervals. The current diagnostic algorithms for HCC rely on typical radiological hallmarks in dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging, while the use of α-fetoprotein as an independent tool for HCC surveillance is not recommended by current guidelines due to its low sensitivity and specificity. Early diagnosis is crucial for curative treatments. Surgical resection, radiofrequency ablation and liver transplantation are considered the cornerstones of curative therapy, while for patients with more advanced HCC recommended options include sorafenib and trans-arterial chemo-embolization. A multidisciplinary team, consisting of hepatologists, surgeons, radiologists, oncologists and pathologists, is fundamental for a correct management. In this paper, we review the diagnostic and therapeutic management of HCC, with a focus on the most recent evidences and recommendations from guidelines.
Collapse
|
43
|
Vitali GC, Laurent A, Terraz S, Majno P, Buchs NC, Rubbia-Brandt L, Luciani A, Calderaro J, Morel P, Azoulay D, Toso C. Minimally invasive surgery versus percutaneous radio frequency ablation for the treatment of single small (≤3 cm) hepatocellular carcinoma: a case-control study. Surg Endosc 2015; 30:2301-7. [PMID: 26534770 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4295-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 33] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2015] [Accepted: 05/26/2015] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Patients with single small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be managed by surgical resection or radio frequency ablation (RFA), with similar recurrence and survival rates. Recently, minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has been introduced in liver surgery, and the advantage/drawback balance between surgery and RFA needs reassessment. METHODS Patients with Child-Pugh class A or B cirrhosis, and with single 1-3 cm HCC, undergoing MIS (laparoscopic or robot-assisted) or RFA from July 1998 to December 2012 were compared. RESULTS Overall, 45 patients underwent MIS, and 60 underwent RFA. Groups were not statistically different regarding type of underlying liver disease, HCC size, and AFP. However, RFA patients showed worse liver synthetic function with lower albumin and higher bilirubin serum levels, and higher ASA scores. Patients with HCC in segments 2-6 were more often treated by MIS. The incidence of complications was similar between groups (RFA: 6/60, 10 % vs. MIS: 5/45, 11 %, p = 0.854), and there was no measurable difference in the rate of procedure-related blood transfusions (RFA: 1/60, 1.7 % vs. MIS: 3/45, 6.7 %, p = 0.185). Local recurrence was only detected after RFA (11.7 %, p = 0.056, log-rank). Overall survival was higher in the MIS group (p = 0.042), with median survivals of 100 ± 13.5 versus 68 ± 15.9 months. CONCLUSION The present data need further validation. Selected patients with single ≤3-cm HCCs can be safely treated by MIS, without increased risk of perioperative complication, and with a lower risk of local recurrence. MIS should be especially favoured in patients with peripheral HCCs in segments 2-6, and/or when a histological assessment is desirable.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giulio C Vitali
- Divisions of Transplant and Abdominal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Geneva Hospitals, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland.
| | - Alexis Laurent
- Department of Hepato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
| | - Sylvain Terraz
- Department of Radiology, University of Geneva Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.,Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Centre, University of Geneva Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Pietro Majno
- Divisions of Transplant and Abdominal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Geneva Hospitals, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland.,Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Centre, University of Geneva Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Nicolas C Buchs
- Divisions of Transplant and Abdominal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Geneva Hospitals, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Laura Rubbia-Brandt
- Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Centre, University of Geneva Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.,Division of Clinical Pathology, University of Geneva Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Alain Luciani
- Department of Radiology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
| | | | - Philippe Morel
- Divisions of Transplant and Abdominal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Geneva Hospitals, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland.,Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Centre, University of Geneva Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Daniel Azoulay
- Department of Hepato-Biliary Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
| | - Christian Toso
- Divisions of Transplant and Abdominal Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Geneva Hospitals, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil, 1211, Geneva, Switzerland. .,Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Centre, University of Geneva Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
44
|
Freedman J, Nilsson H, Jonas E. New horizons in ablation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepat Oncol 2015; 2:349-358. [PMID: 30191017 DOI: 10.2217/hep.15.28] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Historically ablative treatment for hepatocellular cancer (HCC) has been regarded as inferior to transplantation and resection and has therefore been reserved for patients not suitable for surgical intervention in stage 0-A HCC according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification system. In the wake of surgical strategies challenging the current Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer treatment guidelines and improvements in imaging, targeting and ablation technologies, ablation is likely to occupy a more central role in the management of patients with HCC, challenging its historically perceived inferiority to resection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jacob Freedman
- Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Sciences, Division of Surgery, Danderyd Hospital, 182 88 Stockholm, Sweden.,Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Sciences, Division of Surgery, Danderyd Hospital, 182 88 Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Henrik Nilsson
- Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Sciences, Division of Surgery, Danderyd Hospital, 182 88 Stockholm, Sweden.,Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Sciences, Division of Surgery, Danderyd Hospital, 182 88 Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Eduard Jonas
- Clintec, Karolinska Institute, Department of Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.,Clintec, Karolinska Institute, Department of Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
45
|
Hass P, Mohnike K. Extending the Frontiers Beyond Thermal Ablation by Radiofrequency Ablation: SBRT, Brachytherapy, SIRT (Radioembolization). VISZERALMEDIZIN 2015; 30:245-52. [PMID: 26288597 PMCID: PMC4513802 DOI: 10.1159/000366088] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Metastatic spread of the primary is still defined as the systemic stage of disease in treatment guidelines for various solid tumors. This definition is the rationale for systemic therapy. Interestingly and despite the concept of systemic involvement, surgical resection as a local treatment has proven to yield long-term outcomes in a subset of patients with limited metastatic disease, supporting the concept of oligometastatic disease. Radiofrequency ablation has yielded favorable outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and colorectal metastases, and some studies indicate its prognostic potential in combined treatments with systemic therapies. However, some significant technical limitations apply, such as size limitation, heat sink effects, and unpredictable heat distribution to adjacent risk structures. Interventional and non-invasive radiotherapeutic techniques may overcome these limitations, expanding the options for oligometastatic patients and cytoreductive concepts. Current data suggest very high local control rates even in large tumors at any given location in the human body. The article focusses on the characteristics and possibilities of stereotactic body radiation therapy, interstitial high-dose-rate brachytherapy, and Yttrium-90 radioembolization. In this article, we discuss the differences of the technical preferences as well as their impact on indications. Current data is presented and discussed with a focus on application in oligometastatic or cytoreductive concepts in different tumor biologies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Peter Hass
- Department of Radiotherapy, Universitätsklinik Magdeburg AÖR, Magdeburg, Germany ; International School of Image-Guided Interventions/Deutsche Akademie für Mikrotherapie, Magdeburg, Germany
| | - Konrad Mohnike
- International School of Image-Guided Interventions/Deutsche Akademie für Mikrotherapie, Magdeburg, Germany ; Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Universitätsklinik Magdeburg AÖR, Magdeburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
46
|
Slotta JE, Kollmar O, Ellenrieder V, Ghadimi BM, Homayounfar K. Hepatocellular carcinoma: Surgeon's view on latest findings and future perspectives. World J Hepatol 2015; 7:1168-1183. [PMID: 26019733 PMCID: PMC4438492 DOI: 10.4254/wjh.v7.i9.1168] [Citation(s) in RCA: 40] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/29/2014] [Revised: 11/14/2014] [Accepted: 03/20/2015] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common liver-derived malignancy with a high fatality rate. Risk factors for the development of HCC have been identified and are clearly described. However, due to the lack of tumor-specific symptoms, HCC are diagnosed at progressed tumor stages in most patients, and thus curative therapeutic options are limited. The focus of this review is on surgical therapeutic options which can be offered to patients with HCC with special regard to recent findings, not exclusively focused on surgical therapy, but also to other treatment modalities. Further, potential promising future perspectives for the treatment of HCC are discussed.
Collapse
|
47
|
Vilarinho S, Taddei T. Therapeutic strategies for hepatocellular carcinoma: new advances and challenges. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2015; 13:219-34. [PMID: 25791207 DOI: 10.1007/s11938-015-0049-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
OPINION STATEMENT Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fastest growing malignancy in the USA, and its prognosis remains poor with a 5-year survival around 12 %. Clinical data demonstrate that 85 % of cases occur in individuals with underlying cirrhosis and only 15 % develop in non-cirrhotic livers. Therefore, American and European guidelines recommend routine HCC screening for high-risk individuals (patients with cirrhosis) with abdominal ultrasound every 6 months. Once a lesion is identified or suspected on ultrasound, dynamic imaging is then indicated. The diagnosis of HCC is established in a patient with cirrhosis when a lesion measures at least 1 cm in diameter and demonstrates arterial enhancement and portal venous washout on contrast-enhanced computerized tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Indeterminate lesions should be followed with surveillance imaging or further investigated with biopsy according to the level of suspicion for malignancy. Given the clinical, pathological, and molecular heterogeneity of HCC, there are multiple therapeutic modalities available. These may be curative, such as surgical resection, liver transplantation, and local ablation, or palliative, such as catheter-directed therapies (transarterial chemo, radio, or bland embolization), and systemic therapy (sorafenib). Patients with a single lesion, good performance status, and preserved liver synthetic function should be offered curative surgical resection or ablation therapy. Patients with HCC and decompensated liver disease should be evaluated and listed for liver transplantation. For unresectable disease or tumor burden precluding transplantation or curative ablation, palliative therapeutic modalities should be offered. Sorafenib is indicated for patients with vascular invasion and/or extra-hepatic metastasis if the estimated life expectancy is more than 3 months. Systemic internal radiation therapy using yttrium-90 microspheres in cases of multifocal bi-lobar disease and/or portal vein occlusion is an emerging therapy. Best supportive care is recommended for patients who lack the hepatic reserve to tolerate therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sílvia Vilarinho
- Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale University School of Medicine, 333 Cedar Street, 1080 LMP, PO Box 208019, New Haven, CT, 06520-8019, USA,
| | | |
Collapse
|
48
|
Yang B, Zan RY, Wang SY, Li XL, Wei ML, Guo WH, You X, Li J, Liao ZY. Radiofrequency ablation versus percutaneous ethanol injection for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Surg Oncol 2015; 13:96. [PMID: 25889181 PMCID: PMC4355988 DOI: 10.1186/s12957-015-0516-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2014] [Accepted: 02/14/2015] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI) are treatment methods for patients with early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are not suitable for surgery. Although some reports indicate that RFA is better than PEI, results from previous reviews and analyses are inconsistent. Therefore, this meta-analysis was performed to more thoroughly evaluate the effects of these treatments in patients with HCC. METHODS A literature search was conducted using the Excerpta Medica dataBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, the American Society of Clinical Oncology database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, the Wanfang database, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and the Chongqing VIP database without language limitations. The primary outcome evaluated was overall survival, and secondary outcomes included complete response and local recurrence. Comparisons were made between Asian and European studies. RESULTS Total pooled and subgroup analyses of Asian studies that included selection biases revealed that RFA is superior to PEI with respect to overall survival (hazard ratio (HR), 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.37 to 0.80; P < 0.01) and complete response (relative risk (RR), 1.10; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.18; P < 0.01). However, no significant difference was observed between RFA and PEI in the European studies. In Asian studies, RFA was associated with a lower local recurrence rate than PEI at 1 year (RR, 0.44; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.95; P < 0.05) and 3 years (RR, 0.35; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55; P < 0.01). However, local recurrence was significantly lower after only 3 years in European studies (RR, 0.50; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.78; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS RFA was only superior to PEI in Asian studies that included selection bias. Thus, there is insufficient evidence to support the idea that RFA is superior to PEI for patients with cirrhotic HCC. Additional large-scale, multicenter, randomized controlled trials that control for selection bias are needed to fully elucidate the optimal treatment method for HCC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Biao Yang
- Department of Abdominal Oncology, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, No. 17 Renming Road, Chengdu, 610000, People's Republic of China.
| | - Rui-yu Zan
- Department of Abdominal Oncology, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, No. 17 Renming Road, Chengdu, 610000, People's Republic of China.
| | - Shi-yu Wang
- Department of Radiology, Shanghai Children's Medical Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200025, China.
| | - Xiang-lian Li
- Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Centre, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, No. 17 Renming Road, Chengdu, 610000, China.
| | - Mao-ling Wei
- Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Centre, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, No. 17 Renming Road, Chengdu, 610000, China.
| | - Wen-hao Guo
- Department of Abdominal Oncology, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, No. 17 Renming Road, Chengdu, 610000, People's Republic of China.
| | - Xin You
- Department of Abdominal Oncology, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, No. 17 Renming Road, Chengdu, 610000, People's Republic of China.
| | - Jing Li
- Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Centre, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, No. 17 Renming Road, Chengdu, 610000, China.
| | - Zheng-yin Liao
- Department of Abdominal Oncology, West China Hospital, West China Medical School, Sichuan University, No. 17 Renming Road, Chengdu, 610000, People's Republic of China.
| |
Collapse
|
49
|
Weis S, Franke A, Berg T, Mössner J, Fleig WE, Schoppmeyer K. Percutaneous ethanol injection or percutaneous acetic acid injection for early hepatocellular carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 1:CD006745. [PMID: 25620061 PMCID: PMC6394767 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006745.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/27/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common global cancer. When HCC is diagnosed early, interventions such as percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI), percutaneous acetic acid injection (PAI), or radiofrequency (thermal) ablation (RF(T)A) may have curative potential and represent less invasive alternatives to surgery. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of PEI or PAI in adults with early HCC defined according to the Milan criteria, that is, one cancer nodule up to 5 cm in diameter or up to three cancer nodules up to 3 cm in diameter compared with no intervention, sham intervention, each other, other percutaneous interventions, or surgery. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (July 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1946 to July 2014), EMBASE (1976 to July 2014), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to July 2014). We handsearched meeting abstracts of six oncological and hepatological societies and references of articles to July 2014. We contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA We considered randomised clinical trials comparing PEI or PAI versus no intervention, sham intervention, each other, other percutaneous interventions, or surgery for the treatment of early HCC regardless of blinding, publication status, or language. We excluded studies comparing RFA or combination of different interventions as such interventions have been or will be addressed in other Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group systematic reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, and extracted and analysed data. We calculated the hazard ratios (HR) for median overall survival and recurrence-free survival using the Cox regression model with Parmar's method. We reported type and number of adverse events descriptively. We assessed risk of bias by The Cochrane Collaboration domains to reduce systematic errors and risk of play of chance by trial sequential analysis to reduce random errors. We assessed the methodological quality with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS We identified three randomised trials with 261 participants for inclusion. The risk of bias was low in one and high in two trials.Two of the randomised trials compared PEI versus PAI; we included 185 participants in the analysis. The overall survival (HR 1.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 3.19) and recurrence-free survival (HR 1.42; 95% CI 0.68 to 2.94) were not statistically significantly different between the intervention groups of the two trials. Trial sequential analysis for the comparison PEI versus PAI including two trials revealed that the number of participants that were included in the trials were insufficient in order to judge a relative risk reduction of 20%. Data on the duration of hospital stay were available from one trial for the comparison PEI versus PAI showing a significantly shorter hospital stay for the participants treated with PEI (mean 1.7 days; range 2 to 3 days) versus PAI (mean 2.2 days; range 2 to 5 days). Quality of life was not reported. There were only mild adverse events in participants treated with either PEI or PAI such as transient fever, flushing, and local pain.One randomised trial compared PEI versus surgery; we included 76 participants in the analyses. There was no significant difference in the overall survival (HR 1.57; 95% CI 0.53 to 4.61) and recurrence-free survival (HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.69 to 2.63). No serious adverse events were reported in the PEI group while three postoperative deaths occurred in the surgery group.In addition to the three randomised trials, we identified one quasi-randomised study comparing PEI versus PAI. Due to methodological flaws of the study, we extracted only the data on adverse events and presented them in a narrative way.We found no randomised trials that compared PEI or PAI versus no intervention, best supportive care, sham intervention, or other percutaneous local ablative therapies excluding RFTA. We found also no randomised clinical trials that compared PAI versus other interventional treatments or surgery. We identified two ongoing randomised clinical trials. One of these two trials compares PEI versus surgery and the other PEI versus transarterial chemoembolization. To date, it is unclear whether the trials will be eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis as the data are not yet available. This review will not be updated until new randomised clinical trials are published and can be used for analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS PEI versus PAI did not differ significantly regarding benefits and harms in people with early HCC, but the two included trials had only a limited number of participants and one trial was judged a high risk of bias. Thus, the current evidence precludes us from making any firm conclusions.There was also insufficient evidence to determine whether PEI versus surgery (segmental liver resection) was more effective, because conclusions were based on a single randomised trial. While some data from this single trial suggested that PEI was safer, the high risk of bias and the lack of any confirmatory evidence make a reliable assessment impossible.We found no trials assessing PEI or PAI versus no intervention, best supportive care, or sham intervention.There is a need for more randomised clinical trials assessing interventions for people with early stage HCC. Such trials should be conducted with low risks of systematic errors and random errors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastian Weis
- Jena University HospitalCenter for Sepsis Control and Care, and Center for Infectious Diseases and Infection ControlErlanger Allee 101JenaGermany07747
| | - Annegret Franke
- University of LeipzigClinical Trial Centre LeipzigHaertelstrasse 16‐18LeipzigGermany04107
| | - Thomas Berg
- Institute of Gastroenterology and RheumatologyDepartment of Internal Medicine, Neurology, and DermatologyLiebigstrasse 20LeipzigGermany04103
| | - Joachim Mössner
- University of LeipzigDivision of Gastroenterology and Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Neurology and DermatologyLiebigstrasse 20LeipzigGermany04103
| | - Wolfgang E. Fleig
- University of Leipzig Hospitals and Clinics, AöRLiebigstrasse 18LeipzigGermanyD‐04103
| | - Konrad Schoppmeyer
- Euregio‐Klinik GmbHInternal MedicineAlbert‐Schweitzer‐Str. 10NordhornGermany48529
| | | |
Collapse
|
50
|
Weis S, Franke A, Berg T, Mössner J, Fleig WE, Schoppmeyer K. Percutaneous ethanol injection or percutaneous acetic acid injection for early hepatocellular carcinoma. THE COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 2015. [PMID: 25620061 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd006745] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common global cancer. When HCC is diagnosed early, interventions such as percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI), percutaneous acetic acid injection (PAI), or radiofrequency (thermal) ablation (RF(T)A) may have curative potential and represent less invasive alternatives to surgery. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of PEI or PAI in adults with early HCC defined according to the Milan criteria, that is, one cancer nodule up to 5 cm in diameter or up to three cancer nodules up to 3 cm in diameter compared with no intervention, sham intervention, each other, other percutaneous interventions, or surgery. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (July 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1946 to July 2014), EMBASE (1976 to July 2014), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to July 2014). We handsearched meeting abstracts of six oncological and hepatological societies and references of articles to July 2014. We contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA We considered randomised clinical trials comparing PEI or PAI versus no intervention, sham intervention, each other, other percutaneous interventions, or surgery for the treatment of early HCC regardless of blinding, publication status, or language. We excluded studies comparing RFA or combination of different interventions as such interventions have been or will be addressed in other Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group systematic reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, and extracted and analysed data. We calculated the hazard ratios (HR) for median overall survival and recurrence-free survival using the Cox regression model with Parmar's method. We reported type and number of adverse events descriptively. We assessed risk of bias by The Cochrane Collaboration domains to reduce systematic errors and risk of play of chance by trial sequential analysis to reduce random errors. We assessed the methodological quality with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS We identified three randomised trials with 261 participants for inclusion. The risk of bias was low in one and high in two trials.Two of the randomised trials compared PEI versus PAI; we included 185 participants in the analysis. The overall survival (HR 1.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 3.19) and recurrence-free survival (HR 1.42; 95% CI 0.68 to 2.94) were not statistically significantly different between the intervention groups of the two trials. Trial sequential analysis for the comparison PEI versus PAI including two trials revealed that the number of participants that were included in the trials were insufficient in order to judge a relative risk reduction of 20%. Data on the duration of hospital stay were available from one trial for the comparison PEI versus PAI showing a significantly shorter hospital stay for the participants treated with PEI (mean 1.7 days; range 2 to 3 days) versus PAI (mean 2.2 days; range 2 to 5 days). Quality of life was not reported. There were only mild adverse events in participants treated with either PEI or PAI such as transient fever, flushing, and local pain.One randomised trial compared PEI versus surgery; we included 76 participants in the analyses. There was no significant difference in the overall survival (HR 1.57; 95% CI 0.53 to 4.61) and recurrence-free survival (HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.69 to 2.63). No serious adverse events were reported in the PEI group while three postoperative deaths occurred in the surgery group.In addition to the three randomised trials, we identified one quasi-randomised study comparing PEI versus PAI. Due to methodological flaws of the study, we extracted only the data on adverse events and presented them in a narrative way.We found no randomised trials that compared PEI or PAI versus no intervention, best supportive care, sham intervention, or other percutaneous local ablative therapies excluding RFTA. We found also no randomised clinical trials that compared PAI versus other interventional treatments or surgery. We identified two ongoing randomised clinical trials. One of these two trials compares PEI versus surgery and the other PEI versus transarterial chemoembolization. To date, it is unclear whether the trials will be eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis as the data are not yet available. This review will not be updated until new randomised clinical trials are published and can be used for analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS PEI versus PAI did not differ significantly regarding benefits and harms in people with early HCC, but the two included trials had only a limited number of participants and one trial was judged a high risk of bias. Thus, the current evidence precludes us from making any firm conclusions.There was also insufficient evidence to determine whether PEI versus surgery (segmental liver resection) was more effective, because conclusions were based on a single randomised trial. While some data from this single trial suggested that PEI was safer, the high risk of bias and the lack of any confirmatory evidence make a reliable assessment impossible.We found no trials assessing PEI or PAI versus no intervention, best supportive care, or sham intervention.There is a need for more randomised clinical trials assessing interventions for people with early stage HCC. Such trials should be conducted with low risks of systematic errors and random errors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastian Weis
- Gastroenterology and Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Neurology and Dermatology, University of Leipzig Hospitals and Clinics, AöR, Leipzig, Germany, 04103
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|