Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-q6k6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T21:26:17.118Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Conventional chemoembolization and chemoembolization with drug-eluting beads: Technique and future potential

from Section III - Organ-specific cancers – primary liver cancers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2016

Julius Chapiro
Affiliation:
Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology
Florian Nima Fleckenstein
Affiliation:
Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology
Lynn Jeanette Savic
Affiliation:
Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology
Jean-François H. Geschwind
Affiliation:
Yale University School of Medicine
Jean-Francois H. Geschwind
Affiliation:
Yale University School of Medicine, Connecticut
Michael C. Soulen
Affiliation:
Department of Radiology, University of Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia
Get access

Summary

Background

With increasing incidences, primary liver cancer is already the third most common cause of cancer-related deaths. Most liver cancer patients are diagnosed at intermediate to advanced stages and only 20–30% of them are primarily amendable for potentially curative surgical therapies. This circumstance provides the clinical need for alternative therapeutic approaches that would be able to control the disease with the goal of potentially increasing the overall survival upon diagnosis.

Since the 1970s, catheter-based intra-arterial therapies consistently gained acceptance throughout modern medical science. Nowadays, transarterial approaches constitute a core element of established therapies of liver malignancies. In this regard, conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) is one of the most frequently used techniques. TACE with drug-eluting beads (DEB-TACE) is a fairly new technique that was presented to the majority of interventional oncologists about 10 years ago. The main objectives of both approaches are to provide therapeutic options for non-resectable patients in order to improve survival and quality of life in a palliative setting, as well as downstaging or bridging and thus making patients amenable for potentially curative surgical treatment. Both cTACE and DEB-TACE exploit the biological characteristic of most hepatic malignancies being supplied by arterial blood. In contrast, healthy liver tissue is mostly supplied through the portal vein. By injecting chemotherapeutic agents into the tumor-feeding vessels, both procedures target tumor tissue while sparing the surrounding liver parenchyma.

In this chapter, we will describe indications, techniques, and complications of cTACE and DEB-TACE and provide the reader with an overview of the scientific rationale. As a conclusion, we will give a brief outlook on future developments.

Concept and materials used during TACE

The general concept of cTACE was introduced in 1977 by Yamada et al., who intra-arterially delivered gelatin sponge pieces permeated with mitomycin C or Adriamycin, after superselecting the tumor-feeding artery of unresectable hepatomas. Nearly 40 years later, the general concept of cTACE remains the same: a mixture of chemotherapeutic agents combined with an oil-based contrast medium (Lipiodol Ultrafluide) is selectively delivered to the tumor-feeding artery. This is followed by a temporary or permanent embolization (Figure 13.1). The dual character of Lipiodol, serving as a drug carrier and an embolizing agent, makes it a key ingredient of cTACE. It is selectively taken up by tumor tissue. Persisting within the tumor for several weeks, Lipiodol embolizes the tumor vasculature up to the capillaries.

Type
Chapter
Information
Interventional Oncology
Principles and Practice of Image-Guided Cancer Therapy
, pp. 120 - 127
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Parkin, DM, Bray, F, Ferlay, J, Pisani, P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J Clin 2005; 55: 74–108.Google Scholar
2. Otto, G, Schuchmann, M, Hoppe-Lotichius, M, et al. How to decide about liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: size and number of lesions or response to TACE? J Hepatol 2013; 59 (2): 279–284.Google Scholar
3. Yamada, R, Nakatsuka, H, Nakamura, K, Sato, M, Itami, M, Kobayashi, N, et al. Hepatic artery embolization in 32 patients with unresectable hepatoma. Osaka City Med J 1980; 26 (2): 81–96.Google Scholar
4. Yamada, R, Sato, M, Kawabata, M, Nakatsuka, H, Nakamura, K, Takashima, S. Hepatic artery embolization in 120 patients with unresectable hepatoma. Radiology 1983; 148 (2): 397–401.Google Scholar
5. Nakakuma, K, Tashiro, S, Hiraoka, T, Uemura, K, Konno, T, Miyauchi, Y, et al. Studies on anticancer treatment with an oily anticancer drug injected into the ligated feeding hepatic artery for liver cancer. Cancer 1983; 52 (12): 2193–2200.Google Scholar
6. Konno, T, Maeda, H, Iwai, K, Tashiro, S, Maki, S, Morinaga, T, et al. Effect of arterial administration of high-molecular-weight anticancer agent SMANCS with lipid lymphographic agent on hepatoma: a preliminary report. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1983; 19 (8): 1053–1065.Google Scholar
7. Pleguezuelo, M, Marelli, L, Misseri, M, et al. TACE versus TAE as therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 2008; 8 (10): 1623–1641.Google Scholar
8. Yumoto, Y, Jinno, K, Tokuyama, K, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma detected by iodized oil. Radiology 1985; 154 (1): 19–24.Google Scholar
9. Liapi, E, Geschwind, JF. Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for liver cancer: is it time to distinguish conventional from drug-eluting chemoembolization? Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2011; 34: 37–49.Google Scholar
10. Brown, DB, Gould, JE, Gervais, DA, et al. Transcatheter therapy for hepatic malignancy: standardization of terminology and reporting criteria. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2009; 20 (7 Suppl.): S425–S434.Google Scholar
11. Hong, K, Khwaja, A, Liapi, E, Torbenson, MS, Georgiades, CS, Geschwind, JF. New intra-arterial drug delivery system for the treatment of liver cancer: preclinical assessment in a rabbit model of liver cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2006; 12 (8): 2563–2567.Google Scholar
12. Constantin, M, Fundueanu, G, Bortolotti, F, et al. Preparation and characterisation of poly(vinyl alcohol)/cyclodextrin microspheres as matrix for inclusion and separation of drugs. Int J Pharm 2004; 285 (1–2): 87–96.Google Scholar
13. Gonzalez, MV, Tang, Y, Phillips, GJ, et al. Doxorubicin eluting beads-2: methods for evaluating drug elution and in-vitro:in-vivo correlation. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2008; 19 (2): 767–775.Google Scholar
14. Lewis, AL, Gonzalez, MV, Leppard, SW, et al. Doxorubicin eluting beads – 1: effects of drug loading on bead characteristics and drug distribution. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2007; 18 (9): 1691–1699.Google Scholar
15. Lencioni, R, Baere, T de, Burrel, M, et al. Transcatheter treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with doxorubicin-loaded DC bead (DEBDOX): technical recommendations. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2012; 35 (5): 980–985.Google Scholar
16. Luis, E de, Bilbao, JI, Ciercoles, JA de, et al. In vivo evaluation of a new embolic spherical particle (HepaSphere) in a kidney animal model. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2008; 31 (2): 367–376.Google Scholar
17. Groupe d'Etude et de Traitement du Carcinome Hepatocellulaire. A comparison of Lipiodol chemoembolization and conservative treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1995; 332 (19): 1256–1261.
18. Lo, CM, Ngan, H, Tso, WK, Liu, CL, Lam, CM, Poon, RT, et al. Randomized controlled trial of transarterial Lipiodol chemoembolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2002; 35 (5): 1164–1171.Google Scholar
19. Llovet, JM, Real, MI, Montana, X, Planas, R, Coll, S, Aponte, J, et al. Arterial embolisation or chemoembolisation versus symptomatic treatment in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002; 359 (9319): 1734–1739.Google Scholar
20. Aoki, T, Imamura, H, Hasegawa, K, Matsukura, A, Sano, K, Sugawara, Y, et al. Sequential preoperative arterial and portal venous embolizations in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Arch Surg 2004; 139 (7): 766–774.Google Scholar
21. Llovet, JM, Burroughs, A, Bruix, J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet 2003; 362 (9399): 1907–1917.Google Scholar
22. Llovet, JM. Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2004; 7 (6): 431–441.Google Scholar
23. Arii, S, Yamaoka, Y, Futagawa, S, Inoue, K, Kobayashi, K, Kojiro, M, et al. Results of surgical and nonsurgical treatment for small-sized hepatocellular carcinomas: a retrospective and nationwide survey in Japan. The Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan. Hepatology 2000; 32 (6): 1224–1229.Google Scholar
24. Livraghi, T, Meloni, F, Morabito, A, Vettori, C. Multimodal image-guided tailored therapy of early and intermediate hepatocellular carcinoma: long-term survival in the experience of a single radiologic referral center. Liver Transpl 2004; 10 (2 Suppl 1): S98–S106.Google Scholar
25. Burger, I, Hong, K, Schulick, R, Georgiades, C, Thuluvath, P, Choti, M, et al. Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in unresectable cholangiocarcinoma: initial experience in a single institution. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005; 16 (3): 353–361.Google Scholar
26. Liapi, E, Geschwind, JF, Vossen, JA, Buijs, M, Georgiades, CS, Bluemke, DA, et al. Functional MRI evaluation of tumor response in patients with neuroendocrine hepatic metastasis treated with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190 (1): 67–73.Google Scholar
27. Sullivan, KL. Hepatic artery chemoembolization. Semin Oncol 2002; 29 (2): 145–151.Google Scholar
28. Vogl, TJ, Zangos, S, Eichler, K, Yakoub, D, Nabil, M. Colorectal liver metastases: regional chemotherapy via transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and hepatic chemoperfusion: an update. Eur Radiol 2007; 17 (4): 1025–1034.Google Scholar
29. Baere, T de, Deschamps, F, Teriitheau, C, et al. Transarterial chemoembolization of liver metastases from well differentiated gastroenteropancreatic endocrine tumors with doxorubicin-eluting beads: preliminary results. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2008; 19: 855–861.Google Scholar
30. Forner, A, Ayuso, C, Varela, M, et al. Evaluation of tumor response after locoregional therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma: are response evaluation criteria in solid tumors reliable? Cancer 2009; 115: 616–623.Google Scholar
31. Forner, A, Llovet, JM, Bruix, J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet 2012; 379 (9822): 1245–1255.Google Scholar
32. Georgiades, CS, Liapi, E, Frangakis, C, et al. Prognostic accuracy of 12 liver staging systems in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma treated with transarterial chemoembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006; 17 (10): 1619–1624.Google Scholar
33. Liapi, E, Hong, K, Georgiades, CS, Geschwind, JF. Three-dimensional rotational angiography: introduction of an adjunctive tool for successful transarterial chemoembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005; 16 (9): 1241–1245.Google Scholar
34. Lencioni, R, Llovet, JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis 2010; 30: 52–60.Google Scholar
35. Lim, HK, Han, JK. Hepatocellular carcinoma: evaluation of therapeutic response to interventional procedures. Abdom Imaging 2002; 27: 168–179.Google Scholar
36. Lin, M, Pellerin, O, Bhagat, N, et al. Quantitative and volumetric EASL and RECIST: feasibility of a semi-automated software method to assess tumor response after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE). J Vasc Intervent Radiol 2012; 23 (12): 1629–1637.Google Scholar
37. Chapiro, J, Wood, LD, Lin, M, Duran, R, Geschwind, JF, et al. Radiologic–pathologic analysis of contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging in patients with HCC after TACE: diagnostic accuracy of 3D quantitative image analysis. Radiology 2014; Jul 15: 140033.Google Scholar
38. Duran, R, Chapiro, J, Frangakis, C, Lin, M, Geschwind, JF, et al. Uveal melanoma metastatic to the liver: the role of quantitative volumetric contrast-enhanced MR imaging in the assessment of early tumor response after transarterial chemoembolization. Transl Oncol 2014; S1936–5233 (14): 00059-X.Google Scholar
39. Fleckenstein, FN, Schernthaner, RE, Duran, R, et al. 3D Quantitative tumour burden analysis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma before TACE: comparing single-lesion vs. multi-lesion imaging biomarkers as predictors of patient survival. Eur Radiol 2016; 10.1007/s00330-015-4168-3.Google Scholar
40. Brown, DB, Nikolic, B, Covey, AM, et al. Quality improvement guidelines for transhepatic arterial chemoembolization, embolization, and chemotherapeutic infusion for hepatic malignancy. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2012; 23 (3): 287–294.Google Scholar
41. Bouvier, A, Ozenne, V, Aube, C, et al. Transarterial chemoembolisation: effect of selectivity on tolerance, tumour response and survival. Eur Radiol 2011; 21 (8): 1719–1726.Google Scholar
42. Lammer, J, Malagari, K, Vogl, T, et al. Prospective randomized study of doxorubicin-eluting-bead embolization in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: results of the PRECISION V study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2010; 33 (1): 41–52.Google Scholar
43. Malenstein, H Van, Maleux, G, Vandecaveye, V, et al. A randomized phase II study of drug-eluting beads versus transarterial chemoembolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Onkologie 2011; 34 (7): 368–376.Google Scholar
44. Simonetti, RG, Liberati, A, Angiolini, C, Pagliaro, L. Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Ann Oncol 1997; 8 (2): 117–136.Google Scholar
45. Gupta, S, Johnson, MM, Murthy, R, Yao, JC. Hepatic arterial embolization and chemoembolization for the treatment of patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumors. Cancer 2005; 104 (8): 1590–1602.Google Scholar
46. Reyes, DK, Vossen, JA, Kamel, IR, et al. Single-center phase II trial of transarterial chemoembolization with drug-eluting beads for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: initial experience in the United States. Cancer J 2009; 15 (6): 526–532.Google Scholar
47. Sergio, A, Cristofori, C, Cardin, R, et al. Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): the role of angiogenesis and invasiveness. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103 (4): 914–921.Google Scholar
48. Scartozzi, M, Faloppi, L, Bianconi, M, et al. The role of LDH serum levels in predicting global outcome in HCC patients undergoing TACE: implications for clinical management. PLoS ONE 2012; 7 (3): e32653.Google Scholar
49. Llovet, JM, Ricci, S, Mazzaferro, V, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2008; 359 (4): 378–390.Google Scholar
50. Pawlik, TM, Reyes, DK, Cosgrove, D, Kamel, IR, Bhagat, N, Geschwind, JF. Phase II trial of sorafenib combined with concurrent transarterial chemoembolization with drug-eluting beads for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29 (30): 3960–3967.Google Scholar
51. Geschwind, JF, Kudo, M, Marrero, JA, et al. TACE treatment in patients with sorafenib-treated unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in clinical practice: final analysis of GIDEON. Radiology 2016; 10.1148/radiol.2015150667:150667.Google Scholar
52. Bonekamp, S, Li, Z, Geschwind, JF, et al. Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: MR imaging after intraarterial therapy. Part I. Identification and validation of volumetric functional response criteria. Radiology 2013; 268 (2): 420–430.Google Scholar
53. Loffroy, R, Lin, M, Yenokyan, G, et al. Intraprocedural C-arm dual-phase cone-beam CT: can it be used to predict short-term response to TACE with drug-eluting beads in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma? Radiology 2013; 266 (2): 636–648.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×