Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_3657_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Endovascular Aneurysm Repair
- •Clinical Applications
- •Aortic Procedures Planning
- •Performance Assessment
- •Future Prospects
- •References
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Medical Error
- •Traditional Training
- •Animal Simulation Labs
- •Virtual Reality Simulation
- •3: Radiation Safety
- •Introduction
- •Basic Radiation Physics Units
- •Personnel Dose Limits
- •Pregnant Personnel
- •References
- •4: Tools of the Trade
- •Needles, Catheters, and Wires
- •Vascular Access
- •Double Wall
- •Single Wall
- •Advantages/Disadvantages
- •Nonvascular Needles (Table 4.1)
- •Guidewires
- •Curved
- •Straight/Angled
- •Stiffness
- •Flexibility
- •Coating
- •Torqueability
- •Opacity
- •Catheters
- •Flush Catheters
- •Visceral Catheters
- •Multipurpose Catheters
- •Cerebral Catheters
- •Guiding Catheters
- •Microcatheters
- •Vascular Sheaths
- •Vessel Dilators
- •Accessories
- •Embolic Agents
- •Temporary Agents
- •Permanent Agents
- •Pushable Coils
- •Detachable Coils
- •Coiling Techniques (Fig. 4.48)
- •Vascular Plugs
- •Particulates
- •Liquid Embolics
- •Fogarty Balloons
- •Angioplasty Balloons
- •Drug-Coated Balloons
- •Vascular Stents
- •Balloon Expandable Stents
- •Self-Expandable Stents
- •Specialty Stents
- •References
- •Consults
- •Pre-procedure Evaluation
- •Consent
- •Code Status
- •Laboratory Testing
- •Antibiotic Prophylaxis
- •Anticoagulation
- •Antihypertensives
- •Contrast Allergy Prophylaxis
- •Procedure Plan
- •Post-procedure Management
- •Hospital Admission
- •Discharge
- •Follow-up Visits
- •IR Clinic
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •6: The IR Road Map: Vascular Anatomy Overview
- •Introduction
- •Imaging Modalities
- •Ultrasound
- •Computed Tomography
- •Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- •Cross-Sectional Anatomy
- •Chest
- •Segmental Lung Anatomy
- •Mediastinum
- •Pulmonary Arteries
- •Pulmonary Veins
- •Bronchial Arteries
- •Liver
- •Arterial Access
- •Double-Wall Technique
- •Common Femoral Artery Access
- •Kidneys
- •Ureters
- •Bladder
- •Uterus
- •References
- •Alternative Arterial Access Sites
- •Venous Access
- •Manual Compression
- •Closure Devices
- •Compression Devices
- •Topical Agents
- •Invasive Devices
- •References
- •9: Central Venous Access
- •Pathophysiology
- •Non-tunneled Central Catheters (NTCCs)
- •Tunneled Central Catheters (TCCs)
- •Implantable Ports
- •Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters (PICCs)
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Non-tunneled Central Catheters
- •Tunneled Central Catheters
- •Ports
- •PICCs
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Ports
- •PICCs
- •Pre-procedural Prep
- •History
- •Physical Exam
- •Imaging
- •Complex Venous Access
- •Post-procedural Management
- •Complications
- •Acute Complications
- •Long-Term Complications
- •Device Removal
- •Tunneled Catheter Removal
- •Port Removal
- •References
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •References
- •11: IVC Filters
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •IVC Filter Placement
- •VTE Prevention
- •Preprocedural Preparation
- •Complication
- •Access Site
- •Device-Related
- •Postprocedural Management
- •IVC Filter Retrieval
- •Advanced IVC Filter Retrieval Techniques
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Pathophysiology
- •Arteriovenous Fistula
- •Arteriovenous Graft
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •AVG Angioplasty
- •AVF Angioplasty
- •References
- •13: Pelvic Congestion Syndrome
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •References
- •14: Varicocele
- •Pathophysiology
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •References
- •15: Varicose Veins
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •References
- •16: Vascular Malformations
- •Pathophysiology
- •Hemangiomas
- •Vascular Malformations
- •Arteriovenous Malformations (High Flow)
- •Venous Malformations (Low Flow)
- •Lymphatic Malformations
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •High-Flow AVMs
- •Low-Flow Venous Malformations
- •Klippel-Trenaunay Syndrome
- •Lymphatic Malformations
- •References
- •Pathophysiology
- •Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA)
- •Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm (TAA)
- •Clinical Indication
- •Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
- •Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
- •Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
- •Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm
- •Common Complications
- •Access
- •Contrast Nephropathy
- •Spinal Cord Ischemia
- •Postoperative Monitoring
- •References
- •18: Aortic Dissection
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Preprocedure Work-Up
- •Post-procedural Management
- •References
- •19: Endoleak
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Type II Endoleaks
- •Type III Endoleaks
- •Type IV Endoleaks
- •Type V Endoleaks
- •References
- •20: Traumatic Aortic Injury
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Pre-procedural Prep
- •Pre-procedural Imaging
- •Post-procedural Management
- •Post-procedural Imaging
- •References
- •21: Bronchial Artery Embolization
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Outcomes
- •References
- •Pathophysiology
- •Pulmonary Arteriovenous Malformation
- •Pulmonary Artery Pseudoaneurysm
- •Clinical Indication
- •Pulmonary Arteriovenous Malformation
- •Pulmonary Artery Pseudoaneurysm
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Pulmonary Arteriovenous Malformation
- •Pulmonary Artery Pseudoaneurysm
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Pulmonary Arteriovenous Malformation
- •Pulmonary Artery Pseudoaneurysm
- •References
- •23: Lymphatic Interventions
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Pedal Lymphangiography (PL)
- •Intranodal Lymphangiography (IL)
- •Dynamic Contrast Enhanced MR Lymphangiography (DCMRL)
- •Thoracic Duct Embolization
- •Plastic Bronchitis
- •References
- •24: Mesenteric Ischemia
- •Pathophysiology
- •Acute Mesenteric Ischemia
- •Chronic Mesenteric Ischemia
- •Clinical Indication
- •Acute Mesenteric Ischemia
- •Arterial Occlusive Disease
- •Nonocclusive Mesenteric Ischemia (NOMI)
- •Portomesenteric Vein Thrombosis
- •Chronic Mesenteric Ischemia
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Acute Mesenteric Ischemia
- •Arterial Occlusive Disease
- •Nonocclusive Mesenteric Ischemia (NOMI)
- •Portomesenteric Vein Thrombosis
- •Chronic Mesenteric Ischemia
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Acute Mesenteric Ischemia
- •Chronic Mesenteric Ischemia
- •References
- •25: Visceral Aneurysms
- •Pathophysiology
- •Visceral Artery True Aneurysms (VATAs)
- •Visceral Artery Pseudoaneurysm (VAPA)
- •Clinical Indication
- •VATA
- •VAPA
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Splenic Artery Aneurysms
- •Renal Artery Aneurysms
- •Hepatic Artery Aneurysms
- •Celiac Artery Aneurysms
- •Complications
- •Splenic Aneurysm
- •Renal Aneurysm
- •Hepatic Aneurysm
- •References
- •26: Renal Artery Stenosis
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Indications
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Post-procedural Care
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •27: GI Bleeding
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Complications
- •References
- •28: Uterine Artery Embolization
- •Pathophysiology
- •Fibroids
- •Adenomyosis
- •Postpartum Hemorrhage
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Fibroids
- •Adenomyosis
- •Postpartum Hemorrhage
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Fibroids
- •Adenomyosis
- •Postpartum Hemorrhage
- •AV Fistula
- •References
- •29: Prostate Artery Embolization
- •Pathophysiology
- •Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
- •Prostate Cancer/Hematuria
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •References
- •30: Aortoiliac Disease
- •Pathophysiology
- •Blue Toe Syndrome
- •Leriche Syndrome
- •Fibromuscular Dysplasia
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Abdominal Aorta
- •Aortic Bifurcation
- •Common Iliac Artery
- •External Iliac Artery
- •Internal Iliac Artery
- •Blue Toe Syndrome
- •References
- •31: Infrainguinal Disease
- •Pathophysiology
- •Claudication (Rutherford Categories 1–3)
- •Critical Limb Ischemia: Rest Pain (Rutherford Category 4)
- •Critical Limb Ischemia: Skin Lesions (Rutherford Categories 5–6)
- •Acute Limb Ischemia
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Percutaneous Transluminal Angioplasty
- •Stents
- •Acute Limb Ischemia
- •References
- •Pathophysiology
- •Spleen
- •Liver
- •Kidney
- •Clinical Indication
- •Spleen
- •Liver
- •Kidney
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Spleen
- •Liver
- •Kidney
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Spleen
- •Pre-procedure
- •Post-procedure
- •Liver
- •Pre-procedure
- •Post-procedure
- •Kidney
- •Pre-procedure
- •Post-procedure
- •References
- •Pathophysiology
- •Pelvic Fractures
- •Extremity Fractures
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •References
- •34: Transarterial Chemoembolization
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Indications
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Medical Management
- •Surgical Management
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Post-procedure
- •References
- •35: Transarterial Radioembolization (TARE)
- •Introduction
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Primary Liver Cancers
- •Hepatic Metastatic Disease
- •References
- •36: Liver Ablation
- •Pathophysiology
- •Liver Cancer
- •Liver Metastases
- •Liver Cysts
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Liver Cancer
- •Liver Metastases
- •Liver Cysts
- •Interventional Therapy
- •References
- •Pathophysiology
- •Lung Cancer
- •Renal Cell Carcinoma
- •Bone Lesions
- •Clinical Indication
- •Lung Cancer
- •Kidney Cancer
- •Bone Lesions
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Lung Cancer
- •Kidney Cancer
- •Bone Lesions
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA)
- •Microwave Ablation (MWA)
- •Cryoablation
- •Irreversible Electroporation (IRE)
- •Lung Cancer
- •Kidney Cancer
- •Bone Lesions
- •References
- •Pathophysiology
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Ascites
- •Varices
- •Interventional Therapy
- •References
- •Pathophysiology
- •Etiology
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Medical Management
- •Surgical Management
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Post-procedural Management
- •Complications
- •References
- •40: Biliary Drainage
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •41: Biopsy Techniques
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Indication
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Needle Selection
- •Biopsy Techniques
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Pathophysiology
- •Ascites
- •Clinical Indication
- •Ascites
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Ascites
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Ascites
- •References
- •43: Obstructive Uropathy
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Urolithiasis
- •Infection
- •Urothelial Carcinoma
- •Neurogenic Bladder
- •Interventional Therapy
- •References
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Indications
- •Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrojejunostomy (PRGJ) Tube
- •Percutaneous Jejunostomy (PJ) Tube
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy (PRG)
- •Post-procedural Management
- •Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrojejunostomy (PRGJ)
- •Percutaneous Jejunostomy (PJ)
- •References
- •45: Stroke
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Complications
- •Post-procedure Management
- •References
- •46: Cerebral Angiography: Aneurysms
- •Pathophysiology
- •Clinical Indication
- •Conventional Therapy
- •Interventional Therapy
- •Pre-procedural Preparation
- •Post-procedural Management
- •Complications
- •References

35 Transarterial Radioembolization (TARE)
391
Table 35.2 Median overall survival (in months) based on Barcelona
Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage following
[42, 49, 50]
Stage Median overall survival (months)
BCLC A (early) 24.4–26.9
BCLC B (intermediate) 16.4–17.2
BCLC C (advanced) 7.3–10.0
Table 35.3 Median overall survival (in months) for patients with and
without HCC portal vein thrombus (PVT) following
Salem etal. [42] Hilgard etal. [49]
PVT absent CP-A 22.1
CP-B 14.8
PVT present CP-A 10.4
CP-B 5.6
CP Child-Pugh score
16.4 18.0
10.0 13.0
90
Y radioembolization
90
Y radioembolization
Mazzaferro
etal. [51]
chemoembolization (TACE) or TARE.Patients who received
TARE had more durable tumor control compared to patients
who received TACE (>26months vs. 6.8months, P=0.0012).
There was no signicant difference in survival between the
two groups [19]. In a study previously published by the same
group, TARE had been shown to be better tolerated than
TACE with fewer adverse events and clinical toxicities [20].
TARE offers treatment strategies for particular clinical
situations that are not possible with other transarterial therapies, such as radiation segmentectomy, radiation lobectomy,
and dose-intensication for the treatment of HCC with portal
vein tumor thrombus (PVTT). Radiation segmentectomy
refers to the selective administration of a high dose of radioactive microspheres to a small volume of tumor-bearing liver
parenchyma (≤2 hepatic segments). Vouche etal. describe
the use of radiation segmentectomy to achieve ablative doses
of radiation to tumors that are not amenable to percutaneous
ablation [21–23]. Over time, the tumor and treated hepatic
segment(s) may nearly disappear, as if a surgical segmentectomy had been performed.
In order to be a candidate for a hepatic resection, the volume of a patient’s liver remnant following surgery, referred to
as the future liver remnant (FLR), must be sufcient to support hepatic function. For patients with an insufcient FLR,
the radiation lobectomy technique can be utilized to induce
sufcient hypertrophy of the FLR in order to allow the patient
to undergo surgical resection. Radiation lobectomy involves
treatment of the tumor and tumor- bearing hepatic lobe, which
results in atrophy of the treated lobe and a compensatory
hypertrophy of the FLR. Radiation lobectomy has substantial
clinical implications, as it provides locoregional treatment
and control of HCC while mandating a biological test of time
during FLR hypertrophy, thus favoring selection of patients
most likely to benet from surgical resection [24, 25].
Invasion of the portal vein by HCC is associated with a
markedly reduced survival compared to patients without
portal vein involvement. When performing TARE with
conventional dosimetry, median survival for patients with
preserved liver function (Child-Pugh A) and branch PVTT is
approximately 16–17 months, which decreases to
approximately 8–9 months for patients with main PVTT
[26]. However, Garin etal. have reported the use of intensied
doses of 90Y microspheres targeting the PVTT, resulting in
median overall survival of 21.5 months for patients with
branch PVTT and 12months for patients with main PVTT,
without increased rates of liver toxicity [27].
With regard to intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, pooled
analyses have shown median survival rates of approximately
15.5 months following TARE, which are greater than
historical survival rates. At 3 months, disease control has
been achieved in greater than 80% of patients [28]. Radiation
lobectomy has also been performed for patients with
intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma [25].
Hepatic Metastatic Disease
TARE has shown favorable results in the treatment of liver
metastases, typically for the treatment of hepatic metastases
that have continued to progress despite systemic
chemotherapy (chemorefractory). The use of TARE early in
the treatment of hepatic metastases has recently been
reported and continues to be under investigation.
For patients with colorectal liver metastases, the SIRFLOX
trial has provided initial level 1 evidence for the use of TARE
in conjunction with systemic chemotherapy as a rst-line
treatment of colorectal liver metastases. The study used overall progression-free survival (PFS) as the primary endpoint
and hepatic progression-free survival as a secondary endpoint. There was no difference in overall PFS.The hepatic
PFS was signicantly greater for the TARE/chemotherapy
arm compared to chemotherapy alone (20.5 vs. 12.6months,
P=0.02). The SIRFLOX trial is ongoing and is being combined with other related and ongoing trials to determine if a
prolonged hepatic PFS translates into an improved overall
survival [29]. Prior studies have shown that the addition of
TARE to chemotherapy resulted in signicant increases in the
time to tumor progression compared to chemotherapy alone
[30–32] with trends toward prolonged survival [30, 32] or sta-
tistically signicant survival benets [31].
Key Point
Overall survival for TARE-treated colorectal liver metas-
tases is not increased over chemotherapy. However, tumor
progression is signicantly improved. More trials are
ongoing to further clarify the role and timing of TARE in
patients with primary and metastatic liver cancer.

392
R. Hickey et al.
For colorectal liver metastases that are refractory to chemotherapy, TARE has demonstrated similar outcomes in a
number of large studies, with median overall survival rates
from the time of TARE ranging from 9.6 to 10.6months [33–
36]. In these studies, patients with liver-only disease had bet-
ter outcomes compared to patients with extrahepatic disease.
For patients with neuroendocrine liver metastases, disease
control rates of 92–94% have been reported with TARE from
a multicenter study with median survival times of 22–28months
[37]. In the setting of neuroendocrine liver metastases that
were no longer responding to systemic therapy, TARE provided a tumor response in nearly 70% of patients [38].
TARE is a treatment option for patients with breast cancer
liver metastases that have progressed despite multiple
chemotherapies. In this setting, TARE has achieved a partial
response in 35.3% of patients and stable disease in 63.2%,
which indicates a disease control rate of 98.5% [39].
Patients with hepatic metastases of uveal melanoma have
few systemic treatment options. Given that patients with
uveal melanoma frequently have liver-only or liver-dominant
metastases, transarterial therapies are often performed. For
patients who have failed other transarterial therapies, TARE
has demonstrated encouraging overall survival and hepatic
progression-free survival rates of 10 and 4.7months, respectively [40]. In another study, disease control rates in excess of
75% at rst follow-up have been reported for uveal melanoma
liver metastases that progressed despite other treatments [41].
phrenic arteries may be of potential concern depending on
their size and proximity to the infusion site. If there is a risk
of nontarget embolization during infusion into a particular
hepatic artery, either a new site of infusion should be selected
or the extrahepatic artery at risk should be occluded with coil
embolization. Accordingly, it is important to understand the
anatomic origin of these vessels:
• The cystic artery typically originates from the proper or
right hepatic artery. Excessive infusion into the gallbladder
may cause radiation cystitis [21, 22].
• The right gastric artery most often arises from the proper
hepatic artery, followed by the proximal left hepatic
artery. It can rarely arise from the common hepatic artery
or the right hepatic artery [47]. It takes a medial course,
perfusing the lesser curvature of the stomach along where
it anastomoses with branches of the left gastric artery
(Figs.35.1 and 35.2). Nontarget embolization of radioactive microspheres to the gastroduodenal and gastric arteries can result in severe radiation gastric ulcers.
Key Point
Arteries of greatest concern for nontarget embolization:
• GDA
• Right gastric artery
• Accessory left gastric artery
• Supraduodenal artery
• Retroportal artery
• Cystic artery
• Falciform artery complex
• Left inferior phrenic artery
Radioembolization is a two-step procedure with subsequent treatments as needed; the majority of the procedure
occurs in the planning stages in order to optimize treatment.
The rst step of TARE is performing a mapping angiogram
in order to identify areas of target and nontarget embolization. The extrahepatic arteries of greatest concern for nontarget embolization include the gastroduodenal artery, right
gastric artery and accessory left gastric artery, and less frequently the supraduodenal and retroportal arteries [46]. The
cystic artery, falciform artery complex, and left inferior
Fig. 35.1 Celiac angiogram demonstrating a typical course of the right
gastric artery (red arrows), which is arising from the proper hepatic artery
Fig. 35.2 Selective catheterization of the right gastric artery seen in
Fig.35.1. Angiography conrms perfusion of the lesser curvature of the
stomach

35 Transarterial Radioembolization (TARE)
Fig. 35.3 Left hepatic angiogram demonstrates a vessel (red arrows)
extending beyond the medial margin of the left hepatic lobe (curved
blue line), the location and course of which are typical of an accessory
left gastric artery
393
embolization into the falciform artery complex could
cause radiation dermatitis to the abdomen [23].
• The left inferior phrenic artery is one of the most common
extrahepatic arteries to arise from the left hepatic artery. It
courses superiorly and to the left to perfuse the left
hemidiaphragm.
Key Point
Detailed mapping angiography is used to determine
infusion sites and nontarget vessels perfusing extrahepatic structures.
Key Point
Administration or reux of radioactive microspheres
into gastric and/or gastroduodenal arteries can result in
severe radiation ulcers.
Fig. 35.4 Single image from a SPECT/CT after administration of
99m
Tc-MAA to the left hepatic artery catheterized in Fig.35.3. Activity
in the proximal stomach (red arrow) conrms the presence of the
accessory left gastric artery
• The left gastric artery typically arises from the celiac
trunk, whereas the accessory left gastric artery arises from
the left hepatic artery, or one of its segmental branches,
passing through the ssure of the ligamentum venosum,
to perfuse the proximal stomach. Correlating angiography
with cross-sectional size of the left hepatic lobe can clarify whether additional accessory vessels may be present
(Figs.35.3 and 35.4).
• The falciform artery complex typically arises from the
left hepatic artery, often the branch that perfuses the
medial segment (segment 4) of the left hepatic lobe, and
makes a 45° angle inferiorly and toward midline. The falciform artery complex courses through the falciform ligament and perfuses the anterior abdominal wall. Nontarget
During the mapping rst-step procedure,
labeled macroaggregated albumin (
99m
99m
Technetium-
Tc-MAA) is injected
into the affected liver, and a nuclear medicine study is performed immediately afterward to calculate the lung shunt
function (LSF). The LSF is a component of the hepatic dose
planning, and the overall activity of 90Y microspheres delivered must not allow lung exposures to exceed radiation pneumonitis thresholds. Pulmonary doses >30Gy per treatment
or >50Gy cumulatively have been associated with the development of radiation pneumonitis [48]. CT, MRI, or cone
beam images obtained during the mapping angiography are
used to calculate the volume of the liver that will be treated.
The appropriate doses are calculated thereafter.
Key Point
Pulmonary doses >30Gy/treatment or >50Gy cumulatively are associated with radiation pneumonitis.
How to Perform TARE
All patients receiving TARE first undergo a mapping
angiogram and calculation of the lung shunt fraction
(LSF). Based -on the information acquired from the
mapping angiogram and LSF, a treatment plan is estab-
90
lished that includes the doses of
yttrium to be ordered
from the manufacturer and the sites of microsphere
infusion.
(continued)

394
Key Point
Mapping angiogram must be performed for all TARE
patients to evaluate for extrahepatic collaterals and
lung shunt fraction.
1. A high-quality mapping angiogram is critical, as it
allows determination of an individual’s unique
hepatic arterial anatomy and tumor perfusion and
identification of extra-hepatic collaterals and
variants that could lead to nontarget embolization.
(a) Transfemoral or transradial arterial access
is gained through the Seldinger technique.
(b) The celiac and hepatic arteries are catheterized
and angiography performed. Rotational cone
beam CT can determine where to infuse the
microspheres so as to provide complete tumor
perfusion while minimizing exposure to non tumor liver tissue. Radioembolization may be
performed in a hepatic artery perfusing an entire
hepatic lobe (lobar infusion), to a particular
Couinaud segment (segmental infusion), or to a
portion of a hepatic segment (subsegmental infusion).
(c) Embolization of nontarget vessels should
be performed at this point to prevent future
nontarget embolization.
99m
(d)
Technetium-labeled macroaggregated albumin
99m
Tc-MAA) is infused into a hepatic artery to mimic
(
the distribution and shunting of the
90
Y microspheres.
(e) Immediately after the mapping angiogram, the
patient is taken to the nuclear medicine department
in which additional imaging is performed to
calculate the percent of pulmonary
99m
Tc-MAA.
2. Patients return for the treatment angiogram appr oxi mately 1–2 weeks after the mapping angiogram,
once the prescribed doses of
90
Y have been received
from the manufacturer:
(a) Using a combination of catheter, microcatheter
and wires are advanced to the intended location
for micro-sphere infusion determined at the
mapping angiogram.
(b) The radioactive microspheres are injected via
the microcatheter.
(c) Following dose administration, the catheters used,
as well as the components of the administration kit,
are carefully collected for radiation survey and
proper disposal or storage according to radiation
safety protocols.
R. Hickey et al.
with oral or intravenous anti-inammatory, pain, and antiemetic medications.
Fatigue is the most common side effect following TARE
and occurs in up to 60% of patients during the 10–14days following treatment. Approximately 20% of patients will experience low-grade abdominal pain and nausea, both of which are
typically well controlled with oral medications [42].
Biliary complications may be seen on imaging following
TARE, including biliary necrosis (3.9%), biloma formation
(1%), biliary stricture (2.4%), gallbladder wall enhancement
Key Point
The most common side effect following TARE is
fatigue. Some patients will experience abdominal pain
or bloating, and few will experience nausea.
(1.8%), and gallbladder wall disruption (0.9%); however, an
intervention due to a biliary complication is required in less
than 2% of patients [43].
As previously mentioned, inadvertent infusion of radioactive microspheres to the gastrointestinal tract can cause
severe ulcers that often require surgical management. Highquality angiography and meticulous technique are necessary
to identify and avoid nontarget embolization.
Radioembolization-induced liver disease (REILD) is
characterized by severe hyperbilirubinemia that occurs
1–2months following treatment without tumor progression
or biliary obstruction as a cause of the rising bilirubin. While
the reported incidence is low (<2%), it appears to be more
common in patients treated for metastatic disease who have
received prior chemotherapy, have undergone lobar infusions, and have a low tumor burden. Histopathology demonstrates a hepatic veno-occlusive process. Treatment includes
steroids and supportive care [44, 45].
Follow-up protocols vary among institutions; typical follow-up includes a clinic visit 2–4weeks after TARE with the
option for early imaging at 1month. The results of surveillance imaging will determine whether repeat embolization,
ablation, or systemic therapy is appropriate to treat residual
or new disease. Patients’ continued management is best discussed within the multidisciplinary conference.
Similar to TACE, patients are monitored in a recovery area
on bed rest for femoral artery punctures or seated for transradial punctures. Patients are typically admitted overnight for
observation. Nearly all patients experience some degree of
post-embolization syndrome which includes fever, pain,
nausea, vomiting, and malaise. Symptoms are controlled
References
1. El-Serag HB, Kanwal F.Epidemiology of hepatocellular carcinoma
in the United States: where are we? Where do we go? Hepatology.
2014;60(5):1767–75.
2. Chapman RW.Risk factors for biliary tract carcinogenesis. Ann
Oncol. 1999;10(Suppl 4):308–11.

35 Transarterial Radioembolization (TARE)
395
3. Rietschel P, Panageas KS, Hanlon C, Patel A, Abramson DH,
Chapman PB.Variates of survival in metastatic uveal melanoma.
JClin Oncol. 2005;23(31):8076–80.
4. Riihimaki M, Hemminki A, Sundquist K, Sundquist J, Hemminki
K.The epidemiology of metastases in neuroendocrine tumors. Int
JCancer. 2016;139(12):2679–86.
5. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A.Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer
JClin. 2017;67(1):7–30.
6. Kulik LM, Carr BI, Mulcahy MF, Lewandowski RJ, Atassi B, Ryu
RK, etal. Safety and efcacy of 90Y radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma with and without portal vein thrombosis. Hepatology.
2008;47(1):71–81.
7. Inarrairaegui M, Thurston KG, Bilbao JI, D’Avola D, Rodriguez
M, Arbizu J, etal. Radioembolization with use of yttrium-90 resin
microspheres in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and portal
vein thrombosis. JVasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21(8):1205–12.
8. Bruix J, Sherman M, Llovet JM, Beaugrand M, Lencioni R,
Burroughs AK, et al. Clinical management of hepatocellular
carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL conference. European Association for the Study of the Liver. JHepatol.
2001;35(3):421–30.
9. European Association for the Study of the Liver1; European
Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. EASLEORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular
carcinoma. JHepatol. 2012;56(4):908–43.
10. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: hepatobiliary
cancers. Updated May 25, 2017. (May 2017) Available from:
https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/hepatobiliary.pdf.
11. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: colon cancer. (May
2017) Available from: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physi-
cian_gls/pdf/colon.pdf.
12. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: neuroendocrine
tumors. (May 2017) Available from: https://www.nccn.org/profes-
sionals/physician_gls/pdf/neuroendocrine.pdf.
13. Gyves JW, Ziessman HA, Ensminger WD, Thrall JH, Niederhuber
JE, Keyes JW Jr, etal. Denition of hepatic tumor microcirculation
by single photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT).
JNucl Med. 1984;25(9):972–7.
14. Bierman HR, Byron RL Jr, Kelley KH, Grady A. Studies on the
blood supply of tumors in man. III.Vascular patterns of the liver
by hepatic arteriography invivo. JNatl Cancer Inst. 1951;12(1):
107–31.
15. Kennedy AS, Nutting C, Coldwell D, Gaiser J, Drachenberg
C.Pathologic response and microdosimetry of (90)Y microspheres
in man: review of four explanted whole livers. Int J Radiat Oncol
Biol Phys. 2004;60(5):1552–63.
16. Emami B, Lyman J, Brown A, Coia L, Goitein M, Munzenrider
JE, etal. Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int
JRadiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;21(1):109–22.
17. Ingold JA, Reed GB, Kaplan HS, Bagshaw MA.Radiation hepatitis. Am JRoentgenol Radium Therapy, Nucl Med. 1965;93:200–8.
18. Lawrence TS, Robertson JM, Anscher MS, Jirtle RL, Ensminger
WD, Fajardo LF.Hepatic toxicity resulting from cancer treatment.
Int JRadiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;31(5):1237–48.
19. Salem R, Gordon AC, Mouli S, Hickey R, Kallini J, Gabr A, etal.
Y90 Radioembolization signicantly prolongs time to progression
compared with chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular
carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2016;151(6):1155–63 e2.
20. Salem R, Lewandowski RJ, Kulik L, Wang E, Riaz A, Ryu RK, etal.
Radioembolization results in longer time-to-progression and reduced
toxicity compared with chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2011;140(2):497–507 e2.
21. Vouche M, Habib A, Ward TJ, Kim E, Kulik L, Ganger D, et al.
Unresectable solitary hepatocellular carcinoma not amenable to radiofrequency ablation: multicenter radiology-pathology correlation
and survival of radiation segmentectomy. Hepatology. 2014;60(1):
192–201.
22. Rhee TK, Omary RA, Gates V, Mounajjed T, Larson AC, Barakat O,
etal. The effect of catheter-directed CT angiography on yttrium-90
radioembolization treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc
Interv Radiol. 2005;16(8):1085–91.
23. Riaz A, Gates VL, Atassi B, Lewandowski RJ, Mulcahy MF, Ryu
RK, etal. Radiation segmentectomy: a novel approach to increase
safety and efcacy of radioembolization. Int JRadiat Oncol Biol
Phys. 2011;79(1):163–71.
24. Vouche M, Lewandowski RJ, Atassi R, Memon K, Gates VL, Ryu
RK, etal. Radiation lobectomy: time-dependent analysis of future
liver remnant volume in unresectable liver cancer as a bridge to
resection. JHepatol. 2013;59(5):1029–36.
25. Lewandowski RJ, Donahue L, Chokechanachaisakul A, Kulik L,
Mouli S, Caicedo J, etal. (90) Y radiation lobectomy: outcomes
following surgical resection in patients with hepatic tumors and
small future liver remnant volumes. JSurg Oncol. 2016;114(1):
99–105.
26. Salem R, Mazzaferro V, Sangro B. Yttrium 90 radioembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: biological lessons, current challenges, and clinical perspectives. Hepatology.
2013;58(6):2188–97.
27. Garin E, Rolland Y, Edeline J, Icard N, Lenoir L, Laffont S, etal.
Personalized dosimetry with intensication using 90Y-loaded glass
microsphere radioembolization induces prolonged overall survival
in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with portal vein thrombosis.
JNucl Med. 2015;56(3):339–46.
28. Al-Adra DP, Gill RS, Axford SJ, Shi X, Kneteman N, Liau
SS. Treatment of unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma
with yttrium-90 radioembolization: a systematic review and pooled
analysis. Eur JSurg Oncol. 2015;41(1):120–7.
29. van Hazel GA, Heinemann V, Sharma NK, Findlay MP, Ricke J,
Peeters M, et al. SIRFLOX: randomized phase III trial comparing rst-line mFOLFOX6 (plus or minus bevacizumab) versus
mFOLFOX6 (plus or minus bevacizumab) plus selective internal
radiation therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.
JClin Oncol. 2016;34(15):1723–31.
30. Gray B, Van Hazel G, Hope M, Burton M, Moroz P, Anderson J,
etal. Randomised trial of SIR-Spheres plus chemotherapy vs. chemotherapy alone for treating patients with liver metastases from
primary large bowel cancer. Ann Oncol. 2001;12(12):1711–20.
31. Van Hazel G, Blackwell A, Anderson J, Price D, Moroz P, Bower
G, et al. Randomised phase 2 trial of SIR-Spheres plus uorouracil/leucovorin chemotherapy versus uorouracil/leucovorin
chemotherapy alone in advanced colorectal cancer. J Surg Oncol.
2004;88(2):78–85.
32. Hendlisz A, Van den Eynde M, Peeters M, Maleux G, Lambert
B, Vannoote J, et al. Phase III trial comparing protracted intravenous uorouracil infusion alone or with yttrium-90 resin
microspheres radioembolization for liver-limited metastatic
colorectal cancer refractory to standard chemotherapy. J Clin
Oncol. 2010;28(23):3687–94.
33. Saxena A, Meteling B, Kapoor J, Golani S, Morris DL, Bester
L. Is yttrium-90 radioembolization a viable treatment option for
unresectable, chemorefractory colorectal cancer liver metastases?
A large single-center experience of 302 patients. Ann Surg Oncol.
2015;22(3):794–802.
34. Kennedy AS, Coldwell D, Nutting C, Murthy R, Wertman DE,
Loehr SP, et al. Resin 90Y-microsphere brachytherapy for unresectable colorectal liver metastases: modern USA experience. Int
JRadiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65(2):412–25.
35. Kennedy AS, Ball D, Cohen SJ, Cohn M, Coldwell DM, Drooz A,
etal. Multicenter evaluation of the safety and efcacy of radioembolization in patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases

396
R. Hickey et al.
selected as candidates for (90)Y resin microspheres. JGastrointest
Oncol. 2015;6(2):134–42.
36. Hickey R, Lewandowski RJ, Prudhomme T, Ehrenwald E,
Baigorri B, Critcheld J, etal. Y90 radioembolization of colorectal hepatic metastases using glass microspheres: safety and survival outcomes from a 531-patient multicenter study. JNucl Med.
2015;57(5):665–71.
37. Rhee TK, Lewandowski RJ, Liu DM, Mulcahy MF, Takahashi G,
Hansen PD, etal. 90Y radioembolization for metastatic neuroendocrine liver tumors: preliminary results from a multi- institutional
experience. Ann Surg. 2008;247(6):1029–35.
38. Memon K, Lewandowski RJ, Mulcahy MF, Riaz A, Ryu RK, Sato
KT, etal. Radioembolization for neuroendocrine liver metastases:
safety, imaging, and long-term outcomes. Int JRadiat Oncol Biol
Phys. 2012;83(3):887–94.
39. Gordon AC, Gradishar WJ, Kaklamani VG, Thuluvath AJ, Ryu RK,
Sato KT, etal. Yttrium-90 radioembolization stops progression of
targeted breast cancer liver metastases after failed chemotherapy.
JVasc Interv Radiol. 2014;25(10):1523–32, 32 e1–2.
40. Gonsalves CF, Eschelman DJ, Sullivan KL, Anne PR, Doyle L,
Sato T. Radioembolization as salvage therapy for hepatic metastasis of uveal melanoma: a single-institution experience. AJR Am
JRoentgenol. 2011;196(2):468–73.
41. Klingenstein A, Haug AR, Zech CJ, Schaller UC.Radioembolization
as locoregional therapy of hepatic metastases in uveal melanoma
patients. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol. 2013;36(1):158–65.
42. Salem R, Lewandowski RJ, Mulcahy MF, Riaz A, Ryu RK, Ibrahim
S, et al. Radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma using
Yttrium-90 microspheres: a comprehensive report of long-term
outcomes. Gastroenterology. 2010;138(1):52–64.
43. Atassi B, Bangash AK, Lewandowski RJ, Ibrahim S, Kulik L,
Mulcahy MF, etal. Biliary sequelae following radioembolization with
Yttrium-90 microspheres. JVasc Interv Radiol. 2008;19(5):691–7.
44. Sangro B, Gil-Alzugaray B, Rodriguez J, Sola I, Martinez-Cuesta
A, Viudez A, et al. Liver disease induced by radioembolization
of liver tumors: description and possible risk factors. Cancer.
2008;112(7):1538–46.
45. Gil-Alzugaray B, Chopitea A, Inarrairaegui M, Bilbao JI,
Rodriguez-Fraile M, Rodriguez J, etal. Prognostic factors and prevention of radioembolization-induced liver disease. Hepatology.
2013;57(3):1078–87.
46. Lewandowski RJ, Sato KT, Atassi B, Ryu RK, Nemcek AA Jr,
Kulik L, etal. Radioembolization with 90Y microspheres: angiographic and technical considerations. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol.
2007;30(4):571–92.
47. Song SY, Chung JW, Lim HG, Park JH.Nonhepatic arteries originating from the hepatic arteries: angiographic analysis in 250
patients. JVasc Interv Radiol. 2006;17(3):461–9.
48. Ho S, Lau WY, Leung TW, Chan M, Johnson PJ, Li AK.Clinical
evaluation of the partition model for estimating radiation doses
from yttrium-90 microspheres in the treatment of hepatic cancer.
Eur JNucl Med. 1997;24(3):293–8.
49. Hilgard P, Hamami M, Fouly AE, Scherag A, Muller S, Ertle J,
et al. Radioembolization with yttrium-90 glass microspheres in
hepatocellular carcinoma: European experience on safety and longterm survival. Hepatology. 2010;52(5):1741–9.
50. Sangro B, Carpanese L, Cianni R, Goleri R, Gasparini D, Ezziddin
S, etal. Survival after yttrium-90 resin microsphere radioembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma across Barcelona clinic liver
cancer stages: a European evaluation. Hepatology. 2011;54(3):
868–78.
51. Mazzaferro V, Sposito C, Bhoori S, Romito R, Chiesa C,
Morosi C, et al. Yttrium-90 radioembolization for intermediateadvanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase 2 study. Hepatology.
2013;57(5):1826–37.

Liver Ablation
JimmyTon, EdwardKuoy, andNadineAbi-Jaoudeh
36
Pathophysiology
Liver Cancer
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), also known as malignant
hepatoma, is the most common primary malignancy of the
liver. HCC arises from hepatocytes, the parenchymal cells of
the liver. Cholangiocarcinoma, a malignant neoplasm of the
bile ducts, is the next most common primary liver tumor.
Although there are other forms of primary liver cancer, HCC
accounts for the overwhelming majority of primary disease [1].
Worldwide, primary HCC is the fth most common solid
organ malignancy resulting in more than 700,000 deaths
each year. While all other cancer occurrences have held
steady or slowly declined, HCC is the only cancer with an
increased prevalence and incidence [2–4]. In 2010, the
annual incidence of HCC in the United States was at least 6
per 100,000, with two to four times greater incidence in men
than women [5].
The majority of people who develop HCC are asymptomatic from the cancer itself. Many will exhibit nonspecic
signs and symptoms of cirrhosis or liver dysfunction including jaundice, ascites, and coagulopathy. Tumor size, stretching of the liver capsule or even tumor rupture, can occasionally
result in right upper quadrant pain.
Risk factors for HCC include cirrhosis, viral hepatitis (particularly hepatitis B in Asia and C in the United States), and
alcohol and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). In the United
States, alcoholic cirrhosis is a major cause, although NASH’s
role is becoming increasingly predominant [6]. Other rare and
uncommon risk factors include autoimmune disorders such as
autoimmune hepatitis and metabolic diseases such as hemochromatosis, alpha-1-antitrypsin deciency, glycogen storage
diseases, Wilson’s disease, and certain porphyria.
J. Ton · E. Kuoy · N. Abi-Jaoudeh (*)
University of California Irvine, Department of Radiological
Sciences, Orange, CA, USA
e-mail: tonj@uci.edu; ekuoy@uci.edu; nadine@uci.edu
Liver Metastases
Other than lymph nodes, the liver is the most common site
for metastatic disease from gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies. The GI tract’s venous drainage to the portal vein, which
constitutes the major blood supply to the normal liver, is the
likely explanation of this metastatic pattern. Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common source of liver metastases;
however, other gastrointestinal primaries, e.g., the stomach,
pancreas, and neuroendocrine, are common. With appropriate selection criteria, liver metastases can also be treated
with ablation.
Liver Cysts
In addition to malignant lesions, benign hepatic simple cysts
can also be treated with ablation. Hepatic cysts usually refer
to nonparasitic cysts of the liver. Their cause is unknown and
they may be congenital in origin. The cysts are lined by epithelium, which secretes plasma-like uid. Asymptomatic
cysts require no treatment. However, some cysts can become
quite large and cause pressure symptoms such as pain that
may warrant treatment. Liver ablation or sclerosis is a minimally invasive option for treating symptomatic cysts.
Clinical Indication
In regard to HCC, patients should have a diagnosis conrmed
on imaging prior to planning treatment. Ultrasound can be
used to screen for HCC; however, suspicious lesions should
be further evaluated and conrmed with cross-sectional
imaging. Triple-phase CT or MRI of the liver can usually
establish the diagnosis and determine the location, size,
number of lesions, and overall extent of disease without need
for tissue sampling. There are multiple image-based diagnostic systems for HCC, including the Liver Imaging
Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS), United Network for
© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018
N. A. Keefe et al. (eds.), IR Playbook, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71300-7_36
397

398
Organ Sharing and Organ Procurement and Transplantation
Network (UNOS-OPTN), and the American Association for
the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) (refer to Chap. 34 for
LI- RADS system staging). The decision of what system to
use is based on institutional preference. These systems rely
on the fact that HCC has a characteristic appearance on
cross- sectional imaging because the tumor predominantly
has an arterial supply, while the normal liver is primarily
supplied by the portal vein. HCC typically has dynamic arterial enhancement with washout of contrast on delayed phases
and a characteristic pseudo-capsule compared to the surrounding liver parenchyma.
Treatment algorithms for HCC are often difcult as the
eld is rapidly changing with new techniques and indications
for different treatment options. A dominant treatment algorithm is the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging
system, which takes into account clinical factors such as
patient’s performance status, tumor size, and comorbidities
(refer to Chap. 34 for more information) [7].
Conventional Therapy
Liver Cancer
Therapeutic options for HCC vary according to disease
stage, functional status, and clinical condition but can be
divided into two main categories: curative and palliative.
Unfortunately, less than 30% of patients are eligible for curative therapies at the time of diagnosis. Curative therapies
include surgical resection, ablation, and liver transplantation.
Palliative options consist of trans-arterial chemoembolization, radioembolization, targeted therapies, and radiation.
Cytotoxic chemotherapy has a limited role in the treatment
of HCC due to underlying hepatic dysfunction and HCC’s
chemoresistance properties [8–10].
Candidates for surgical resection typically have no evidence of vascular invasion and will be able to maintain adequate liver reserve post-resection. There is no strict size cutoff
for resectability. Some physicians use a range of 3–5cm as a
cutoff, although it often depends on anatomic constraints and
the performing surgeon. For lesions that are resectable, 5-year
survival rate range anywhere from 30% to 90% [11, 12]. A
comprehensive meta-analysis has shown that surgical resection is superior to radiofrequency ablation or percutaneous
ethanol injection for treatment of early- stage HCC, with both
higher recurrence-free survival rate and longer survival [13].
Overall, surgical resection is often limited due to tumor extent
and/or underlying liver dysfunction. Complications from surgery may include hepatic vascular injury, bile leak, or liver
failure. Tumor rupture and peritoneal seeding are serious
albeit rare complications. Patients with cirrhosis have a higher
perioperative mortality rate compared to non-cirrhotic patients
undergoing resection.
J. Ton et al.
Key Point
Milan criteria is used to select patients for
transplantation:
• One lesion up to 5cm or up to 3 lesions each <3cm
• No extrahepatic involvement
• No vascular involvement
Liver transplantation is the only truly curative therapy for
HCC. The Milan criteria for transplant candidates include
either a solitary lesion <5cm or up to three lesions measuring <3 cm, without evidence of vascular or extrahepatic
involvement. Patients who undergo liver transplantation are
typically managed with immunosuppressive drugs. When
appropriately selected, transplant patients can have survival
rates almost comparable to surgical resection and comparable to those who undergo transplantation for nonmalignant
disease [14, 15]. A major limitation to transplantation is the
shortage of organs. In the United States, the allocation for
livers is based on the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease
(MELD) score, with sicker patients having higher scores.
While on the waiting list, some patient’s tumor burden may
progress; this may exclude them from qualifying for a transplant. Patients can be bridged with other forms of treatment
to maintain their eligibility. In addition to the surgical risk,
transplant-related risks include transplant rejection, immunosuppression, vascular injury, and tumor recurrence in the
transplant.
Key Point
The MELD score takes into account creatinine, biliru-
bin, and INR.
Once in advanced stage (BCLC-C), sorafenib, an FDAapproved VEGF inhibitor, has shown improved overall survival by approximately 2–3 months in prospective
randomized trials with notable toxicities such as hand-foot
skin reaction, hypertension, and proteinuria [16–18].
Combining sorafenib with locoregional therapies has not
demonstrated signicant survival improvement [19]. Rare
but serious side effects include cardiac-related events, such
as myocardial infarction. Regorafenib, an oral multikinase
inhibitor, was shown in the RESORCE trial to signicantly
improve survival in patients with advanced HCC who failed
sorafenib [20]. Nivolumab, a fully human IgG4 monoclonal
antibody to the programmed death-1 (PD-1) receptor that
functions as a cell-cycle checkpoint inhibitor, was shown in

36 Liver Ablation
399
preliminary reports to have sustained objective response in
patients with advanced HCC who had failed sorafenib in the
CheckMate-040 trial [21]. Preliminary survival data was
encouraging as well. FDA approval is expected for both
regorafenib and nivolumab in 2017 [20, 22].
Liver Metastases
Although there are different guidelines, surgical resection
remains the best therapeutic option for overall survival of
liver metastases. For patients deemed unresectable, therapeutic options include systemic chemotherapy or locoregional therapies including ablation. Guidelines for treatments
vary for different cancers, but in general, patients are more
likely to meet criteria for surgical or interventional therapy if
they have focal disease, smaller lesions, unilobar involvement and are without evidence of vascular involvement or
distant metastases.
Liver Cysts
When symptomatic, hepatic cysts can be treated surgically or
percutaneously with ablation/sclerosis. Simple aspiration is
usually inadequate with nearly 100% recurrence rate as the
epithelial lining continues to secrete uid into the cyst.
Surgical treatment involves “unroong” of the cyst, which
removes a portion of the wall that extends to the liver surface. Any further uid from the cyst should then enter the
abdomen where it can be absorbed. While historically this
procedure was performed via laparotomy, with advances in
technique, it can now be performed laparoscopically [23].
Other than pain and scarring, complication rates are low but
can include trocar-site infection, bile leak, and bile ascites
when the cyst is in close approximation with a bile duct.
rents emitted through a needle inserted into the targeted tissue. The alternating electrical currents agitate ions, resulting
in friction and subsequent heating of the tissue. The ablation
zone is comprised of the tumor and a safety margin of
0.5–1cm around the lesion. Additionally, a few millimeters
of healthy tissue between the tumor and surrounding vasculature is required to avoid injury. Of note, RFA and other
thermal ablations can be inuenced by a heat-sink effect
where the nearby blood ow mitigates and dampens the therapeutic heating resulting in an inadequate ablation. Ablation
can be repeated for multiple lesions and can serve as a bridge
to other therapies, such as transplantation. RFA is typically
used for patients with small or early HCC’s, usually less than
3cm. For metastatic lesions, up to three lesions each measuring less than 3cm is preferred as larger or more numerable
lesions have a higher rate of recurrence. The lesion should be
accessible and ideally away from vital structures such as
large vessels or other organs. The most common complications are related to abdominal bleeding and abdominal infection, with each occurring less than 2% [24, 25]. Studies have
shown that having previous biliary intervention places the
patient at increased risk of developing hepatic abscesses.
Prophylactic antibiotics are still controversial but are recommended in high-risk cases with prior biliary intervention
[26]. Fluoroquinolones can be used, but regimens and recommendations may differ. Other complications include
injury to the bile ducts (1%) and pneumothorax. Risk of mortality is extremely low (0.15%), making RFA a good alternative to surgical resection in patients who are considered high
operative risks. The recurrence rates can be low as 5% in the
rst 20months [27, 28].
Key Point
Heat-sink effect=inadequate ablation due to nearby
blood vessels mitigating and dampening therapeutic
heating.
Interventional Therapy
Locoregional liver-directed therapies include trans-arterial
chemoembolization (TACE), radioembolization (TARE),
and percutaneous thermal or alcohol ablation with the former constituting the majority of ablations (refer to Chaps. 34
and 35 for information on TACE and TARE, respectively).
Ablative therapy can be done as a standalone treatment but
may also be combined with trans-arterial or systemic treatment. Thermal ablations include radiofrequency ablation
(RFA), microwave ablation (MWA), and cryoablation.
Nonthermal ablation is performed with percutaneous ethanol
injection (PEI). Ablative therapies may be offered for HCC
and liver metastasis.
Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) consists of a generator
creating high-frequency rapidly alternating electrical cur-
Microwave ablation (MWA) is very similar to RFA in
terms of indications, procedural technique, and complications. However, MWA’s mechanism differs signicantly
from RFA. MWA propagates microwave energy from an
antenna into the surrounding tissues resulting in heat and
destruction. While RFA relies on electrical conductivity and
is limited to tissues adjacent to the probe, MWA can create
larger ablation zones and is less prone to heat-sink effects
from adjacent large vessels. MWA can be used with multiple
probes simultaneously, treating multiple target areas or larger
areas concurrently resulting in shorter procedure times. The
risk in MWA is associated with rapid heating, as it can
quickly destroy tissue and propagate heat to adjacent nontar-

400
get tissues. This is why some interventional radiologists
prefer RFA over MWA for peripheral lesions. One study suggests MWA may be better for larger lesions (>3.5cm) [29].
Overall, comparisons of MWA to RFA would suggest that
MWA should be the superior thermal ablative option, but
data is still being studied, and there is no convincing evidence to show that one is better than the other in terms of
long-term clinical benchmarks [30].
Key Point
D5W, not normal saline (NS), is used for RFA
hydrodissection because of the risk of propagating
electrical currents with NS.
For thermal ablations (MWA and RFA), an additional
technique called hydrodissection can be used immediately
prior to thermal ablations if the lesion is too close to other
organs. It is a method in which uid can be infused to create
a plane or barrier to protect adjacent tissues (Fig. 36.1).
Because normal saline (0.9% NaCl) is ionic, it can propagate
electrical current into adjacent tissues during RFA resulting
in unintended injury. While separation can be done with any
uid, including sterile water, 5% dextrose in water (D5W) is
recommended. D5W is a good choice because it is isoosmolar and nonionic, which provides both physical and
electrical barriers [31–34]. One of the main problems related
to hydrodissection includes uid migration and diffusion that
can limit its protective effects. Another issue is its effect on
imaging as the uid can distort the surrounding tissues and
can at times impede differentiation of the uid from bowel
on CT.
J. Ton et al.
Key Point
RFA/MWA absolute contraindications:
• Major vessel involvement
• Bile duct involvement
RFA/MWA relative contraindications:
• Poor hepatic reserve
• Coagulopathy
• Active infection
• Decompensated cirrhosis
• HCC>5cm
• Metastatic lesions >3cm
Cryoablation uses low temperatures to destroy tissues.
The procedural technique is similar to heat-based ablation
modalities. Cryoablation does not have the cauterizing abilities of heat-based ablation modalities but is associated
with less pain. Cryoablation is not as commonly used as
RFA or MWA for several reasons. Firstly, it was historically associated with higher complications rates and, in
some instances, even death. Initial reports of cryoablation
were associated with “cryoshock,” a cytokine-mediated
systemic syndrome consisting of fever, tachycardia, and
tachypnea as well as disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). Moreover, cryoablation is associated with
severe hemorrhage as the intrahepatic ice ball may lead to
parenchymal cracking or shearing extending to major vessels. Although some recent studies reported good outcomes
with cryoablation, two meta- analyses have shown that
cryoablation is associated with much higher complication
rates than RFA or MWA [35].
Fig. 36.1 Patient undergoing microwave ablation for a hepatic seg-
ment 6 metastatic lesion. (a) Planning CT shows the right kidney is too
close in proximity to the planned ablation zone. (b) A treatment needle
was placed to instill 400mL of D5W to create a safety margin. (c) Postablation image shows adequate ablation zone without renal injury following successful hydrodissection
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
