Добавил:
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
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
49 Мб
Скачать
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 etal. [42] Hilgard etal. [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 etal. [51]
chemoembolization (TACE) or TARE.Patients who received TARE had more durable tumor control compared to patients who received TACE (>26months vs. 6.8months, P=0.0012). There was no signicant 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-intensication 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 etal. describe the use of radiation segmentectomy to achieve ablative doses of radiation to tumors that are not amenable to percutaneous ablation [2123]. 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 sufcient to sup­port hepatic function. For patients with an insufcient FLR, the radiation lobectomy technique can be utilized to induce sufcient 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 benet 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 etal. have reported the use of intensied doses of 90Y microspheres targeting the PVTT, resulting in median overall survival of 21.5 months for patients with branch PVTT and 12months 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 signicantly greater for the TARE/chemotherapy arm compared to chemotherapy alone (20.5 vs. 12.6months, 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 signicant increases in the time to tumor progression compared to chemotherapy alone [3032] with trends toward prolonged survival [30, 32] or sta- tistically signicant survival benets [31].
Key Point
Overall survival for TARE-treated colorectal liver metas-
tases is not increased over chemotherapy. However, tumor
progression is signicantly 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 10.6months [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 22–28months [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 4.7months, 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 conrms 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 reux 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) conrms 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 >30Gy per treatment or >50Gy 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 >30Gy/treatment or >50Gy 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-inammatory, pain, and anti­emetic medications.
Fatigue is the most common side effect following TARE and occurs in up to 60% of patients during the 10–14days 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 1–2months 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 2–4weeks after TARE with the option for early imaging at 1month. 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. JClin 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 JCancer. 2016;139(12):2679–86.
5. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A.Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer JClin. 2017;67(1):7–30.
6. Kulik LM, Carr BI, Mulcahy MF, Lewandowski RJ, Atassi B, Ryu RK, etal. Safety and efcacy 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, etal. Radioembolization with use of yttrium-90 resin microspheres in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein thrombosis. JVasc 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. JHepatol. 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. JHepatol. 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, etal. Denition of hepatic tumor microcirculation by single photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT). JNucl 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 invivo. JNatl 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, etal. Tolerance of normal tissue to therapeutic irradiation. Int JRadiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991;21(1):109–22.
17. Ingold JA, Reed GB, Kaplan HS, Bagshaw MA.Radiation hepati­tis. Am JRoentgenol 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 JRadiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;31(5):1237–48.
19. Salem R, Gordon AC, Mouli S, Hickey R, Kallini J, Gabr A, etal. Y90 Radioembolization signicantly 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, etal. 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, etal. 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, etal. Radiation segmentectomy: a novel approach to increase safety and efcacy of radioembolization. Int JRadiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;79(1):163–71.
24. Vouche M, Lewandowski RJ, Atassi R, Memon K, Gates VL, Ryu RK, etal. Radiation lobectomy: time-dependent analysis of future liver remnant volume in unresectable liver cancer as a bridge to resection. JHepatol. 2013;59(5):1029–36.
25. Lewandowski RJ, Donahue L, Chokechanachaisakul A, Kulik L, Mouli S, Caicedo J, etal. (90) Y radiation lobectomy: outcomes following surgical resection in patients with hepatic tumors and small future liver remnant volumes. JSurg 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, etal. Personalized dosimetry with intensication using 90Y-loaded glass microsphere radioembolization induces prolonged overall survival in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with portal vein thrombosis. JNucl 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 JSurg 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. JClin Oncol. 2016;34(15):1723–31.
30. Gray B, Van Hazel G, Hope M, Burton M, Moroz P, Anderson J, etal. 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 JRadiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006;65(2):412–25.
35. Kennedy AS, Ball D, Cohen SJ, Cohn M, Coldwell DM, Drooz A, etal. Multicenter evaluation of the safety and efcacy of radioem­bolization in patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases
396
R. Hickey et al.
selected as candidates for (90)Y resin microspheres. JGastrointest Oncol. 2015;6(2):134–42.
36. Hickey R, Lewandowski RJ, Prudhomme T, Ehrenwald E, Baigorri B, Critcheld J, etal. Y90 radioembolization of colorec­tal hepatic metastases using glass microspheres: safety and sur­vival outcomes from a 531-patient multicenter study. JNucl Med. 2015;57(5):665–71.
37. Rhee TK, Lewandowski RJ, Liu DM, Mulcahy MF, Takahashi G, Hansen PD, etal. 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, etal. Radioembolization for neuroendocrine liver metastases: safety, imaging, and long-term outcomes. Int JRadiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83(3):887–94.
39. Gordon AC, Gradishar WJ, Kaklamani VG, Thuluvath AJ, Ryu RK, Sato KT, etal. Yttrium-90 radioembolization stops progression of targeted breast cancer liver metastases after failed chemotherapy. JVasc 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 JRoentgenol. 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, etal. Biliary sequelae following radioembolization with Yttrium-90 microspheres. JVasc 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, etal. 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, etal. 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. JVasc 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 JNucl 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, Goleri R, Gasparini D, Ezziddin S, etal. 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

JimmyTon, EdwardKuoy, andNadineAbi-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 [24]. 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 nonspecic 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 deciency, 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 conrmed on imaging prior to planning treatment. Ultrasound can be used to screen for HCC; however, suspicious lesions should be further evaluated and conrmed 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 difcult 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 [810].
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 3–5cm 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 5cm or up to 3 lesions each <3cm
• 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 <5cm 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 [1618]. Combining sorafenib with locoregional therapies has not demonstrated signicant 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 signicantly 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 “unroong” 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
0.5–1cm 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 inuenced 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 3cm. For metastatic lesions, up to three lesions each measur­ing less than 3cm 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 20months [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 signicantly 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 (>3.5cm) [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 [3134]. 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>5cm
• Metastatic lesions >3cm
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 400mL of D5W to create a safety margin. (c) Post­ablation image shows adequate ablation zone without renal injury fol­lowing successful hydrodissection