tap vol 5 issue 12 supplement

Interventional Oncology and Its Role in the Management of Unresectable

Hepatocellular CarcinomaReports From the Society of Interventional Radiology

(SIR) 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting, San Diego

Supplement • Volume 5, Issue 12 • July 25, 2014

Editor-in-Chief, James O. Armitage, MD | ASCOPost.com

A Harborside Press® Publication

Plus a Discussion on Interventional Oncology:

The Fourth Pillar of Oncology

The illustrations are copyrighted to the Society of Interventional Radiology.

Disclaimer: The content in this supplement has not been reviewed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Inc. (ASCO®) and does not necessarily reflect the ideas and opinions of ASCO®. The ideas and opinions expressed in The ASCO Post™ do not necessarily reflect those of Harborside Press®, LLC, HSP News Service, LLC, or the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Inc. (ASCO®). The mention of any product, service, or therapy in this publication should not be construed as an endorsement of the products mentioned. It is the responsibility of the treating physician or other health-care provider, relying on independent experience and knowledge of the patient, to determine the appropriate treatment for the patient. Readers are advised to check the appropriate medical literature and the product information currently provided by the manufacturer of each product or therapy to be administered to verify the dosage, method, and duration of administration or contraindications. Readers are also encouraged to contact the manufacturer with questions about the features or limitations of any products. Harborside Press®, HSP News Service, LLC, and ASCO® assume no responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of material contained in this publication or to any errors or omissions.

Copyright ©2014 by Harborside Press®, LLC. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part, in any form, without prior written permission of the publisher is prohibited. For permission inquiries, contact [email protected].

Contact The ASCO Post

The ASCO Post (ISSN 2154-3283), USPS Publication Number 6885, is published semi-monthly, except monthly in January, April, August, and October by Harborside Press®, LLC, 37 Main Street, Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724, under a license arrangement with the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Inc. (ASCO®). Periodicals postage paid at Cold Spring Harbor, NY, and additional mailing offices.

Change of Address: Postmaster send address changes to The ASCO Post, c/o Harborside Press®, LLC, 37 Main Street, Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724. ASCO Members: If you would like to cancel your subscription to The ASCO Post or need to update your mailing address, please visit your personalized page on ASCO.org. For personalized service, please contact ASCO Member Services at 888.282.2552, 703.299.0158, or via email at [email protected]. Non ASCO Members: To initiate or cancel a subscription or to update your mailing address, please email [email protected] or fax 631.692.0805.

Copyright ©2014 by Harborside Press®, LLC. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part, in any form, without prior written permission of the publisher is prohibited. For permission inquiries, contact [email protected].

Editorial Mission: The ASCO Post communicates timely information to a broad audience of oncology specialists, helping to advance the highest quality multidisciplinary cancer care. The ASCO Post publishes highly validated coverage of cancer research and policy news, patient care and clinical practice issues, and thoughtful commentary from leaders in the field and others with an interest in clinical oncology.

Circulation: The ASCO Post is sent free of charge to approximately 26,000 physicians and nurses, including all US-based ASCO members. Medical, surgical, pediatric, and gynecologic oncologists, hematologists, and hematologists/oncologists in the United States who are not members of ASCO will be eligible for a complimentary subscription. ASCO members outside of the United States receive complimentary access to The ASCO Post online at www.ASCOPost.com. Paid subscriptions to The ASCO Post are available for all other interested individuals. Individual Domestic: $271; Individual International: $523; Institutional Domestic: $335; Institutional International $587. Contact [email protected].

Correspondence: Address general inquiries to Harborside Press®, LLC, 37 Main Street, Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724. Phone: 631.692.0800; Fax: 631.692.0805. Address editorial correspondence to James O. Armitage, MD, Editor-in-Chief, c/o Cara Glynn, phone: 631.935.7654; e-mail: [email protected].

Advertising: For information on advertising rates, reprints, or supplements, contact Leslie Dubin, phone: 631.935.7660; e-mail: [email protected].

Notice to Advertisers: Advertiser and advertising agency recognize and accept that the following language appears within the publication: “All statements, including product claims, are those of the person or organization making the statement or claim. Neither the publisher nor ASCO adopts any such statement or claim as its own, and any such statement or claim does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the publisher or ASCO.”

Advertiser and advertising agency accept and assume liability for all content (including text, representations, illustrations, opinions, and facts) of advertisements printed and also assume responsibility for any claims made against the publisher or ASCO arising from or related to such advertisements. In the event that legal action or a claim is made against the publisher or ASCO arising from or related to such advertisements, advertiser and advertising agency agree to fully defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the publisher and ASCO and to pay any judgment, expenses, and legal fees incurred by the publisher and by ASCO as a result of said legal action or claim. The publisher reserves the right to reject any advertising that it believes is not in keeping with the publication’s standards.

The publisher is not liable for delays in delivery and/or non-delivery in the event of Act of God, action by any government or quasi-governmental entity, fire, flood, insurrection, riot, explosion, embargo, strikes (whether legal or illegal), labor or material shortage, transportation interruption of any kind, work slow-down, or any condition beyond the control of the publisher affecting production or delivery in any manner.

About the Cover ArtChemoembolization treats cancerous tumor1. Chemotherapy delivered to tumor2. Embolic agents block blood flow3. Reduced-sized tumor by chemoembolization

(1) A high dose of chemotherapy is delivered directly to the organ while depriving the tumor of its blood supply. (2) By blocking, or embolizing, the arteries feeding the tumor, embolization particles obstruct blood flow to and from the tumor. (3) The embolic agents keep the chemotherapy in the tumor by blocking the flow to other areas of the body.The illustrations are copyrighted to the Society of Interventional Radiology.

The ASCO Post • Volume 5, Issue 12 • Supplement

Reports From the Society of Interventional Radiology 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting

1

Interventional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma land-ed in interventional radiology’s wheelhouse a little over 20

years ago, with the development of doxorubicin-ethiodized oil emulsion and gelatin sponge particles to chemoembolize unresectable liver tumors.1,2 Median survival rates associated with these early interventional treatments were reported at 14 months, which was a significant gain over the 4.5 to 6 months’ expected survival of untreated patients.1

Subsequently, a wide range of therapeutic interven-tions have been assessed in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, including transarterial em-bolization (with or without chemotherapy), hormone therapy with antiestrogens and androgens, octreotide, interferon, and systemic chemotherapy. Of these inter-ventions, only chemoembolization has improved sur-vival over symptomatic care.3 Sorafenib (Nexavar), ap-proved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2007 for the treatment of patients with unresectable he-patocellular carcinoma, showed an improvement in sur-vival of approximately 3 months compared to placebo.4

External-beam radiation therapy was considered a treat-ment option in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, but its role has been limited due to radiation tox-icity to adjacent normal liver tissue.5 Stereotactic techniques have mitigated much of this issue, but current research has found median survival for patients treated with stereotactic body radiotherapy is 7.9 months (95% confidence interval = 2.8–15.1 months).6

Over the past 2 decades, much has changed for transarte-rial chemoembolization. Tools and techniques have become more refined, beads have become smaller, radioemboliza-tion has been introduced, and criteria for patient suitability have expanded. It remains the only treatment to have a dem-onstrated record for significant improvements in overall sur-

vival, progression-free survival, and quality of life in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

The Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting held in San Diego earlier this year brought together researchers and clinicians from all over the world. In this supplement to The ASCO Post, read-ers will find a compilation of reports on data presented at SIR in regard to interventional oncology therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. First, however, we present highlights from interviews The ASCO Post con-ducted with four interventional oncology practitioners on current practices and procedures used in treating patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. n

Disclosure: This supplement is supported by BTG. The ASCO Post reporter and writer, Jonathan Batchelor, has reported no potential conflicts of interest.

References1. Clouse ME, Stokes KR, Krystal JB, et al: Chemoemboli-

zation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Epinephrine followed by a doxorubicin-ethiodized oil emulsion and gelatin sponge powder. J Vasc Interv Radiol 4:717-725, 1993.

2. Stuart K, Stokes K, Jenkins R, et al: Treatment of hepatocel-lular carcinoma using doxorubicin/ethiodized oil/gelatin powder chemoembolization. Cancer 72:3202-3209, 1993.

3. Burroughs A, Hochhauser D, Meyer T: Systemic treatment and liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Two ends of the therapeutic spectrum. Lancet Oncol 5:409–418, 2004.

4. Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, et al: Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 359:378-390, 2008.

5. Fuss M, Salter BJ, Herman TS, et al: External beam radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: Potential of intensity-modu-lated and image-guided radiation therapy. Gastroenterology 127(5 suppl 1):S206–S217, 2004.

6. Culleton S, Jiang H, Haddad CR, et al: Outcomes following definitive stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with Child-Pugh B or C hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiother Oncol. June 3, 2014 (early release online).

Interventional Oncology and Its Role in the Management of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Reports From the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting, San Diego

INTRODUCTION

By Jonathan Batchelor

Jonathan Batchelor is a medical reporter and writer living in Tuscon, Arizona


Interventional Oncology and Its Role in the Management of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

2

The Fourth Pillar of Oncology: Four Topics, Four Perspectives on the Role of Interventional Oncology in Managing Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Interventional oncology has been called the fourth pil-lar of oncology—teaming up with medical oncology,

surgical oncology, and radiation oncology disciplines in the fight against cancer. Recent data, reported in this supplement, suggest that interventional oncologic treat-ments for hepatocellular carcinoma can shrink tumors, relieve painful symptoms, improve quality of life, and potentially extend survival in patients who cannot be treated effectively with other approaches.

The ASCO Post sat down with four interventional oncol-ogy practitioners at the recent Society of Interventional Ra-diology 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting in San Diego: ■ Daniel B. Brown, MD, FSIR, Chief of Interven-

tional Oncology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville; Chair, SIR 2014 Annual Scien-tific Meeting

■ Hyun S. “Kevin” Kim MD, FSIR, Vice Chair, Im-age Guided Therapy and Interventional Oncology Research; Director, Interventional Oncology Tran-sitional Laboratory; Associate Professor and Chief, Interventional Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh

■ Ziv J. Haskal, MD, FSIR, FACR, FAHA, Professor of Radiology and Fellowship Director, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville; Editor in Chief, Journal of Vascular & Interventional Radiology

■ Roger Williams, DO, Director of Interventional Ser-vices, Emory University Hospital Midtown, Atlanta.Each physician shared his thoughts on the role of inter-

ventional oncology in treating hepatocellular carcinoma, patient management and outcomes, what they can offer medical oncologists and their patients, and possible future roles of this subspecialty for liver cancer treatment.

The Role of Interventional Oncology in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Daniel B. Brown, MD, FSIR: There are essentially two roles that interventional oncologists are playing in the treat-ment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. I look at patients in one of two groups: those who are trying to go to transplant and those at their destination therapy, meaning this [interventional therapy] is going to be their primary modality of care. An additional group is composed of patients we can-

not treat whom we direct toward hospice or palliative care. For the patients seeking transplant, the interventional

oncologist aims to slow tumor progression. Patients are able to receive a transplant if the size of the tumor is within certain criteria, ei-ther the Milan or University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) criteria (see sidebar on page 6). We either try to keep the tumor within those criteria or reduce the size of the tumor to fit the criteria that would qualify the patient for a transplant. We do this be-cause for a patient with nonre-sectable disease, transplant is that patient’s only chance of being alive in 5 years.

For patients who are ineligible for transplant—ie, the tumors are too big, or the patient is too old or has too much medical comorbidity—arterial or ablative thera-pies are standard of care. If patients are not eligible to get a liver transplant, the tumors probably cannot be resect-ed. In such cases, survival up to 4 years is being reported using chemoembolization with drug-eluting beads.

Hyun S. “Kevin” Kim, MD, FSIR: Hepatocellular carcinoma is on the verge of becoming epidemic—es-pecially with the rise of hepatitis C—globally, as well as in the United States. There are treatments available for hepatocellular carcinoma, from transplant surgery to systemic therapies. Unfortunately, more than 80% of patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma cannot receive what is considered the definitive ther-

apy—surgical resection or transplantation.

Interventional oncology plays an integral role in tak-ing care of this group, with multiple treatment modalities that are available to us. These modalities have proven to be quite effective in treating these patients.

Daniel B. Brown, MD, FSIR

Hyun S. “Kevin” Kim, MD, FSIR



3

Ziv J. Haskal, MD, FSIR, FACR, FAHA: When I did my fellowship in 1991 to 1992 at the University of California, San Francisco, we performed chemoemboli-zation of hepatocellular carcinoma using a combination of cisplatin, mitomycin, and doxorubicin injected with

ethiodol in a lobar or whole liver fashion, mixed with gel-foam or polyvinyl alcohol. Microcatheters were only be-ginning to appear.

Remarkably, aspects of those same early procedures form the basis of today’s much more sophisticated selective and multipronged interven-tional radiologic approaches to primary and metastatic liver

cancer. Today we can target very precisely, combine abla-tive tools, choose amongst chemotherapeutic agents and sized embolics, and add or solely use ablation tools. And, finally, systemic therapies have arisen allowing adjunc-tive therapies.

Roger Williams, DO: As interventional radiologists, our most important role is probably bridging patients with inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma to liver transplant. The most definitive treatment for hepatocellular carcino-ma is transplantation. Because of the limited availability of donor livers, we have to think in terms of what we can do to keep patients alive and to improve their condition to the point where they can receive a liver transplant. That is why we define the care of those patients as bridging—we take them along to get them to that point.

For other patients in whom the lesions are too big for transplantation, we are able to downstage those patients. We can perform locoregional therapy such as bead emboliza-tion, using whichever choice of beads/embolic material a physi-cian wants to use, and we reduce the size of those lesions to a size that renders the patient as eli-gible for transplantation.

A third and equally impor-tant group of patients comprises the nonsurgical candi-dates, those who will never receive transplantation. We can help those patients improve their survival by decreas-ing the tumor burden. Alternatively, we can keep the tu-mor burden at such a level that the patient’s quality of life either remains the same or may potentially improve.

Patient Management and OutcomesDr. Brown: In managing patients with hepatocellular

carcinoma, my advice is to be careful, and to be honest. I am upfront with patients in clinic, and I tell them what to expect. Once in a while I see patients who may say: “Doc, if you can treat my tumors, why do I need a transplant?” And I tell them that if they do not get a transplant, they are almost certain to develop new tumors elsewhere in their liver, or it may fail on its own.

We treat in the artery as far distally as we can to spare as much normal liver tissue as possible. When we perform tumor ablation, we avoid the liver capsule to avoid seeding. The number of treatment options that we have available has increased over the years, and the survival rate is continuing to improve as more physicians get more experience.

Interventional radiologists work collaboratively with liver transplant surgeons and medical oncologists. We have a tumor board every Tuesday afternoon that meets

as a group. We decide whether patients should get sur-gery. We move toward transplant. If a patient is going to be placed on the transplant list, we need to manage that patient by keeping the tumors from growing or by shrinking them.

Further, it’s important to recognize that adverse events can happen with interventional therapies, just as with any other therapies. I helped write the Quality Improvement Guidelines for Transhepatic Arterial Chemoembolization, Embolization, and Chemotherapeutic Infusion for Hepatic Malignancy.1 We know going in to a procedure what we will have to manage and what to expect. Even when we do everything right, [adverse events] can occur; however, our overall complication rate is very low.

Dr. Kim: Patient management is a very complex and challenging process. Not only do we need to manage the tumor itself, but we need to consider the pathology and

Roger Williams, DO

Ziv J. Haskal, MD, FSIR, FACR, FAHA

I think that future hepatocellular carcinoma treatment will be even

more integrative—in some instances depending on marker types, genotyping,

and personalized care—that will combine locoregional therapy like yttrium-90 radioembolization with

chemotherapy.

— Daniel B. Brown, MD, FSIR



4

biology of the tumor, the patient’s liver status, and the patient’s performance status. By looking not only at the tumor, but also at how well the patient’s liver is function-ing and at the patient’s overall condition, we can deter-mine how well therapies will be tolerated. We need to be mindful that a lot of these patients are very ill. Often they

have two different diseases. Hepatocellular carcinoma often develops, but not always, in patients with liver dis-ease. Managing these patients is very complex and very challenging.

These patients need a lot of care from many special-ties in a multidisciplinary fashion, and interventional on-cologists are trained, and have the experience, to be an integral part of that care.

We have been able to help a number of patients achieve positive outcomes, such as prolonging their sur-vival and helping to maintain their quality of life. That is the goal of our therapies.

There are always patients whom we cannot treat, which is difficult for our patients and their loved ones, as well as for us, their cancer-care providers.

Dr. Haskal: As interventional radiologists our ap-proaches to cancer are, rightly, now integrated into multidisciplinary boards that hope to offer the best, in-dividualized care based upon outcomes. National and international guidelines have been developed, local ex-pertise can be accounted for, and best treatment options can be offered to patients. These are great steps for stan-dardizing care and optimizing outcomes.

The interventional oncology approaches are generally two, namely, infusion (and embolization) and/or ablation. Infusions include chemoembolization with oily-based

solutions or several drug-eluting embolics or radioactive agents (ie, yttrium-90 or holmium). Ablations include ra-diofrequency, microwave, cryo, and electroporation. All of these therapies have relative advantages, but heads-up comparisons are still lacking. Still, image-guided interven-tional therapies are the most potent, nonsurgical, non-transplant therapies around the world for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Naturally, these image-guided therapies extend beyond hepatocellular carcinoma, spanning kidney cancer, soft tissue and bony tumors, lung cancer, among other conditions.

Dr. Williams: Over time, a lot of research has gone into patient selection for therapy. And the things that we have learned are: We [interventional radiologists] expect healthier patients to have better outcomes with whatev-er treatment course we perform; in order to treat those healthier patients, we need to have earlier diagnosis and earlier referral; and we need to be part of a multidisci-plinary organization—with medical oncologists, surgi-cal oncologists, and our other health-care colleagues—so that we can optimize therapy.

Over time, we have realized the utility of emboliza-tion. When we first started out we thought we could do embolization to palliate these patients. Now, as every-body is getting more aggressive and realizing that we have better drugs and better tools to treat these patients, we are seeing that we are able to bridge these people to

definitive treatment much better and much more quickly. We are also seeing tighter collaboration with our col-

leagues in other specialties. In the liver transplant clinic and on the liver transplant board in our hospital, we are told: “These patients are yours—bridge them and keep them within the criteria we need to get a transplant for them.”

I expect, and I foresee, that patient outcomes and quality of life will be further advanced and enhanced by further investigation, research, and clinical trials of minimally invasive

therapies,…so that they can be even more effective, yet with even fewer side

effects, allowing our patients even longer survival while maintaining a good

quality of life.

— Hyun S. “Kevin” Kim MD, FSIR

My mentor always used to tell me that there are four pillars in oncology: medical oncology, surgical oncology,

radiation oncology, and interventional oncology. Now and in the future, this

four-pronged collaboration will be fighting the cancer battle and continuing

in the effort to make cancer a chronic, ‘livable’ disease.

— Roger Williams, DO



5

Collaboration With Medical OncologyDr. Brown: Our group generally follows the Barcelona

Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) criteria, and when a patient has stage C disease, I want him to see our medical oncolo-gist first. For patients with stage B disease, we will general-ly treat first (see sidebar on page 6). I think it is important, until evidence is different, to make sure that patients with hepatocellular carcinoma are guided in the most appropri-ate direction for therapy.

The reason I say that is, if you have a patient who has nodular hepatocellular carcinoma and you chemoem-bolize the tumor, and later a new tumor and portal vein thrombosis develop, then the patient has a second-line option. But if the patient presents with nodular hepa-tocellular carcinoma and receives sorafenib (Nexavar) first, and then the tumor progresses, that patient may not benefit from any treatment currently available.

My goal with these patients is to collaborate with oth-er specialists to extend their window of therapy. The ulti-mate goal for nontransplant patients is to make this more of a chronic-like disease for as long as we can.

Dr. Kim: Interventional oncologists have worked in close collaboration with our medical oncologist col-leagues, whether at large or small sites. This collaboration also extends to hepatologists, liver-transplant teams, and surgical oncologists. The key to success with hepatocel-lular carcinoma patients is providing multidisciplinary care on a long-term basis, and interventional oncologists are part of this integrative care.

Our therapies are complementary to systemic therapies that are offered by medical oncologists. Only by a team ap-proach can we deliver the best possible care to these patients.

Dr. Haskal: When meeting patients in my clinic, I take great pains to make clear that, as an interventional radiologist with a dedication to cancer care, I will be re-sponsible for all care related to what I do for and with them. This means decisions, therapy, and follow-up care needs until their care is ended.

Equally, I emphasize that this is still ‘matrix’ or ‘team’ care. Our conversation and communications must be

crystal clear, efficient, and timely, so that their primary physicians, medical oncologists, transplant surgeons, and other specialists, are all apprised, aware, and informed. As a specialty, interventional radiology is a full-service referral oncologic specialty. Practicing in any lesser way should be abjured.

Dr. Williams: Hepatocellular carcinoma is a unique pathology; the role that we can play with medical on-cologists is providing robust and durable treatments for their patients that would otherwise have no treatment.

There is a big difference between living longer with a terrible quality of life and living longer with a better qual-ity of life. In my practice, we also provide palliative service. We know that embolization works well for liver pain due to hepatocellular carcinoma, and we have learned other procedures for mitigating cancer pain. The therapeutic interventions that we can provide demonstrate that our role is beyond just one organ, it is treating the person as a whole in collaboration with a medical oncologist.

Future TreatmentsDr. Brown: Pretty much all patients with neuroen-

docrine tumors receive chemotherapy as their first-line treatment, which should be their first-line therapy. Un-resectable hepatocellular carcinoma was the primary tu-mor that interventional oncology got involved with be-cause chemotherapy is not that effective, and there were no other therapies.

I think that future hepatocellular carcinoma treat-ment will be even more integrative—in some instances depending on marker types, genotyping, and personal-

Role of Interventional Oncology in the Management of Unresectable

Hepatocellular Carcinoma

■ Interventional oncology therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma are utilized to prepare patients for transplant, and to extend survival and maintain quality of life for patients not eligible for transplant.

■ Earlier diagnosis and earlier referral to interventional treatment result in better outcomes for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

■ Interventional oncologists are part of a multidisciplinary team in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Image-guided interventional therapies are the most potent, nonsurgical,

nontransplant therapies around the world for patients with unresectable

hepatocellular carcinoma.

— Ziv J. Haskal, MD, FSIR, FACR, FAHA



6

ized care—that will combine locoregional therapy like yttrium-90 radioembolization with chemotherapy.

For example, as we treat more tumors of different types, we have begun to treat more colorectal cancer than we used to. There is a study called SIRFLOX (an international study designed to evaluate whether FOLFOX chemotherapy in combination with selective internal radiation therapy is more effective than chemotherapy alone),2 for which the results should be coming out in about 9 months.

This trial could radically change the paradigm of how patients with metastatic colorectal cancer are addressed. But today we do not have that data. That is why we now mostly treat patients with colorectal cancer in what I call the salvage setting. They have gone through the first two lines of treatment, and maybe even have received rego-

rafenib (Stivarga), and then the interventional oncology specialists get called.

Our level of evidence to this point has not support-ed more of a role than that. I think that studies such as SIRFLOX will get done, and the level of appropriateness may change in the future.

Dr. Kim: The training in interventional oncology gets better and better, and so does the research—at both the basic science level and the translational and clinical science level.

I expect, and I foresee, that patient outcomes and quality of life will be further advanced and enhanced by further investigation, research, and clinical trials of mini-mally invasive therapies, where these therapies become

Diagnostic, Treatment, and Prognostic Criteria for Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Undergoing Liver TransplantationMilan Criteria

The Milan criteria are a set of useful predictors for favorable outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carci-noma undergoing liver transplantation after transarterial chemoembolization. The criteria require that a patient have no lesion larger than 5 cm or fewer than three lesions with diameters ≤ 3 cm, no extrahepatic involvement, and no major vessel involvement.1

University California, San Francisco Criteria The University California, San Francisco (UCSF) criteria are a set of standards used in patients with tumors

larger than those restricted under the Milan criteria. The UCSF criteria allow patients fitting the following stan-dards to undergo liver transplantation: a single lesion ≤ 6.5 cm or multiple lesions ≤ 3 cm, the largest tumor diameter if multiple must be ≤ 4.5 cm, and the total diameter if multiple must be ≤ 8 cm. It is believed that the UCSF criteria are better able to predict acceptable posttransplant outcomes than the Milan criteria. The United Network for Organ Sharing has not adopted the UCSF criteria because of the limited availability of organs.2

Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer CriteriaThe Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) criteria combine tumor burden, hepatic function, and performance

status with an evidence-based treatment algorithm, aiming to incorporate prognosis estimation and potential treatment advancements in a single unified proposal.3-6 Patients at stage 0 with very early hepatocellular carci-noma are optimal candidates for resection; patients at stage B with intermediate hepatocellular carcinoma may benefit from chemoembolization; patients at stage C with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma may receive new agents in the setting of randomized controlled trials; patients at stage D with end-stage disease receive symp-tomatic treatment. n

References1. Kim JM, Kwon CH, Joh JW: Patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma beyond Milan criteria: Should we per-

form transarterial chemoembolization or liver transplantation? Transplant Proc 42:821-824, 2010. 2. Unek T, Karademir S, Naciye C, et al: Comparison of Milan and UCSF criteria for liver transplantation to treat hepatocel-

lular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 17:4206-4212, 2011.3. Llovet JM, Burroughs A, Bruix J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet 362:1907-1917, 2003.4. Bruix J, Llovet JM: Prognostic prediction and treatment strategy in hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 35:519-524,

2002.5. Llovet JM, Bru C, Bruix J: Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: the BCLC staging classification. Semin Liver Dis 19:329-

338, 1999.6. Llovet JM, Fuster J, Bruix J: The Barcelona approach: Diagnosis, staging, and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Liver Transplantation 10(2 suppl 1):S115-S120, 2004.



7

less and less invasive—perhaps even noninvasive. Fur-ther, the therapies will be more targeted to the cancer so that they can be even more effective, yet with even fewer side effects, allowing our patients even longer survival while maintaining a good quality of life.

Dr. Haskal: The last decade’s evolution of Journal of Vascular & Interventional Radiology reflects a clear focus upon high level oncology research, both laboratory and clinical. The pipeline of research is tremendous. It en-compasses early therapies, international phase I to piv-otal trials, comparative assessments, guidelines docu-ments, prospective research, and more. I see exciting therapies in all the areas I mentioned—from improved ablative tools, tailored and targeted embolotherapies, combination therapy trials, and, above all, and clear in-crease in rigor and quality of efforts. Equally, as our spe-cialty helps mature this research, come analyses of prog-nostic factors and best forms of palliation for desperate situations. Being able to offer intelligent and compas-sionate options springs from these efforts.

Dr. Williams: My mentor always used to tell me that there are four pillars in oncology: medical oncology,

surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and interven-tional oncology.

Now and in the future, this four-pronged collabora-tion will be fighting the cancer battle and continuing in the effort to make cancer a chronic, “livable” disease.

I feel that the greater the minds that go into fighting this very difficult process, the better the outcomes will be. “Cure” is not something many can even imagine, but making cancer a chronic disease is something that is po-tentially on the horizon. n

Disclosure: Drs. Brown, Kim, and Williams reported no potential conflicts of interest. Dr. Haskal has reported receiving royalties from Cook Medical, serving on an advisory board for WL Gore and Associates, receiving research support from Bard Peripheral Vascular, W.L. Gore and Associates, Merit Medical, and CeloNova and receiving speaker honorarium from Bard Peripheral Vascular and WL Gore and Associates. He is a stockholder of AngioDynamics.

References1. Brown DB, Nikolic B, Covey AM, et al: Quality improve-

ment guidelines for transhepatic arterial chemoembolization, embolization, and chemotherapeutic infusion for hepatic ma-lignancy. J Vasc Interv Radiol 23:287-294, 2012.

2. SIRflox. Available at www.sirflox.com. Accessed July 8, 2014.

James B. Spies, MD, MPH, FSIR, Chair of the Ra-diology Department at MedStar Georgetown Uni-

versity Hospital and Professor of Radiology at George-town University Medical Center in Washington, D.C., assumed office as the Society of Interventional Radiol-

ogy’s (SIR) 2014–2015 Pres-ident during the Society’s 39th Annual Scientific Meet-ing in San Diego.

“Advancing a better un-derstanding of both the limitless potential of inter-ventional radiology and its positive impact on patient care will be a main focus dur-ing my term as President,” said Dr. Spies, who will rep-

SIR Names James B. Spies, MD, MPH, FSIR, as President, 2014–2015

resent the Society’s nearly 5,000 doctors, scientists, and allied health professionals dedicated to improv-ing health care through image-guided minimally in-vasive treatments.

SIR’s 2014–2015 Executive Council Besides Dr. Spies, other members of SIR’s 2014–

2015 Executive Council who took office during the SIR 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting are listed below.

President-elect Alan H. Matsumoto, MD, FSIR , University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville

Secretary Charles E. Ray Jr, MD, PhD, FSIR, Uni-versity of Illinois, Health Sciences Center, Chicago

Treasurer M. Victoria Marx, MD, FSIR , LAC and USC Medical Center, Los Angeles

Immediate Past President Scott C. Goodwin, MD, FSIR , University of California, Irvine

James B. Spies, MD, MPH, FSIR

http://www.sirflox.com/home



8

Transarterial Chemoembolization in Patients With Unresectable

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Impact of Bead Size on Response

■ Complete response rates for patients treated with 70-150 μm drug-eluting bead transarterial chemo-embolization were significantly higher at 3 and 6 months than for patients treated with larger-size beads.

■ At 9 and 12 months, complete response rates between the two groups were not significant; this was due primarily to disease progression in untreated areas, noted the investigators.

Almamoon Justaniah, MD, from the Department Ra-diology at Lahey Clinic in Burlington, Massachusetts,

reported results from a study conducted at his institution to assess the influence of bead size on hepatocellular car-cinoma response rate after drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization.1 He presented the study at the SIR 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting in San Diego.

Study DetailsDr. Justaniah and his team conducted a retrospective

analysis of consecutive patients treated with drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma between 2008 and 2013. The patients were separated into three groups.

A large-bead group (300–500 μm and 500–700 μm) con-sisted of 73 patients, average age 64 ± 9 years, who were treated between 2008 and 2010. A medium-bead group (100–300 μm and 300–500 μm) consist-ed of 33 patients, average age 64 ± 9 years, who were treated between 2010 and 2011. A small-bead group (75–150 μm

and 100–300 μm) consisted of 36 patients, average age 62 ± 10 years, who were treated between 2012 and 2013.

Dr. Justaniah noted that all patients presented with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage A, B, and C. The patients did not receive other treatment during the observation period.

All patients received 100 mg of doxorubicin in two vi-als of beads under slow infusion (50 mg each), and there were two consecutive treatments prior to imaging follow-up. Imaging consisted of dynamic contrast-enhanced CT or MRI in 3-month intervals over a 12-month period.

Retrospective imaging analysis was performed for all patients using residual arterial enhancement assessment.

Response Results at 3-Month IntervalsDr. Justaniah reported that at 3 months, complete re-

sponse rates for large-, medium-, and small-bead groups were 25/74 (34%), 24/33 (73%), and 33/36 (92%),

Impact of Bead Size on Response in Patients With Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Receiving Transarterial Chemoembolization

respectively (P < .01); results at 6 months were also sig-nificant, the investigators reported. At 9 and 12 months, however, differences in complete response rates for large-, medium-, and small-bead groups were not significant. At 12 months, complete response rates for large-, medium-, and small-bead groups were 22/74 (30%), 19/33 (58%), and 27/36 (75%), respectively (P = not significant). P val-ue was .06 for all groups given the use of the Anova test.

“Treatment with smaller drug-eluting beads has a bet-ter treatment response [at 3 and 6 months] in hepatocel-lular carcinoma [than large- and medium-sized beads],” Dr. Justaniah concluded. The investigators reported that the lack of difference in response at 9 and 12 months for the small-bead group was primarily related to disease progression in untreated areas.

Dr. Justaniah noted that among the limitations of the study were a stage inhomogeneity between the groups, there was a relatively short follow-up, and there were no data on side effects, length of hospital stay, or survival. n

Disclosure: Dr. Justaniah reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Reference1. Justaniah AI, Iqbal SI, Hakky MM, et al: Influence of

bead size on tumor responser rate after drug-eluting bead transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma. Society of Interventional Radiology 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting. Abstract 249. Presented March 26, 2014.

Almamoon Justaniah, MD



9

Data from a retrospective single-site study presented at the SIR 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting showed

that utilization of 70- to 150-μm drug-eluting beads in transarterial chemoembolization for patients with un-resectable hepatocellular carcinoma may cause great-er liver-related complications than 100- to 300-μm drug-eluting beads.

“Previous work with 100- to 300-μm drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization found [the smaller bead size] safer and more effective than 300- to 500-μm drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization for hepato-cellular carcinoma,” said Amy Deipolyi, MD, PhD, from the Department of Radiology at Massachusetts General Hos-pital in Boston.1

Dr. Deipolyi presented results from a retrospective review of transarterial che-moembolization using 70- to 150-μm drug-eluting beads as-sessing the safety of the beads compared with transarte-rial chemoembolization with 100- to 300-μm drug-eluting beads at her institution.2

Study Details“We conducted a retrospective review of all patients

with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who under-went drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoemboliza-tion,” said Dr. Deipolyi.

The patients were sorted into two groups. One group consisted of patients who received one vial of 70- to 150-μm drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization followed by one vial of 100- to 300-μm drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization. Dr. Deipolyi said this protocol was initiated in December 2012.

The other group comprised patients who received two vials of 100- to 300-μm drug-eluting bead transarte-rial chemoembolization—the protocol in place prior to December 2012. A total of 100 mg of doxorubicin was given to each patient (50 mg per vial).

In Patients With Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Receiving Transarterial Chemoembolization, Smaller Bead Size May Be Associated With More Liver-Related Complications

Both groups had a chart review that consisted of de-mographic and clinical data, the number of vessels treat-ed, laboratory values, hospital stay, and complications within 1 month of treatment.

Key ResultsIn group 1, 34 patients underwent 39 lobar treat-

ments and 5 selective treatments. Group 2 had 38 pa-tients who underwent 42 lobar treatments and 2 selec-tive treatments.

Dr. Deipolyi noted that there was no statistical dif-ference in age, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage, Child-Pugh score, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, or preprocedure bilirubin level among the groups.

Both groups had a similar number of hospital re-admissions within 1 month, including nine patients from group 1 and eight patients from group 2. Dr. Deipolyi reported that group 1 showed a trend to-ward a longer hospital stay: 1.4 days compared with 1.1 days in group 2.

There was also a trend for worse postembolization syndrome requiring readmission or prolonged hospital stay in group 1 (five patients vs one patient in group 2). Dr. Deipolyi’s team also reported a trend toward increased

Amy Deipolyi, MD, PhD

Fig 1: A 57-year old male with negative hepatitis C virus, alcoholic cirrhosis, and hepatocellular cancer treated with drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization. Presented to urgent care with severe right upper quad-rant abdominal pain; transferred, stented endoscopically. Courtesy of Amy Deipolyi, MD, PhD, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

Before TACE After TACE

New biliary dilatation



10

bilirubin levels in group 1 post-transarterial chemoembo-lization, and a decrease in bilirubin levels of 13% in group 2. There were two deaths in group 1 and none in group 2.

Dr. Deipolyi noted that 10 patients in group 1 experi-enced liver-related complications, compared with only 2 patients in group 2 (P < .05). In addition, patients with liver-related complications had significantly greater in-creases in post-transarterial chemoembolization biliru-bin levels (P = .004).

“Group 1 patients were more likely to be readmit-

ted or have a prolonged hospital stay for complications related to liver dysfunction,” Dr. Deipolyi said. The in-vestigators concluded that transarterial chemoemboliza-tion with smaller 70- to 150-μm drug-eluting beads may cause worse postembolization syndrome and greater liver dysfunction than transarterial chemoembolization with 100- 300-μm drug-eluting beads.

Dr. Deipolyi noted that her institution is continuing to collect more data to validate the findings she pre-sented and that research is underway to ascertain if the smaller bead size increases the efficacy of drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization. n

Disclosure: Dr. Deipolyi reported no potential conflicts of interest.

References1. Padia SA, Shivaram G, Bastawrous S, et al: Safety and

efficacy of drug-eluting bead chemoembolization for hepato-cellular carcinoma: Comparison of small- vs medium-size par-ticles. J Vasc Interv Radiol 24:301-306, 2013.

2. Deipolyi AR, Oklu R, Liu RW, et al: Safety of 70-150 μm drug eluting beads in transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. Society of Interventional Radiol-ogy 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting. Abstract 246. Presented March 26, 2014.

Transarterial Chemoembolization for Patients With Inoperable

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Effect of Bead Size on Outcomes

■ Smaller drug-eluting beads (70–150 μm) may cause worse postembolization syndrome and greater liver-related complications.

■ Patients treated with 70–150 μm drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization should be monitored for possible side-effects of therapy, including liver-related complications.

Drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoemboliza-tion treatment for unresectable hepatocellular

carcinoma yields significantly higher median overall survival rates than best supportive care in this patient population, according to a study by Minzhi Xing, MD, and Kevin Kim, MD, from the Division of Inter-ventional Radiology, Department of Radiology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. Dr. Xing presented their results at the SIR 2014 Annual Scien-tific Meeting in San Diego. Dr. Kim is senior author of the study.

“Advanced Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage C hepatocellular carcinoma includes patients with symptomatic tumors or an invasive tumoral pattern, in-cluding vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread,” said Dr. Xing. “These patients typically have limited treatment op-

Drug-Eluting Bead Transarterial Chemoembolization Benefits Survival vs Supportive Care in Patients With Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

tions and a poor prognosis due to the underlying liver dis-ease and a lack of effective treatment options.”1

Although systemic treatment is a recommended op-tion for treating the disease, she noted, the median survival benefit is modest—with sorafenib (Nexavar) demonstrat-ing a benefit of almost 3 months compared with placebo.2

“Prospective studies on drug-eluting bead transarte-rial chemoembolization in advanced hepatocellular car-cinoma have reported a median survival of 13.5 months,” said Dr. Xing. She added that “Child-Pugh class A patients without portal vein thrombosis and metastasis benefitted the most, with a survival time of 18.8 months.”3

Dr. Xing and colleagues compared the overall survival of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma treated with drug-eluting bead chemoembolization at their tertiary cancer referral center with patients with the



11

same disease who received best supportive care found in the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiol-ogy, and End Results (SEER) database.

Criteria and Methods“Our inclusion criteria consisted of advanced unre-

sectable hepatocellular carcinoma in both cohorts,” Dr. Xing stated. “We used the most recent SEER database, which was updated in 2013.”

The researchers queried 18 registries of that database for patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma, up to 2010, with outcome and follow-up of a minimum of 3 years. The liver was defined as the primary site and the histology code for hepatocellular carcinoma was used, with none of the patients receiving either radiation or cancer-directed surgery.

“We compared patients from the SEER database with patients at our institution who similarly had BCLC stage C advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, diagnosed in the same time period, and deemed suitable for drug-elut-ing bead transarterial chemoembolization after evaluation by a multidisciplinary tumor board,” said Dr. Xing.

The researchers reviewed the SEER data for demograph-ic and clinical information and compared it with their insti-tution’s database of drug-eluting bead transarterial chemo-embolization–treated patients. Median and overall survival rates were estimated and compared between the groups.

Key Results“Altogether, we found 20,897 patients in the SEER

database who fit the criteria of advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who received neither radiation nor cancer-directed surgery,” Dr. Xing said. “We had 231 patients who had undergone drug-eluting bead transar-terial chemoembolization who were diagnosed during the same period. Importantly, no significant difference was found between the groups in terms of age at diag-nosis, gender, race, bilobar disease, or presence of portal vein thrombosis, when comparing the populations.”

The researchers reported both groups of patients were similar for presence of unilobar or bilobar disease, mean

Child-Pugh Score

The Child-Pugh score, a prognostic measure used in patients with chronic liver disease, is de-termined by five clinical measures, including total bilirubin level; serum albumin level; prothrombin time expressed by international normalized ratio (INR); presence of ascites (none, mild, severe); and presence of hepatic encephalopathy (none; grade I-II; grade III-IV). Each clinical measure is assigned 1 to 3 points, ranging from least severe (1 point) to most severe (3 points). A total score based on the five clinical measures is used to determine Child-Pugh class of disease (A, B, or C).

Drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization yielded significantly higher median survival for patients and

provided benefits for long-term survival.

— Minzhi Xing, MD

largest tumor size, and the number and distribution of tumors (P > .05).

The median overall survival from hepatocellular carci-noma diagnosis was 21.8 months (95% confidence inter-val [CI] = 18.1–25.4) in patients receiving drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization, compared with 4 months (95% CI = 3.9–4.1) in the best supportive care group (P < .001). The median overall survival from the first drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization was 15 months (95% CI = 9.6–20.4).

“At 6 months, drug-eluting bead transarterial chemo-embolization patients had a survivorship of 75.3% vs 35.5% from SEER, which is about a twofold difference,” Dr. Xing said. “At 2 years out, 35.9% of drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization patients had survived vs 9% of SEER patients. Three-year survival was 20.4% for the drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization recipients, compared with 4.4% of SEER patients.”

Dr. Xing observed that at 2 years, the researchers found an approximately fourfold difference in overall survival for patients who were treated with drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization compared with those in the SEER database who received neither radia-tion nor surgery. At 3 years, they reported a fivefold dif-ference in overall survival.

“We found that the SEER population without radia-tion or cancer-directed surgery had a median survival of 4 months from diagnosis, which is in line with previous literature for patients with advanced, unresectable hepa-tocellular carcinoma,” Dr. Xing stated. “Comparatively, the overall survival for drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization patients was significantly higher at [approximately] 22 months from diagnosis.”

Log-rank test of survival data showed P < .0001, a sig-nificant survival benefit of drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization compared with best supportive care.



12

Study LimitationsDr. Xing noted that there were several limitations

to the study. Because they used Surveillance, Epide-miology, and End Results Registry data, the study did not cover all states or geographic areas within the United States, and it did not provide data on Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, Child-Pugh class, or tumor-node-metastases (TNM) staging.

Furthermore, the SEER database only stratified pa-

tients who did or did not receive radiation or cancer-directed surgery. There was a lack of data about systemic chemotherapy, such as sorafenib (Nexavar), or specific therapeutic regimens that would have been useful as a comparator group for locoregional therapies.

“In a comparison of drug-eluting bead transarte-rial chemoembolization for advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma vs patients who received neither radiation nor cancer-directed surgery, we found that drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoem-bolization yielded significantly higher median sur-vival for patients and provided benefits for long-term survival—with a four- to fivefold increase in survival rate at 2 or more years after hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis,” she concluded. n

Disclosure: Drs. Xing and Kim reported no potential conflicts of interest.

References1. Xing M, Prajapti HJ, Kokabi N, et al: Survival trends in

unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and the effect of DEB-TACE: SEER vs tertiary cancer center. Society of Interven-tional Radiology 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting. Abstract 43. Presented March 23, 2014.

2. Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, et al: Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 359:378-390, 2008.

3. Prajapati HJ, Dhanasekaran R, El-Rayes BF, et al: Safety and efficacy of doxorubicin drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol 24:307-315, 2013.

Drug-Eluting Bead Transarterial Chemoembolization for Unresectable

Hepatocellular Carcinoma vs Best Supportive Care

■ Drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization yielded significantly higher median survival (~22 months vs 4 months) for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma than best supportive care.

■ At 6 months after treatment, patients receiving drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization had a survivorship of 75.3% vs 35.5% in the best supportive care population, about a twofold difference.

■ Drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization in this patient population provided benefits for long-term survival with a four- to fivefold increase in survival rate at 2 or more years after diagnosis.

A single-blind controlled investigation found no dif-ference in response or disease control rate at any

time point between patients with unresectable hepato-cellular carcinoma who had hepatic artery embolization performed with unloaded beads (in which no chemo-therapeutic or other agent was added) vs drug-eluting beads that were loaded with doxo-rubicin, according to Inter-ventional Oncologist Karen Brown, MD, FSIR, from the

Bland vs Drug-Eluting Beads Show Similar Results for Embolization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Karen Brown, MD, FSIR

Department of Radiology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

“Our primary objective was to determine if there was a difference in response to treatment when the embolic agent used was loaded with doxorubicin,” said Dr. Brown. Second-ary objectives were toxicity and safety, disease control rate, local progression-free survival, and overall survival. Results were presented at the SIR 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting.1

Embolization in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

As background for the study, Dr. Brown cited a 2002 study by Llovet,2 which concluded that chemoemboliza-



13

spherical embolic in both arms, the only difference being whether the agent was loaded or unloaded—a sulphonate modification that allows for ionic binding of doxorubicin being the only structural difference,” she explained.

Criteria and MaterialsThe inclusion criteria for the study included a con-

firmed diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in a pa-tient who was not a candidate for resection or ablation. Patients with portal vein and extrahepatic disease were allowed. An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 was required, as was Okuda I or II, and Child-Pugh class A or B. Patients could not have any systemic therapy within 4 weeks of registration.

“Patients needed to have renal function that allowed for the administration of contrast, a bilirubin level less than 3, be able to clot their blood, and have a white blood cell count greater than 3,000,” Dr. Brown added.

Randomization of patients who met the criteria and consented to be part of the trial was stratified into those whose treatment cycle was anticipated to require one embolization vs those requiring two embolizations to complete treatment.

“Within 2 to 3 weeks of the first treatment cycle, pa-tients were seen in clinic with laboratory studies and a multiphase computed tomography [CT],” said Dr. Brown. “This was the scan used to determine response to treatment, the primary endpoint.” The patient groups were seen again with laboratory tests and multiphase CT performed at 10 to 12 weeks. Further treatment deci-sions were made based on that CT scan.

“Patients who had not responded to treatment or who had disease progression were taken off the study, whereas

tion improved survival of stringently selected patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. She explained that the sequential analysis design allowed for stopping the trial when a survival benefit was demonstrated for any group, and the study was stopped when a survival benefit was demonstrated for chemoembolization.

Dr. Brown said, “Some people believe that this study also demonstrated the superiority of chemoemboliza-tion compared to bland embolization but, in fact, when the study was stopped, the ‘Z score plot line’ in the bland embolization group remained within the triangu-lar boundaries [comparison of embolization and con-trol]—indicating the need to recruit additional patients to achieve a valid conclusion.”

The team’s analysis of the Llovet data also found that there was little difference in the 1- and 2-year survival rates between the chemoembolization and bland em-bolization arms. The 1-year survival rate for the chemo-embolization group was 82% compared to 75% in the bland embolization group; 2-year survival was 63% in the chemoembolization group vs 50% in the bland em-bolization group.

For her group’s study, Dr. Brown utilized two study agents: Bead Block (the bland or unloaded beads) and LC Beads (the drug-eluting beads). Bead Block is a pre-formed deformable microsphere consisting of a biocom-patible, acrylamido polyvinyl alcohol macromer.

“The development of LC Bead provided the perfect platform for designing a study that used essentially the same

Fig. 1: There was no difference (6.5%) in initial response to treatment by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria. Courtesy of Karen T. Brown, MD, FSIR, Depart-ment of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Months From Randomization

Surv

ival P

roba

bilit

y

Bead Block (ITT)LC Bead (ITT)Bead Block (Treated)LC Bead (Treated)

Bland vs Drug-Eluting Beads in Embolization of Hepatocelluar Carcinoma

■ Hepatic artery embolization performed with unloaded beads (bland block) vs doxorubicin-eluting beads demonstrated no difference in response or disease control rate at any time point for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

■ The addition of doxorubicin to the embolic agent when treating patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, although apparently safe, does not appear to confer a response or survival advantage.

■ The results of this single-arm trial may call into question the use of chemotherapy for embolization of hepatocellular carcinoma.



14

those who had significant residual disease or new lesions were retreated. Patients who had a complete or near-com-plete response, meanwhile, entered into a surveillance pathway with repeat laboratory tests and imaging every 3 months until death or progression,” Dr. Brown added.

The bland block cohort comprised 51 patients (14 women, 37 men, with a mean age of 68.3 years), while the drug-eluting bead cohort comprised 50 patients (9 women, 41 men, with a mean age of 65.5 years).

Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage was as-sessed as A in 10 patients (20%), B in 22 (43%), and C in 19 (37%) of the bland block cohort. The drug-eluting bead cohort comprised 12 stage A patients (24%), 23 stage B (46%), and 15 (30%) stage C.

In addition, Dr. Brown reported that 80% of patients had underlying liver disease, with over one-third infected with the hepatitis C virus, about one-third with alcohol-related cirrhosis, and just under 20% with the hepatitis B virus. Target lesion size was similar in the groups.

“Both groups were embolized to a stasis endpoint,” Dr. Brown said. “In the [drug-eluting bead] group, 150 mg of doxorubicin was loaded onto either 4 mL or 6 mL of drug-eluting bead, depending on an assess-ment of tumor volume and vascularity, and an attempt was made to deliver the entire dose proportionately into vessels supplying the tumor. If there was persistent ante-

grade flow after the drug-eluting bead had been used, the target vessels were embolized to stasis using additional unloaded embolic agents.”

The researchers hypothesized that there would be no difference at 2 to 3 weeks in the proportion of responses by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria. “The study was designed to have approximately 80% power to detect a difference of 28%,” Dr. Brown stated.

Key Results“Of the 101 patients enrolled in the study, 6 patients

were never treated, 2 died after treatment, and 1 devel-oped renal dysfunction precluding follow-up scans; 92 subjects were thus evaluable for response,” Dr. Brown reported. Postembolization syndrome (pain, nausea, vomiting, fever, or hypertension) was the same in both groups at 85%.

There were also no significant differences in serious adverse event occurrence among the groups, with each having one 30-day mortality.

The researchers reported there was no difference in initial response to treatment, disease control rate, or lo-cal tumor progression-free survival by either RECIST or modified RECIST (mRECIST) criteria (Figs. 1–3). There was no difference detected at the 3-, 6-, 9-, or 12-month intervals. “And, by either intent-to-treat analy-

Fig. 3: The intent-to-treat analysis of 101 patients demonstrated a median survival of 20.8 months in the drug-eluting bead group and 19.6 months in the bland block group, (P = .64). The treated group of 92 patients demonstrated a median survival of 20 months in the drug-eluting bead group and 21.4 months in the bland block group (P = .14). Courtesy of Karen T. Brown, MD, FSIR, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

2 10 26 39 52

Bead BlockLC Bead

Weeks

Res

pons

e R

ate

(%)

020

4060

8010

0

Bead BlockLC Bead

Fig. 2: Modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (mRECIST) demonstrated response to treatment of 76.1% in the drug-eluting bead group, and a response to treatment of 71.7% in the bland block group (P = .81).Courtesy of Karen T. Brown, MD, FSIR, Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York.

2 10 26 39 52

Weeks

Res

pons

e R

ate

(%)

020

4060

8010

0

Bead BlockLC Bead

Bead BlockLC Bead



15

sis or analysis of only the treated evaluable patients, there was no difference in overall survival at a median follow-up of 34 months,” Dr. Brown said.

The intent-to-treat analysis (101 patients) found the drug-eluting bead group with a median survival of 20.8 months, compared with 19.6 months for the bland block group (P = .64). The treated analysis (92 patients) re-ported the drug-eluting bead group had a median sur-vival of 20 months, compared with 21.4 months for the bland block group (P = .14).

“In summary, the addition of doxorubicin to the em-bolic agent when treating patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, although apparently safe, does not appear to confer a response or survival advantage,” concluded Dr. Brown. “We believe the results of this trial call into question the use of chemotherapy for embolization of hepatocellular carcinoma.”

In response to an audience question about bead size, she stated the team used 100- to 300-µm beads for bland embolization. n

Disclosure: Dr. Brown reported no potential conflicts of interest. The study was supported by a grant from the National Cancer Institute. LC Beads used in the study were provided by Biocompatibles UK.

References1. Brown KT, Gonen M, Do K, et al: Randomized phase II

study of hepatic arterial embolization of hepatocellular carci-noma with microspheres alone vs doxorubicin loaded micro-spheres. 2014 Society of Interventional Radiology Annual Sci-entific Meeting. Abstract 40. Presented March 23, 2014.

2. Llovet JM, Real MI, Montana X, et al: Arterial embolisa-tion or chemoembolisation vs symptomatic treatment in pa-tients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A random-ized controlled trial. Lancet 359:1734-1739, 2002.

Patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who also have a transjugular intrahepatic portosys-

temic shunt can receive doxorubicin-eluting bead chemo-embolization safely and effectively, according to Michael Jordan Ray, MD, from the Department of Diagnostic Radiology at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt place-ment, a procedure that creates a new connection between the portal and hepatic vein in order to relieve portal vein hy-pertension, is often used in pa-tients presenting with severe liver cirrhosis.

Dr. Ray and colleagues retrospectively evaluated the clinical outcomes of doxoru-bicin-eluting beads chemo-

embolization in patients with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt to determine if the embolization of hepatic arterial supply in this cohort may predispose an increased risk of complications due to the loss of dual vascular supply. He presented their findings at the SIR 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting in San Diego.1

Chemoembolization Safe in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients With Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt

Criteria and Materials“We conducted a retrospective review of patients

with a functioning transjugular intrahepatic portosys-temic shunt who underwent chemoembolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma at our institution from 2010 to 2013,” Dr. Ray noted.

The team analyzed data about the patients’ liver dis-ease, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, tumor characteristic, doxorubicin-eluting beads chemoemboli-zation, procedure complication, and modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (mRECIST). Post-treatment toxicity within 90 days was assessed according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 4.0.

A total of 14 patients with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt met the study criteria for inclusion: 12 men and 2 women, with a mean age of 58.4 years (range, 46–76 years). Dr. Ray reported that the indications for transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation in the patient cohort were refractory ascites in three, variceal bleeding in six, lower gastrointestinal bleeding in one, and unknown in the remaining four patients.

Cirrhosis etiology presented as hepatitis C in nine pa-tients, cryptogenic in two, alcohol in two, and primary

Michael Jordan Ray, MD



16

sclerosing cholangitis in one. Tumor size ranged from 1.2 to 8.7 cm with a mean diameter of 3.1 cm. Seven patients had focal disease, and the remaining seven had multifocal disease.

Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage was assessed as stage A in four patients (28.5%), stage B in one patient (7%), and stage C in nine patients (64%). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) perfor-mance status was rated as 0 in six patients, 1 in five pa-tients, and 2 in three patients.

All patients were treated with one vial of 100- to 300-μm beads loaded with 50 to 75 mg of doxorubicin.

“The endpoint of chemoembolization was delivery of the entire prescribed dose or the presence of reduced an-tegrade blood flow in the target vessel and tumor devas-cularization on completion arteriography,” Dr. Ray said.

Key ResultsThere were 22 sessions of doxorubicin-eluting bead

chemoembolization performed in the patient cohort. A majority (64%, nine patients) had one session, three pa-

tients had two sessions, one patient had three sessions, and one patient had four sessions. The mean time of follow-up was 191 days (range, 18–449 days) after ini-tial doxorubicin-eluting beads chemoembolization. No deaths were reported during follow-up.

Dr. Ray reported that postprocedure, 11 (78.5%) of the patients were observed overnight, two (14%) had a 24-hour admission, one (7%) was admitted for a non-related procedure, and subsequently one (7%) required readmission a week after doxorubicin-eluting bead che-

moembolization therapy because of encephalopathy and high levels on liver function tests.

Imaging follow-up was obtained in 10 of 14 patients, and complete response was found in two (20%), partial response in six (60%), stable disease in one (10%), and progressive disease in one (10%).

“ECOG performance status remained stable in 13 patients and progressed in one patient from 0 to 1,” Dr. Ray said.

Five patients experienced CTCAE bilirubin toxic-ity: grade 1 toxicity was found in three patients (21%), grade 2 in one (7%), and grade 3 in one (7%). Ascites sub-jectively increased in three patients (none to small in two and small to large in one). Encephalopathy progressed in two patients with baseline hepatic encephalopathy (mild to severe in one and none to mild in one). In addition, one patient suffered iatrogenic arterial dissection.

Five of 14 patients (35%) subsequently underwent liver transplantation.

“Doxorubicin-eluting bead chemoembolization in patients with transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt appears safe and effective for treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma,” concluded Dr. Ray. “In our population, the procedure was tolerated well with the majority of patients showing stable to fa-vorable tumor response, serving as a helpful bridge to curable liver transplantation.” n

Disclosure: Dr. Ray reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Reference1. Zarghouni M, Ray M, Cura M: Doxorubicin-eluting beads

chemoembolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with functioning transjugular intrahepatic portosys-temic shunt. Society of Interventional Radiology 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting. Abstract 149. Presented March 25, 2014.

Doxorubicin-eluting bead chemoembolization in patients with

transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt appears safe and effective for

treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma,…with the majority of patients [in our study population] showing stable

to favorable tumor response, serving as a helpful bridge to curable liver

transplantation.

— Michael Jordan Ray, MD

Doxorubicin-Bead Embolization in Unresectable Hepatocellular

Carcinoma Patients With Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt

■ Doxorubicin-eluting beads chemoembolization in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients with a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt appears safe and effective.

■ The majority of patients in this study showed stable to favorable tumor response.



17

Transarterial chemoembolization should be consid-ered a reasonable locoregional therapeutic option

in patients 65 or older with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, according to Niraj Bhalakia, MD, from the Department of Radiology at Thomas Jefferson Univer-sity Hospital, Philadelphia.

“In general, the therapeutic benefit and toxicities of many cancer treatments remain unknown in elderly pa-tients, as they are often under-represented in clinical trials,” said Dr. Bhalakia. He added, “Many elderly patients thus may not be receiving the op-timal cancer treatment, as it is often withheld from them because of the fear of potential toxicities and perceived surviv-al advantage.”

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the third leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide, and incidence rates are increasing in the United States. Of particular concern, age-adjusted hepatocellular car-cinoma incidence rates tripled between 1975 and 2005, rising from 1.6 per 100,000 to 4.9 per 100,000.1

“The risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma is known to be age-dependent,” stated Dr. Bhalakia. “Thus, there will be an increasing number of elderly patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma in the coming years because of the longevity increase in the population.”

Retrospective ReviewDr. Bhalakia and colleagues retrospectively reviewed

all patients who underwent transarterial chemoemboli-zation at their institution for the treatment of unresect-able hepatocellular carcinoma over the past decade. They then evaluated whether outcomes of transarte-rial chemoembolization were inferior in patients 65 and older. He presented the findings at the SIR 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting.2 Colette Shaw, MD, and Daniel B. Brown, MD, also contribued to this project.

Dr. Bhalakia and colleagues found that despite the increas-ing frequency of hepatocellular carcinoma in the aging popu-lation, and despite evidence showing that hepatocellular car-

Transarterial Chemoembolization Should Be Considered in Elderly Patients With Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

cinoma patients in the Medicare population who received therapy experienced substantial advantage over their peers who received no treatment or palliative treatment, less than 30% of patients in this population diagnosed with unresect-able hepatocellular carcinoma received therapy, even when they had favorable biologic characteristics.

Criteria and MaterialsThe researchers reviewed the records of all patients

who had a transarterial chemoembolization procedure for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma at Thomas Jef-ferson between January 2001 and July 2011. The patients were separated into two groups on the basis of age: those younger than 65 years of age and those 65 years and older.

The following demographics and baseline parameters were compared: Child-Pugh scores, TNM (Tumor, Node, Metastases) stage, hepatitis B or C positivity, tumor number and size, number of transarterial chemoembolization ses-sions, and transarterial chemoembolization regimen (doxo-rubicin/ethiodol [Lipiodol]; cisplatin/doxorubicin/mito-mycin three-drug therapy/ethiodol; or drug-eluting beads).

Patients were excluded from the study if they were transplant recipients or had prior liver resection. Also excluded were patients who had received a transarterial chemoembolization regimen other than doxorubicin/ethiodol, cisplatin/doxorubicin/mitomycin three-drug therapy/ethiodol, or drug-eluting beads. If pre- or post-treatment imaging was not available, a patient had a Child-Pugh score of C, or a patient had received prior treatments such as radiofrequency or microwave abla-tion, the patient was excluded.

Dr. Bhalakia said that the researchers evaluated tumor response and overall disease control, evaluating target

Niraj Bhalakia, MD

Transarterial chemoembolization should be considered a reasonable locoregional

therapeutic option in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

— Niraj Bhalakia, MD



18

and no-target lesion response, and the presence of new lesions. Imaging outcomes were based on Modified Re-sponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST), and allowed for patients to be categorized as complete or partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease.

Adverse events were identified by reviewing the pa-tients’ electronic medical records and grading, accord-ing to the National Cancer Institute Common Termi-nology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 3.0 criteria.

A value of P ≤ .002 was deemed to be statistically sig-nificant, derived by Bonferroni correction. “The Bonfer-roni correction is a method used to counteract the prob-lem of multiple comparisons,” explained Dr. Bhalakia. “It is a method to control familywise error rate, which is the probability of making one or more false discoveries, or type 1 errors, among all the hypotheses when perform-ing a multiple-hypothesis test. It is derived by finding an alpha value for the entire set of comparisons and divid-ing by the number of comparisons.”

Key ResultsA total of 179 treatments were performed in 97 pa-

tients, 42 of whom were older than 65 in an age range

of 43 to 84 years. The mean number of treatments was 1.6 in those 65 or younger and 2.1 in those over 65 (P = .03).

According to the researchers, the groups had similar Child-Pugh status, tumor, node, metastasis stage, hepa-titis B, hepatitis C, tumor number, tumor size, and drug type (P = .44).

They reported that tumor response was observed in 64% of patients under 65 and in 57% of those 65 and over. Disease control was achieved in 69% of patients un-der 65 and in 74% of those 65 and over. The mean time to progression was 245 days for patients under 65 and 130.5 days for those 65 and over.

“With regard to adverse events as defined by CTCAE criteria, four patients in the under 65 group had a grade 3 event, while five patients in the 65 and over group had a grade 3 event,” noted Dr. Bhalakia. “None of the pa-tients in our study population had a grade 4 or 5 event, and there was no statistically significant difference be-tween the groups in terms of major adverse events.” Ma-jor events included abscess, hematoma, fever, sepsis, and hypertension, he said.

“During a similar follow-up period, the efficacy of transarterial chemoembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in elderly patients is com-parable to that in a younger population,” Dr. Bhalakaia concluded. “Transarterial chemoembolization should be considered a reasonable locoregional therapeutic option in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.” n

Disclosure: Dr. Bhalakia reported no potential conflicts of interest.

References1. Altekruse SF, McGlynn KA, Reichman ME: Hepa-

tocellular carcinoma incidence, mortality, and survival trends in the United States from 1975 to 2005. J Clin Oncol 27:1485-1491, 2009.

2. Bhalakia N, Shaw CM, Brown DB: The efficacy of TACE in elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Society of Interventional Radiology 2014 Annual Scien-tific Meeting. Abstract 39. Presented March 23, 2014.

Transarterial Chemoembolization In Elderly Patients With Unresectable

Hepatocellular Carcinoma

■ Transarterial chemoembolization may be considered a reasonable locoregional therapeutic option in patients 65 or older with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

■ Tumor response was observed in 64% of patients under 65 and in 57% of those 65 and over who underwent transarterial chemoembolization.

■ Disease control was achieved in 69% of patients under 65 and in 74% of those 65 and over who underwent transarterial chemoembolization.

Visit The ASCO Post website at ASCOPost.com



19

Yttrium-90 radioembolization is a safe and effica-cious therapy for patients with infiltrative hepato-

cellular carcinoma and portal vein thrombosis, accord-ing to research presented by Nima Kokabi, MD, from the Department of Interventional Radiology and Image Guided Medicine, Emory University School of Medi-cine, in Atlanta, Georgia.

Dr. Kokabi and colleagues conducted a prospec-tive, single-arm, single-center study that recruited patients with unresectable infiltrative hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein thrombosis to con-duct a multidisciplinary evalu-ation of the safety and efficacy of glass-bead yttrium-90 ra-dioembolization. He present-ed their results at the SIR 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting.1

“As a phase II study, the objective of the investiga-tion was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of glass-based microsphere yttrium-90 therapy for infiltrative unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein thrombosis in our cohort of patients,” said Dr. Kokabi. Safety was evaluated by monitoring organ-related tox-icity, related mortality, number of emergency depart-ment visits, and hospitalization. Efficacy was evaluated by overall survival, time to progression, and objective imaging tumor response.

Criteria and MaterialsPatients with unresectable (Barcelona Liver Cancer

Stage C) infiltrative (T2 hyperintense geographic lesion, arterial enhancement, and early washout) hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein thrombosis (enhancing fill-ing defect in the portal venous system) were recruited at the facility.

Inclusion criteria were an Eastern Cooperative On-cology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤ 2, Child-Pugh class A/B, a life expectancy greater than 3 months, lung shunt fraction ≤ 20%, bilirubin level < 2 mg/dL, serum albumin > 2.5 g/dL, and less than 75% tumor in-volvement of the liver.

Phase II Study Finds Yttrium-90 Radioembolization Safe, Efficacious in Patients With Infiltrative Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Portal Vein Thrombosis

A total of 30 patients were enrolled, with a mean age of 62 years (range, 35–82 years). The median tumor size was 9.2 cm (range, 4.9–19 cm).

Dr. Kokabi said that 19 of the patients had received prior hepatocellular carcinoma–directed therapy. He added “Of those, 14 received from one to four courses of transarterial chemoembolization or drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization,” he said. “Sev-enteen patients were on sorafenib (Nexavar) at one point prior to yttrium-90 therapy. However, only six patients were taking sorafenib at the time of yttrium-90 therapy; the remaining patients stopped taking it due to side effects.”

Study DesignThe study was designed to assume that the radioem-

bolization therapy would prolong survival by 50% over best supportive care. Dr. Kokabi said this is approximate-ly 4 months for Barcelona Liver Cancer Stage C patients.

The yttrium-90 therapy protocol was performed on an outpatient basis. It included angiography per-formed to define the arterial blood supply, and iden-tify and embolize accessory vessels from the hepatic artery that supply extrahepatic structures prior to the procedure.

In addition, technetium-99m macroaggregated al-bumin single-photon emission computed tomography/computed tomography scan was performed for post-procedural assessment of arteriovenous shunting to the

Nima Kokabi, MD

Yttrium-90 Radioembolization in Infiltrative Hepatocellular Carcinoma

With Portal Vein Thrombosis

■ Yttrium-90 radioembolization is a safe and efficacious therapy option for patients with infiltrative hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein thrombosis.

■ Adequate liver performance status at initiation of therapy is a positive prognostic factor.

■ Median overall survival from the first yttrium-90 therapy was 13 months.



20

lungs. A preplanned dose of 120 Gy was delivered to the treated liver lobe as well as a single therapeutic lung dose of ≤ 30 Gy.

After the yttrium-90 beads were administered, a Bremsstrahlung single-photon emission computed to-mography/computed tomography scan was conducted to confirm the safe distribution of yttrium-90 micro-spheres and aid in the prediction of possible gastrointes-tinal side effects.

“Safety was assessed using full clinical and laboratory workup at 1 week and monthly thereafter for 6 months,” said Dr. Kokabi. “Related organ toxicity was evaluated using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 3.0. We also monitored related mor-tality, emergency department visits, and hospitalization.”

Overall survival and time to progression were mea-sured from the first yttrium-90 therapy. Objective tumor response was evaluated with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging using Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) and European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria at 1 and 3 months and then monthly until death.

The overall survival and time to progression were measured by Kaplan-Meier estimation from the day of the first yttrium-90 treatment. Prognostic factors were analyzed using univariate analysis via log-rank and mul-tivariate analysis via the Cox regression model. Signifi-cance levels were set at .05 for all tests.

Key Results“The most common complications were postemboliza-

tion syndrome experienced by approximately two-thirds of the patients,” said Dr. Kokabi. “The most serious organ toxicities were grade 3 bilirubin toxicity in 10% of the pa-tients and grade 2 transaminitis in 6% of the patients.”

He reported that there was not treatment-related mortality, radiation pneumonitis, or gastrointestinal ul-cerations in the study group. Five (17%) of the patients were hospitalized due to hepatobiliary complications, which were all transient with a mean hospital stay of ap-proximately 5 days. No significant difference between the baseline Child-Pugh classification and ECOG per-formance status were observed (P > .05).

At 1 month, 86% of the patients demonstrated objec-tive response according to mRECIST criteria, while 43% had response in the same time period based on EASL criteria.

The median overall survival from the first yttrium-90 therapy was 13 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.4–22 months). The median time to progression was 9 months (95% CI = 6.2–13.1 months).

The researchers determined grade ≥ 2 liver toxic-ity to be predictor of poor outcome— median overall survival of 3.6 months vs 13 months for grade ≥ 2 and others, respectively (P = .004). Child-Pugh class B, in-ternational normalized ratio (INR) ≥ 1.5, and grade ≥ 2 hepatobiliary toxicities were found to be poor prog-nostic factors by log-rank and univariate analysis (P < .05). Child-Pugh class A patients had a median overall survival of 13 months vs 3.3 months for Child-Pugh class B (P = .012).

“The significant positive prognostic factors of survival by univariate analysis in our study included the lack of ascites, INR < 1.2, ECOG performance status 0, Child-Pugh class A, lung-shunt fraction < 10%, no drug-related toxicity, and objective tumor response at 1 month,” said Dr. Kokabi.

An ECOG performance status of 1 or above, Child-Pugh class B, grade 2 or more toxicity, and lack of objec-tive tumor response were negative prognostic factors by multivariate analysis, according to the researchers.

“The results of our current phase II trial demonstrate that yttrium-90 radioembolization therapy is a safe and efficacious treatment in patients with unresectable infil-trative hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein throm-bosis with positive prognostic factors predominantly related to well-compensated liver function and adequate performance status at baseline,” Dr. Kokabi said. n

Disclosure: Dr. Kokabi reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Reference1. Kokabi N, Camacho JC, Xing M, et al: Prospective open-

label single center study of safety and efficacy of glass-based Y90 radioembolization for infiltrative HCC with PVT. Society of Interventional Radiology 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting. Abstract 189. Presented March 25, 2014.



21

P atients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis and genotype 4

hepatitis C showed encouraging survival data after under-going yttrium-90 radioembolization treatment, according to Mohamed H.K. Abdelmaksoud, MD, from the De-partment of Interventional Radiology at Stanford Univer-sity in Palo Alto and the Department of Interventional Ra-

diology at the Theodor Bilharz Research Institute in Cairo.

“Hepatocellular carcinoma is one of the most common cancers worldwide, with about 700,000 deaths annually,” said Dr. Abdelmaksoud. “In Egypt, it accounts for about 13% of all cancers—the majority due to hepatitis C virus. At the time of diagnosis, about 10% to 40% of patients with hepatocellular car-

cinoma have portal vein tumor thrombus, and at the time of death, the incidence is 44%, Dr. Abdelmaksoud noted.

Egypt has one of the highest rates of liver cancer world-wide, as well as a high prevalence (14.7% of the popula-tion) of infection with the hepatitis C virus. There are more than nine genotypes of the virus, with genotype 4 being the most common (90%) in Egypt and the Middle East.

Radioembolization Safety and Efficacy Dr. Abdelmaksoud and colleagues retrospectively

evaluated the safety and efficacy of radioembolization as a treatment option in patients with genotype 4 hepatitis

Yttrium-90 Radioembolization Improves Outcomes in Patients With Genotype 4 Hepatitis C and Hepatocellular Carcinoma, Study Finds

C and hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis. He presented their findings at the SIR 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting.1

The study cohort consisted of 31 patients (30 men, 1 woman) with a mean age of 59 (range, 41–78 years). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) perfor-mance status was rated as 0 in 12 patients (39%), 1 in 14 patients (45%), and 2 in 5 patients (16%).

The Child-Pugh score for cirrhosis mortality was A

in 26 patients (84%) and B in 5 patients (16%). Portal vein tumor thrombosis involved the segmental branch in 10 patients (32%), lobar branch in 16 (52%), and main branch in 5 (16%).

The patients underwent 36 yttrium-90 radioemboliza-tion treatment procedures (19.3% single session, whole liver; 6.5% two sessions, whole liver; and 74.2% single ses-sion, lobar or segmental). The median dose of yttrium-90 infused was 1.92 gigabecquerel (GBq); 14 patients (40%) started sorafenib therapy 1 week after radioembolization.

Clinical and biochemical toxicities were examined. Tu-mor response was evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and modified RECIST (mRECIST) criteria. Survival statistics were also calculated.

Key ResultsThe researchers reported overall response and por-

tal vein tumor thrombosis response rates by RECIST of 59% and 63.6% and by mRECIST of 77.3% and 63.6%, respectively. Mean and median overall survival rates

Mohamed H.K. Abdelmaksoud, MD

Yttrium-90 treatment for patients with genotype 4 hepatitis C and hepatocellular

carcinoma complicated by portal vein tumor thrombosis demonstrates a high

rate of radiological response, a high rate of portal vein tumor thrombosis regression,

and encouraging survival statistics.

— Mohamed H. K. Abdelmaksoud, MD

Radioembolization and Genotype 4 Hepatitis C Hepatocellular Carcinoma

■ Yttrium-90 radioembolization treatment benefitted patients with genotype 4 hepatitis C and hepatocellular carcinoma complicated by portal vein tumor thrombosis.

■ Fatigue was noted by 55% of patients and was the main clinical toxicity.



22

were 13.7 months and 8.3 months, respectively. The mean overall survival stratified by the location of

portal vein tumor thrombosis was reported as 14.4, 10.9, and 17.9 months for patients with segmental, lobar, and main portal vein tumor thrombosis (P = .407). Using uni-variate analysis, the researchers stated that Eastern Cooper-ative Oncology Group performance status (P = .01, hazard ratio [HR] = 4.0), Child-Pugh score (P = .032, HR = 4.6), serum bilirubin (P = .024, HR = 8.5), and alpha-fetopro-tein (P = .024, HR = .19) correlated with survival.

“Yttrium-90 treatment for patients with genotype 4 hepatitis C and hepatocellular carcinoma complicated by portal vein tumor thrombosis demonstrates a high rate of radiological response, a high rate of portal vein

Fig. 1: Near-complete resolution of portal vein thrombosis in a 55-year-old male is seen pre-yttrium-90 radioembolization at 3-months’ follow-up. Courtesy of Mohamed H.K. Abdelmaksoud, MD, Stanford University, Palo Alto.

tumor thrombosis regression, and encouraging survival statistics,” Dr. Abdelmaksoud said.

The main clinical toxicity was fatigue, which was noted in 55% of patients. One patient experienced grade 3 bilirubin toxicity. There were no instances of gastroduodenal ulcers. n

Disclosure: Dr. Abdelmaksoud reported serving as a Proctor for Sirtex Medical Inc.

Reference1. Abdelmaksoud M, Abdelmaksoud A, Mostafa M, et al:

Y-90 radioembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma with por-tal vein tumor thrombus associated with hepatitis C genotype 4. Society of Interventional Radiology 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting. Abstract 229. Presented March 26, 2014.

Yttrium-90 radioembolization treatment is most cost-effective for hepatocellular cancer patients who

present with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C, ac-cording to data presented by Nassir Rostambeigi, MD, from the Department of Radiology at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

“The overall per patient cost of hepatocellular car-

Simulation Shows Yttrium-90 Radioembolization Is Most Cost-Effective in Patients With Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage C Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

cinoma is approximately $33,000 per year,” said Dr. Rostambeigi. “As the incidence of hepatocellular carci-noma continues to rise, so do the costs. We know that yt-trium-90 radioembolization is effective in downstaging hepatocellular carcinoma, but is there a survival benefit from radioembolization over conventional transarterial chemoembolization?”

3-month follow-up

Pre-yttrium-90 radioembolization



23

To properly power a trial to answer that question one would need more than 1,000 subjects, said Dr. Rostambeigi. He and colleagues created a simulation for the cost-effectiveness of radioembolization and conven-tional transarterial chemoembolization in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. They then used the model’s findings to compare the financial burden of radioemboli-zation and conventional transarterial chemoembolization in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Dr. Rostambeigi presented their findings at the SIR 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting.1

Criteria and Methods“We first did a systematic

review of literature [from 2003–2013] to get the survival costs and complications for each of these procedures,” Dr. Rostam-beigi said. “We then did a simu-lation study to obtain our cost-effectiveness analysis.”

The researchers excluded studies that had no clinical out-

comes by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stages and those that had transarterial ethanol ablation performed. Further-more, studies that included patients who took sorafenib (Nexavar), patients with portal vein thrombosis, or patients with liver cancer that was a metastatic result of other cancers were excluded.

“We wanted to have a target population that could po-tentially receive either [conventional] transarterial che-moembolization or yttrium-90 radioembolization,” said Dr. Rostambeigi.

Out of 44 studies surveyed, 11 met the inclusion criteria. The cost of each procedure was determined by the research-ers on the basis of current procedure terminology (CPT) code Medicare reimbursements.

The codes used for an yttrium-90 radioembolization pro-cedure were: 36247, 37204, 75774, 75894, 78205, 79445, 77470, 78205, and 74170 for a cost of $12,038. Yttrium-90 costs (code C2616) were calculated for two procedures (for two liver lobes) at $15,716 per embolization.

The codes used for a transarterial chemoembolization procedure were: 36247, 37204, 75726, 75774, 75894, 96367, 96368, 96411, 96413, 96417, 96420, 96521, and 96523 for a cost of $14,070. Angiography for two liver lobes (code 75726) was calculated at $4,052, plus the cost of a 23-hour overnight hospitalization stay without complications priced at $2,743. In addition, they assumed a technetium-99 micro-aggregated albumin scan would be ordered at a cost of $1,000.

The scientists then created three patient subgroups

that were defined on the basis of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage A, B, or C and Child-Pugh classifications to represent the most frequently encountered patient groups. “We designed the model such that each of these groups had 250 patients,” said Dr. Rostambeigi.

According to the researchers, the set of probabilities for events (recurrence, mortality, or being waitlisted for

liver transplant) that could happen after each procedure were determined based on the published literature.

The team then determined survivals on the basis of the literature and assumed that each episode of recurrence would increase mortality by 10% for the month following recurrence. In addition to improved rates of overall sur-vival, procedure, and complication costs and incremental costs of radioembolization over conventional transarte-rial chemoembolization were the primary outcomes.

Key ResultsThe researchers reported that total costs approached

$17,000 for transarterial chemoembolization and $49,000 for radioembolization.

The 5-year survival rate for the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage A transarterial chemoembolization group was 40% (range, 34%-46%)—37 months—compared with 19% (range, 14%–24%)—32 months—in the same

In Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C patients, [radioembolization] is

a cost-effective way to treat this group.

— Nassir Rostambeigi, MD

Cost-Effectiveness of Yttrium-90 Radioembolization Treatment

■ Yttrium-90 radioembolization treatment is most cost-effective for hepatocellular cancer patients who present with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C.

■ In this model, patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage A may be treated more cost-effectively with transarterial chemoembolization opposed to yttrium-90 radioembolization.

■ The cost-effective choice of whether to use transarterial chemoembolization or radioembolization on Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B patients depends on factors such as portal vein thrombosis or patient intolerance of chemoembolization, in this model.

Nassir Rostambeigi, MD



24

Fig. 1: The Decision Tree—A total of 250 patients were considered in each subgroup of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage A, B, or C. This decision tree was repeated for 5,000 iterations until the time of death or up to 3 or 5 years in separate models. At each iteration, ra-dioembolization had less chance to be repeated to comply with real-life practice than conventional transarterial chemoembolization, which could be staged and repeated more frequently. RE = radioembolization; TACE = conventional transarterial chemoembolization; BCLC = Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer. Courtesy of Nassir Rostambeigi, MD, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

stage radioembolization group (P = .001). Incremental costs were not associated with any survival benefit, ac-cording to the researchers.

However, when they examined the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C group, the researchers found a me-dian survival of 12 months for the transarterial chemo-embolization group compared with 19 months for the radioembolization group. This included an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $360 for radioembolization over transarterial chemoembolization.

“Radioembolization does not appear to be cost-effec-tive for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage A patients in this model,” said Dr. Rostambeigi. “However, this is a cost-effective way to treat Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C patients.”

BCLC-A, B, or C(each with 250

patients)

RE: 50% chance of repeat every 6 or 10 months, max 2 or 3

treatments

TACE: Repeat every 6 or 10 months, max 6

treatments

Survival (wait-list/transplant,

recurrence rate at 40%, 60%, or 80%)

MortalitySurvival

(wait-list/transplant, recurrence rate at

60%)

Mortality

BCLC-A, B, or C(each with 250

patients)

In the borderline Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B patients, secondary considerations become important when considering radioembolization, he said.

“If the first embolization is not tolerated, or there is a portal vein stenosis, consider radioembolization,” said Dr. Rostambeigi.

Disclosure: Dr. Rostambeigi reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Reference1. Rostambeigi N, Dekarske A, Austin E, et al: Simula-

tion study on cost-effectiveness of radioembolization com-pared with transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocel-lular carcinoma. Society of Interventional Radiology 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting. Abstract 224. Presented March 26, 2014.

Although radiation dose to health-care professionals delivering yttrium-90 radioembolization treatment

is 1.4% that of fluoroscopy exposure, radiation shielding is necessary, according to Jong Yun Won, MD, from the Research Institute of Radiological Science, Yonsei Uni-versity College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea.

Radiation Shielding Necessary for Physicians Delivering Yttrium-90 Radioembolization Treatment

Yttrium-90 is a pure beta-emitting radionuclide with high energy that is used in radioembolization treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma. It has a 64-hour half-life and mean 2.5-mm penetration depth in human tissue.

“Radioembolization is becoming one of the standard treatment modalities for hepatocellular carcinoma,” not-



25

ed Dr. Won at the SIR 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting, where he presented his study.1

Patients can be released from confinement postpro-cedure if their emitted dose rate at 1 meter is less than 25 microsieverts (μSv) per hour, according to guide-lines set by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In addition, under the same guidelines, patients treated with less than 5 gigabecquerels (GBq) of yttrium-90 can be released without contact restriction.

However, according to Dr. Won, there are no data or reports of yttrium-90 exposure dose to the health-care

professionals delivering the radioembolization treatment. His team sought to measure the radiation exposure dose during and after the radioem-bolization and to validate the safety of the procedure.

Criteria and Methods“We measure the radiation

dose during and after the infu-sion of yttrium-90 in 10 patients with hepatocellular car-cinoma,” Dr. Won said.

Injection of the yttrium-90 was done over the course of 10 minutes with a dose from 2 to 3 GBq (mean, 2.7 GBq). A survey meter (FH-40, Thermo Scientific) was placed 50 cm from the radionuclide source, 1.5 meters

off the floor and 1 meter from the patient, which is where Dr. Won usually positions himself during the procedure.

Radiation dose measurement was taken at this po-sition before yttrium-90 infusion, during fluoroscopy (anterior-posterior view) for comparison, at 30 seconds and 1, 3, and 5 minutes after the initiation of yttrium-90

Although radiation exposure was acceptable, considering a long infusion

time of yttrium-90, radiation shielding is necessary to avoid radiation exposure.

— Jong Yun Won, MD

Radiation Protection During Yttrium-90 Radioembolization

■ Patient isolation is not necessary after yttrium-90 radioembolization.

■ Radiation shielding is necessary for the physician administering yttrium-90 infusion.

■ Radiation dose exposure to the administering physician is within the safe exposure range.

treatment, and 1 meter from the patient after the com-pletion of the infusion.

Key ResultsAccording to Dr. Won, radiation dose before the in-

fusion was approximately 0.2 μSv per hour. After start-ing the infusion, it rose to 6 μSv per hour. Mean radia-tion exposure was 5.83 μSv per hour at 30 seconds after injection of yttrium-90, 6.13 μSv per hour at 1 minute, 4.5 μSv per hour at 3 minutes, and 2.1 μSv per hour at 5 minutes. Postprocedure, the patient emitted approxi-mately 2 μSv per hour.

“These were all very much lower than the radiation dose from fluoroscopy,” noted Dr. Won.

The researchers reported that radiation exposure to the physician during the yttrium-90 infusion was about 1.4% that of fluoroscopy, the dose was maximal 1 to 3 minutes after starting the infusion, and the radiation from the patient after treatment was approximately 8% of the maximum safety dose permitted under radiation dose guidelines to the physician.

“Although radiation exposure was acceptable, con-sidering a long infusion time of yttrium-90, radiation shielding is necessary to avoid radiation exposure,” Dr. Won concluded. n

Disclosure: Dr. Won reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Reference1. Lee S, Won J, Kim I, et al: Measurement of radiation expo-

sure dose during yttrium-90 radioembolization of hepatocellu-lar carcinoma. Society of Interventional Radiology 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting. Abstract 190. Presented March 25, 2014.

Jong Yun Won, MD



26

Preliminary data from a phase II trial indicate that yttrium-90 radioembolization, administered be-

tween first- and second-line chemotherapy for liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer, may improve progression-free survival, according to Kazim Narsinh, MD, from the Department of Radiology at the Univer-sity of California, San Diego.

“We know that yttrium-90 improves objective re-sponse rate during front-line treatment of liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer,” said Dr. Narsinh. “We also know that yttrium-90 radio-embolization has shown ben-efit lately as a salvage therapy in patients with chemorefrac-tory liver-dominant metastat-ic colorectal cancer.”

Dr. Narsinh and colleagues hypothesized that insertion of resin-based yttrium-90 ra-dioembolization after failure of first-line chemotherapy may improve response rates as well as progression-free and overall survival associated with second-line chemo-therapy. Their rationale was that radiation may increase chemosensitivity of liver tumors. The benchmark in their single-arm study was a comparison to published out-comes in similar cohorts of patients.

Dr. Narsinh presented the findings at the SIR 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting. Steven C. Rose, MD, Assis-tant Professor, Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, was the study’s lead author.1

Criteria and MaterialsThe researchers reported that patients with liver-

dominant metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma were offered enrollment into the phase II trial after failure of first-line oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy between Janu-ary 2010 and June 2011.

Ten patients were enrolled, with a mean age at re-cruitment of 61.3 ± 11.7 years. Eight patients had died by October 2013. Bevacizumab (Avastin) treatment had

Yttrium-90 Radioembolization Between First- and Second-Line Chemotherapy May Improve Progression-Free Survival in Patients With Liver-Dominant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

been given prior to yttrium-90 radioembolization in eight patients. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, Dr. Narsinh said.

Patients were required to be off their first-line chemo-therapy for 4 weeks or more, and in the case of bevaci-zumab, for 6 or more weeks. A baseline was established in three phases: computed tomography (CT) imaging, positron-emission tomography (PET) imaging, and lab-oratory tests.

If there was a single-lobe metastasis, a single yttrium-90 treatment was administered; bilobar involve-ment required a second yttrium-90 infusion at 4 weeks. Second-line irinotecan-based chemotherapy was initi-ated 4 weeks after a patient’s last yttrium-90 therapy.

Progression-free survival was assessed by Re-sponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1) from CT and PET imaging conducted within 12 weeks. This was then corroborated to rates of bio-chemical recurrence assessed by serum carcinoem-bryonic antigen levels.

Historical Control DataThe researchers assessed survival analysis using

Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazard models, and comparisons were made to historical con-trol data of 111 patients receiving similar second-line irinotecan-based chemotherapy after failure of first-line oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. 2,3

“For patients receiving a FOLFIRI-like regimen (leu-covorin, fluorouracil [5-FU], irinotecan) after progres-sion on FOLFOX (leucovorin, 5-FU, oxaliplatin), the benchmark [in the literature] was a response rate ranging from 4% to 20%, with median progression-free survival of 2.5 to 7.1 months,” said Dr. Narsinh.

Key Results“We have 7 patients [of 10] who had a partial response

or complete response, which gives us a response rate of about 70%,” said Dr. Narsinh. “Progression-free survival was also quite good compared to historical controls.”

The researchers found that median time to progres-

Kazim Narsinh, MD



27

sion after study recruitment was 10.2 months, and median overall survival was 17.6 months.

“We have preliminary data from a small cohort of patients that suggests yttrium-90 resin microsphere embolization sandwiched between first-line oxalipla-tin-based chemotherapy and second-line irinotecan-based chemotherapy improves response rate and progression-free survival compared to the historical control populations treated with systemic chemo-therapy in the absence of radioembolization,” said Dr. Narsinh.

“We think further patient recruitment is warrant-ed,” he continued. He noted that limitations of the

study included that it involved a small cohort from a single institution.

In response to an audience question, Dr. Narsinh re-ported that he and his colleagues noted no significant damage to liver vessels in their patient population as a result of first-line chemotherapy. n

Disclosure: Dr. Narsinh reported no potential conflicts of interest. One of his coauthors serves as a Proctor and is a minor stockholder in Sirtex Medical.

References1. Narsinh K, Newton I, Kikolski S, et al: Phase II study of

yttrium-90 resin microspheres in treatment of colorectal ad-enocarcinoma metastatic to the liver after failure of first-line oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy: Preliminary results of the InSIRT trial. Society of Interventional Radiology 2014 Annu-al Scientific Meeting. Abstract 221. Presented March 26, 2014.

2. Tournigand C, Andre T, Achille E, et al: FOLFIRI fol-lowed by FOLFOX6 or the reverse sequence in advanced colorectal cancer: A randomized GERCOR Study. J Clin On-col 22:229-237, 2004.

3. Bidard FC, Tournigand C, Andre T, et al: Efficacy of FOLFIRI-3 (irinotecan D1,D3 combined with LV5-FU) or other irinotecan-based regimens in oxaliplatin-pretreated met-astatic colorectal cancer in the GERCOR OPTIMOX1 study. Ann Oncol 20:1042-1047, 2009.

Yttrium-90 Radioembolization in Liver-Dominant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

■ Yttrium-90 radioembolization, administered between first- and second-line chemotherapy for liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer, may improve progression-free survival.

■ Median time to progression in this regimen was 10.2 months, compared with 2.5 to 7.1 months in historical controls.

Three-dimensional (3D) magnetic resonance imag-ing (MRI) has the potential to refine the predic-

tive value of tumor response assessment in patients with colorectal cancer metastases to the liver, reported Julius Chapiro, MD. Dr. Chapiro is with the Russell H. Mor-gan Department of Radiology and Radiological Scienc-

es, Section of Interventional Radiology at The Johns Hop-kins Hospital in Baltimore.

“If we look at the 5-year survival in patients with me-tastases to the liver, the rates are really poor—35% in the United States and 43% in Europe,” said Dr. Chapiro. “Approximately 70% of the

Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging May Deliver Better Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases Assessment Response

colorectal cancer patients are diagnosed with liver me-tastases, which ultimately becomes the dominant disease and the main cause of death. We know that new systemic chemotherapies have come a long way and can improve overall survival. However, chemoresistance is a major problem, and locoregional therapies can be used as sal-vage therapy.”

The key to achieving favorable outcomes is accurately assessing tumor response to intra-arterial therapeutic in-tervention. However, relying solely on anatomic tumor size measurement guidelines, such as Response Evalua-tion Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), can be inaccu-rate, said Dr. Chapiro.

Dr. Chapiro believes that current 3D imaging technology can deliver a more accurate assessment of tumor response than conventional one-dimen-Julius Chapiro, MD



28

The Role of 3D MRI in Colorectal Cancer Liver Metastases Assessment Response

■ Conventional anatomic imaging tumor assessment criteria may be inaccurate.

■ The authors suggest that all RECIST-based studies should be viewed with caution.

■ A 3D tumor assessment technique for MRI is fast and may provide critical therapeutic response information.

sional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) anatomic assessment criteria. He and his colleagues, including MingDe Lin, PhD and Jean-Francois Geschwind, MD, have developed an enhancement-based quan-titative European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) MRI guideline for tumor assessment. Dr. Chapiro presented their findings at the SIR 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting.1

Criteria and Materials“We designed our study to evaluate 3D quantitative-

ly assessed MRI response of colorectal metastasis after yttrium-90 radioembolization and transarterial chemo-embolization as a predictor of survival,” Dr. Chapiro stated. “We also compared 1D, 2D, and 3D assessment techniques and compared enhancement-based and dif-fusion-based measurements.”

The team began their investigation with a total of 49 patients. Patients without follow-up MRI were excluded as well as those who were treated with non–intra-arte-rial, liver-targeted therapies. The study cohort included 29 patients that were analyzed using 3D and non-3D techniques.

All patients had unresectable colorectal cancer metas-tases to the liver and were treated with intra-arterial sal-vage therapy using conventional transarterial chemoem-bolization or yttrium-90 radioembolization. All patients underwent pre- and postprocedural contrast-enhanced MRI within 1 month of treatment.

The baseline and follow-up MRI scans were used for processing. The semiautomatic 3D segmentation pro-cessing took between 20 and 80 seconds per patient, according to Dr. Chapiro. This included image subtrac-tion, transposition on an apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map, selection of extratumoral region of inter-est, and calculation of enhancing tumor volumes on pre- and post–intra-arterial tumor imaging.

“Because this technique simply mimics a radiologi-cal reading while quantifying what we see, we call the techniques simply quantitative EASL and ADC,” Dr. Chapiro said.

The researchers, based on this methodology, then stratified all patients as responders or nonresponders ac-cording to 3D as well as non-3D techniques. They then performed Kaplan-Meier analysis of patient survival af-ter the first session of intra-arterial therapy.

Key ResultsAccording to Dr. Chapiro, the patient cohort was

a typical salvage therapy cohort, with a majority of pa-tients receiving more than two lines of systemic chemo-therapy—60% received more than five lines. There was an almost even split among the patients treated with yttrium-90 (16 patients) and conventional transarterial chemoembolization (14 patients).

The median overall survival for the entire group was 7.5 months with no significant differences between con-ventional transarterial chemoembolization (7.3 months) and radioembolization (6.1 months) in the unmatched cohort (P ≥ .05).

When the researchers reviewed the anatomic criteria before and after therapy, RECIST did not show signifi-cant changes. However, the volume RECIST technique demonstrated a statistically significant increase after therapy (P = .02).

The functional criteria showed a significant decrease in tumor volume. The modified RECIST (P < .001) and quantitative EASL (P < .001) both demonstrated a de-crease of enhancement and the quantified apparent dif-fusion coefficient (P = .02) demonstrated an increase of diffusion-restricted volume.

(Left to right) Julius Chapiro, MD, Leading Scientist; MingDe Lin, PhD, Leading Engineer, Philips Bio-medical Engineer, based at Johns Hopkins Hospital; Jean-Francois Geschwind, MD, Principal Investiga-tor; Director, Vascular and Interventional Radiology; Director, Interventional Radiology Center, Johns Hopkins Hospital; Professor of Radiology, Surgery and Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.



29

When stratified according to quantitative EASL, re-sponders showed an overall survival of 11.5 months and nonresponders showed a significantly lower overall sur-vival of 7.0 months (P = .03).

“Enhancement-based [quantitative] EASL is the only imaging marker that predicts patient survival,” Dr. Chapiro concluded (Fig. 1). “Anatomic parameters did not provide any stratification between responders and nonresponders. In addition, functional non-3D markers

Fig. 1: (A) The 3D quantitative analysis of a contrast-enhanced MRI in a patient with liver metastasis from colorectal cancer, prior to locoregional therapy with transarterial chemoembolization. (B) The stratification of patient survival according to postprocedur-al tumor response analysis using the enhancement-based 3D technique (quantitative EASL). (C) The analysis of the same tumor using diffusion-based, 3D quantitative imaging (quantitative ADC). (D) No stratification between responders and nonresponders was achieved using the diffusion-based technique. Courtesy of Julius Chapiro, MD, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

were not predictive of survival.” nDisclosure: Dr. Chapiro reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Reference1. Chapiro J, Duran R, Lin M, et al: Quantitative 3D volumetric

assessment of tumor response after intraarterial therapy of colorec-tal cancer metastases to the liver: A new surrogate marker for sur-vival. Society of Interventional Radiology 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting. Abstract 241. Presented March 26, 2014.

A

C

Survival according to quantitative EASL

Responder

Nonresponder

P = .038

Time in months

% S

urvi

val

201510500

50

100

Survival according to quantitative ACD

Responder

Nonresponder

P = > .05

Time in months

% S

urvi

val

201510500

50

100

D

B



30

Yttrium-90 Radioembolization Safe in Women With Metastatic Breast Cancer and Liver-Dominant Disease

Fig. 1A: Patient 1, image 1—A 76-year-old woman with (A) multiple liver lesions in both lobes treated with selective right hepatic arterial catheterization and infusion of yttrium-90 followed by treatment of the left lobe 35 days later. Treatment delivered localized radiation at 131 Gy and 122 Gy to the right and left lobe tumors targeted with yttrium-90, respectively. (B) CT demonstrates treatment changes at 1 month and (C) 2 months’ imaging post–right-lobe treatment and 1 month post–left-lobe treatment confirming globally decreased hepatic disease burden. This patient had stable bone metastases without extrahepatic disease progression for 111 days after the first yttrium-90 treatment. Courtesy of Andrew Gordon, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago.

Radioembolization with yttrium-90 is safe in pa-tients with metastatic breast cancer with liver-dom-

inant disease late in their treatment course, and the treat-ment demonstrates consistent radiologic anti tumoral response, according to data presented at the SIR 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting in San Diego by Andrew

Gordon, a medical student at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago and a second-year PhD candidate in the Depart-ment of Biomedical Engineer-ing, Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois.1 Robert Lewandowski, MD, FSIR, Associate Professor of Radiol-ogy at Northwestern Univer-

sity Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago, was the study’s lead author.

“Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women worldwide,” said Mr. Gordon. “And the liver is a common site of metastases that ultimately worsens the patient’s prognosis. Progression of hepatic disease repre-sents a major treatment challenge. It impacts eligibility for systemic chemotherapy, it causes abdominal pain, and it causes overall hepatic dysfunction.”

Mr. Gordon and colleagues conducted a review of a pro-spectively collected database of patients treated with bilobar, lobar, or segmental yttrium-90 radioembolization protocols.

The primary outcomes of their research were clinical and biochemical toxicities and imaging response by Re-

sponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Survival was a secondary outcome.

According to Dr. Lewandowski, this is the largest study of its kind to date.

The liver is a common site of metastases [from breast cancer]

that ultimately worsens the patient’s prognosis. Progression of hepatic disease represents a major treatment challenge.

It impacts eligibility for systemic chemotherapy, it causes abdominal

pain, and it causes overall hepatic dysfunction.

— Andrew Gordon

A B C

Andrew Gordon



31

Fig. 2: Patient 2, image 1—(A) An 82-year-old woman with a solitary tumor in the right lobe measuring 4.5 x 3.3 cm. (B) CT image obtained 5 months later demonstrated a reduction in bidimensional size to 1.3 x 1.3 cm after two right lobar treatments at 93 Gy subsequently followed by 119 Gy. This patient had isolated liver metastases and remained free of extrahepatic disease 666 days after the first yttrium-90 treatment. Courtesy of Andrew Gordon, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago.

Fig. 1B: Patient 1 (76-year-old woman), Conebeam CT (coronal view) demonstrating selective visceral catheterization and an-giography of hypervascular multifocal tumors perfused by the right hepatic artery. Large as well as small nodules recruited arterial perfusion and conebeam CT confirmed both catheter placement and preferential tumor perfusion over the normal hepatic tissues. Courtesy of Andrew Gordon, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago.

Yttrium-90 Radioembolization for Patients With Metastatic Breast

Cancer With Liver-Dominant Disease

■ Yttrium-90 radioembolization treatment is a safe and effective therapy for chemorefractory metastatic breast cancer patients with liver-dominant disease.

■ Disease was stabilized in 98.5% of the women treated in this study. Liver tumor reduction was seen in 82.4% of the women who underwent yttrium-90 radioembolization.

■ Although not a cure, yttrium-90 radioembolization can shrink liver tumors, relieve painful symptoms, improve the quality of life, and potentially extend survival.

Criteria and Materials“This was a single-arm retrospective study of patients

treated intra-arterially with a dose of 120 Gy,” said Mr. Gordon. “Patients were included if they had image- or biopsy-proven liver metastases that were progressive on the standard of care, systemic chemotherapy.”

There were 75 women who met the study crite-ria. According to the researchers, the median age was 53.7 (range, 26.7–82.4) years. The patients had pre-dominantly multifocal (n = 64, 85.3%) bilobar (n = 61, 81.3%) disease with < 25% tumor burden (n = 44, 58.7%). There were 17 women whose metastatic dis-

ease was confined to the liver; the other 58 patients had extrahepatic involvement.

“Extrahepatic metastases were most commonly found in the bone, lung, and brain and were found in 77% of these cases,” said Mr. Gordon.

Key ResultsThe researchers reported clinical grade 3 toxicities

of fatigue, abdominal pain, nausea, and fever, post-treatment. The rate of any grade 3 clinical toxicity was 7.6%, with nausea/vomiting in 1.5%. Biochemical grade 3 toxicities included elevated alanine transami-nase (+4.4%) and aspartate transaminase (+8.8%), de-creased albumin (–4.2%), and increased total serum bilirubin (+5.9%) levels.

Mr. Gordon said that imaging follow-up was available in 69 of 73 living patients (93.2%), and 276 scans were

A B



32

Fig. 5: Patient 5, image 1—A 54-year-old woman with metastatic breast cancer that has progressed on multiple systemic thera-pies. The patient was treated on a clinical trial that combines systemic therapy (capecitabine) with radioembolization. The right hepatic lobe received 170 Gy as part of this phase 1 dose-escalating study. (A) Pre-treatment CT scan shows a large posterior right hepatic lobe tumor (arrow). (B) Post-treatment CT shows decreased size of the tumor and less enhancement, consistent with a favorable response (arrow). There is compensatory hypertrophy of the untreated left hepatic lobe (asterisk). Courtesy of Andrew Gordon, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago.

Fig. 4: Patient 4, image 1—(A) Pretreatment positron-emission tomography (PET) scan shows prominent FDG uptake in metastatic left lobe lesions targeted with yttrium-90 (arrow). (B) Post-treatment PET shows decreased metabolic tumor ac-tivity attributable to a partial response to treatment. Courtesy of Andrew Gordon, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago.

Fig. 3: Patient 3, image 1—A 55-year-old woman with (A) multiple tumors on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) treated with selective right hepatic arterial catheterization and infusion of yttrium-90 followed by treatment of the left lobe 46 days later. Sequential bilobar treatment delivered 118 Gy and 146 Gy to the right and left lobe tumors targeted with yttrium-90, respec-tively. MRI demonstrated posttreatment changes at (B) 4 months’ and (C) 7 months’ imaging post–right-lobe treatment and at (B) 3 months and (C) 6 months post–left-lobe treatment confirming globally decreased multifocal bilobar disease burden. Courtesy of Andrew Gordon, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago.

A B

A B

A B C



33

reviewed with partial response (24 patients, 35.3%) and stable disease (43 patients, 63.2%) with progression in 1 patient (1.5%) by rECIST (see Figs. 1 through 5).

Positron-emission tomography imaging was avail-able in 25 patients. The researchers noted complete re-sponse in 3 patients (12%), partial response or stable disease in 18 patients (72%), and progressive disease in 4 patients (16%).

Median survival for patients with < 25% vs ≥ 25% tumor burden was found to be 9.3 and 3.9 months, re-spectively (P < .0001). Unilobar vs bilobar disease con-ferred a median survival of 6.7 months, compared with 6.4 months, respectively (P = not significant).

Extrahepatic disease, multifocal disease, and perfor-mance status were not found to be significant predictors of

survival on univariate analyses, according to the researchers.“Response by index lesions indicated disease control

in 98.5% of the patients,” Mr. Gordon said of postradio-embolization follow-up. “By long-axis measurements, 82.4% of patients had an overall, objective decrease in their tumor size.” n

Disclosure: Dr. Lewandowski has served as an advisor to BTG. Mr. Gordon reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Reference1. Gordon AC, Ryu R, Sato KT, et al: Yttrium-90 radioem-

bolization for hepatic breast cancer metastasis: A contempo-rary analysis of safety, response, and survival. Society of Inter-ventional Radiology 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting. Abstract 192. Presented March 25, 2014.

Expert Point of View

In a related press conference at the SIR 2014 An-nual Scientific Meeting in San Diego, Robert

Lewandowski, MD, FSIR, Associate Professor of Ra-diology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of

Medicine, and one of the study authors, offered his thoughts on the study.1

“Although this is not a cure, yttrium-90 radio-embolization can shrink liver tumors, relieve pain-ful symptoms, improve the quality of life, and poten-tially extend survival,” said Dr. Lewandowski, who is Chair of SIR’s Interven-

tional Oncology Service Line. “While patient selection is important, the therapy is not limited by tumor size, shape, location, or number—and it can ease the sever-ity of disease in patients who cannot be treated effec-tively with other approaches.”

Dr. Lewandowski cited proven work with yttrium-90 radioembolization in treating patients with unresectable liver cancer and metastatic colon cancer as cause for ex-panding the therapy to other metastatic indications.

“We are looking to gain maximal tumor control while minimizing toxicity and preserving quality of life,” he said. “Yttrium-90 warrants further study of its efficacy in provid-

ing supportive care to relieve patients of debilitating symp-toms and control the progression of their disease.” n

Disclosure: Dr. Lewandowski has served as an advisor to BTG.

Reference1. Gordon AC, Ryu R, Sato KT, et al: Yttrium-90 radio-

embolization for hepatic breast cancer metastasis: A contem-porary analysis of safety, response, and survival. Society of Interventional Radiology 2014 Annual Meeting. Abstract 192. Presented March 25, 2014.

Robert Lewandowski,MD, FSIR

Yttrium-90 warrants further study of its efficacy in providing supportive care to relieve patients of debilitating

symptoms and control the progression of their disease.

— Robert Lewandowski, MD, FSIR



34

A retrospective population-based study demonstrated that patients with chemorefractory unresectable in-

trahepatic cholangiocarcinoma treated with yttrium-90 radioembolization had significantly greater median over-all survival and favorable long-term survival rates com-pared with best supportive care, according to Minzhi Xing, MD, and Kevin Kim, MD, from the Division of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

“Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is rare, with ap-proximately 3,000 cases diagnosed every year in the United States,” said Dr. Xing. “Age- adjusted incidence has increased rapidly, from 0.32 per 100,000 in 1975–1979 to 0.85 per 100,000 in 1995–1999.”

She noted that complete surgical resection or liver transplantation are the only curative approaches; how-ever, most patients present with advanced disease and relapse despite surgery. In addition, traditional systemic chemotherapies have shown poor outcomes in advanced cases of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

“Gemcitabine, with or without other chemothera-peutic agents, has been found to provide uncertain benefit in patients with advanced biliary tract can-cers,” Dr. Xing said. “Conventional transarterial che-moembolization has been used in several small, un-controlled trials of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, with median survival ranging widely from 9 to 21 months.”

She added that yttrium-90 radioembolization is an emerging treatment for unresectable liver tumors. Sever-al small, uncontrolled studies have proven the safety and efficacy of the treatment for unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

Dr. Xing and colleagues compared the overall sur-vival of patients with chemorefractory unresectable in-trahepatic cholangiocarcinoma treated with yttrium-90 radioembolization at their tertiary cancer referral cen-ter with patients with the same disease who received best supportive care in the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database.

She presented their results at the SIR 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting in San Diego.1

Yttrium-90 Radioembolization Shows Better Overall Survival vs Supportive Care in Patients With Unresectable Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

Criteria and Materials“Our inclusion criteria consisted of chemorefractory

intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in both cohorts,” Dr. Xing stated. “We use the most recent SEER database, which was updated in 2013.”

The researchers queried 18 registries of that da-tabase for patients diagnosed with chemorefractory intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, up to 2010, with outcome and follow-up of a minimum of 3 years. The intrahepatic bile duct was defined as the pri-mary site and the histology code used for cholangio-carcinoma. No patients received either radiation or cancer-directed surgery.

“We then compared these patients from the SEER da-tabase with patients at our institution who had advanced chemorefractory intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, di-agnosed in the same time period, and deemed suitable for yttrium-90 radioembolization after evaluation by a multi disciplinary tumor board,” said Dr. Xing.

The researchers reviewed the SEER data for de-mographic and clinical information and compared it with their institution’s database of yttrium-90 treated patients. Overall survival and survival rates were esti-mated and compared between the groups.

Key Results“Altogether, we found 2,757 patients on the SEER da-

tabase who fit the criteria of advanced intrahepatic cholan-giocarcinoma who received neither radiation nor cancer-directed surgery,” Dr. Xing said. “We had 24 patients who

For advanced unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, …

yttrium-90 yielded significantly higher median survival for patients,

and provided benefits for long-term survival.

— Minzhi Xing, MD



35

had undergone yttrium-90 therapy who were diagnosed during the same period. Importantly, no significant differ-ence was found between the groups in terms of age at di-agnosis, gender, race, bilobar disease, or presence of portal vein thrombosis, when comparing the populations.”

The researchers reported the median overall survival from intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma diagnosis for the yt-trium-90 radioembolization patients was 20.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.2–30.5), while the best sup-portive care group was 3.0 months ( 95% CI = 2.7–3.3) for P < .001. The median overall survival from the first yttrium-90 infusion was 11.5 months (95% CI = 4.8–18.2).

“At 6 months, yttrium-90 patients had a survivorship of 91.7% vs 29.9% from SEER, which is about a three-fold difference,” Dr. Xing stated. “At 1 year, yttrium-90 survival was 66.7%, compared with 17.3% in the SEER population. And, at 2 years from intrahepatic cholangio-carcinoma diagnosis, 41.9% of yttrium-90 patients had survived, vs 6% of SEER patients. Three-year survival was 16.7% with the yttrium-90 patients, as compared with 2.5% of SEER patients.”

Log-rank test of survival data showed P < .0001, a sig-nificant survival benefit of radioembolization compared with best supportive care.

Study LimitationsDr. Xing noted that there were several limitations

to the study. Because they used SEER data, it did not cover all states or geographic areas within the United States. It also did not provide data on Eastern Coop-erative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, Child-Pugh class, or tumor-node-metastases (TNM) staging, which are a crucial part of the comprehensive assessment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma pa-tients for therapy.

In addition, the SEER database only stratified patients who did or did not receive radiation or cancer-directed surgery. There was a lack of data about systemic chemo-therapy, such as Gemcitabine, or specific therapeutic regimens that would have been very useful as a compara-tor group for locoregional therapies, Dr. Xing stated.

“In a comparison of yttrium-90 for advanced unre-sectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma vs patients who receive neither radiation nor cancer-directed sur-gery we found that yttrium-90 yielded significantly high-er median survival for patients, and provided benefits for long-term survival—with a six- to sevenfold increase in survival rate at 2 or more years after intrahepatic cholan-giocarcinoma diagnosis,” she concluded. n

Disclosure: Drs. Xing and Kim reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Reference1. Xing M, Kokabi N, Camacho JC, et al: Survival trends

in chemorefractory unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarci-noma and the effect of resin-based yttrium-90 radioemboliza-tion: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database vs. tertiary cancer center. Society of Interventional Radiol-ogy 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting. Abstract 223. Presented March 26, 2014.

Yttrium-90 vs Best Supportive Care for Unresectable Intrahepatic

Cholangiocarcinoma

■ Yttrium-90 yielded significantly higher median survival (~21 vs 3 months) for unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma patients than best supportive care.

■ At 6 months after treatment, yttrium-90 patients had a survivorship of 91.7% vs 29.9% in the best supportive care population, about a threefold difference.

■ Radioembolization in this patient population provided benefits for long-term survival – with a six- to sevenfold increase in survival rate at 2 or more years after diagnosis.

See page 36 for information on radioembolization and issues in reimbursement.



36

Radioembolization and Issues in Reimbursement

Edward Kim, MD, Director of Interventional Oncology and Assistant Professor of Radiology and Surgery in the Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology at the Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York,

headed a symposium held in conjunction with the SIR 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting.The symposium “TheraSphere Reimbursement in HCC: Facts vs Fiction” was sponsored by BTG.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved yttrium-90 radioemboliza-tion for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma under a Humanitarian Device Exemption. It is eligible for Medicare reimbursement as well as reimbursement by a majority of commercial health insurance plans, and state-government sponsored programs such as Medicaid and Tri-Care for military personnel.

Dr. Kim shared his experience with obtaining insurance coverage for the interven-tional procedure.

According to Dr. Kim, Medicare has no national coverage determination for yttri-um-90 microspheres. Coverage is determined at the local level by Medicare Adminis-trative Contractors. In addition, predetermination is not offered and payment is made after the claim has been submitted.

On a state level, there are no published coverage policies. Tri-Care requires predetermination and referral from a Veterans Administration primary care physician. Also, there are three regions—East, Central, and West—in Tri-Care, and rules are different at each region.

Approximately 95%-98% of private health insurance plans have positive coverage policies for yttrium-90 ra-dioembolization, said Dr. Kim. These plans also require a predetermination and may require a clinical review for medical necessity.

Following the symposium, Daniel B. Brown, MD, FSIR, Chief of Interventional Oncology, Vanderbilt Uni-versity Medical Center, Nashville; Chair, SIR 2014 Annual Scientific Meeting, noted that radioembolization re-

imbursement can be difficult to attain from insurance companies. Without precertifi-cation specifically, it can be difficult to treat patients without subjecting them to large payments, Dr. Brown noted. “The biggest challenge I have is getting precertification from insurance companies. This delays access to care for patients unless they are for-tunate enough to be able to pay sizable sums out of pocket. This continues to happen despite data showing the benefits of arterial interventions to patients,” said Dr. Brown.

Reimbursement AssistanceManufacturers of yttrium-90 radioembolization products offer reimbursement as-

sistance to physicians and their patients. Further information is available at:BTG (TheraSphere): Through TheraSphere Reimbursement Services, BTG pro-

vides patients and health-care providers a full range of reimbursement services including billing and coding sup-port, material to support precertification for those health plans that require it, and patient assistance.

George Atkins, Reimbursement Specialist: [email protected] (SIR-Spheres): SIRTeX maintains a reimbursement link on its United States region website. Visit

http://www.sirtex.com/us/clinicians/reimbursement/ or email: [email protected]: Dr. Kim is on the speakers’ bureau for BTG. Dr. Brown reported no potential conflicts of interest.

Edward Kim, MD

Daniel B. Brown, MD, FSIR

http://www.sirtex.com/us/clinicians/reimbursement/

SIR 201540th Annual Scientific Meeting

February 28 to March 5, 2015Georgia World Congress Center

Atlanta, Georgia

Don’t Miss

http://www.sirweb.org/meetings/annualMeetingHome.shtml

tap vol 5 issue 12 supplement

Documents

opinions of asco

asco members

asco postthe asco post

asco member services

interventional oncology

mailing address

cold spring harbor

personalized service