AJR F and L Medical Products: Radiation Protection & More
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Herber, S. C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Manzl, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Herber, S. C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Manzl, N.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.07.2755
AJR 2008; 190:1035-1042
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Clinical Observations

Transarterial Chemoembolization in Patients Not Eligible for Liver Transplantation: Single-Center Results

Sascha C. A. Herber1, Gerd Otto2, Jens Schneider1, Markus Schuchmann3, Christoph Düber1, Michael B. Pitton1, Inga Kummer1 and Nicole Manzl1

1 Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Mainz, Langenbeckstr. 1, 55124 Mainz, Germany.
2 Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
3 I. Medical Clinic, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.

Received June 20, 2007; accepted after revision October 24, 2007.

 
Address correspondence to S. C. A. Herber (s.herber{at}kk-koblenz.de).


Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of transarterial chemoembolization in the care of patients not eligible for liver transplantation.

CONCLUSIONS. Prognosis depends on local response, Okuda score, {alpha}-fetoprotein level, and tumor size and is independent of the presence of portal venous thrombosis.

Keywords: hepatocellular carcinoma • Kaplan-Meier • mitomycin C • transarterial chemoembolization


Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Long since Llovet et al. [1] and Lo et al. [2] reported results of randomized trials, transarterial chemo embolization (TACE) has been considered the mainstay of palliative therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Liver transplantation is the only potentially curative therapy. However, only 15–30% of patients have curable disease at the time of diagnosis, and each year nearly 1 million persons die of HCC worldwide [35]. Although HCC with a limited number of tumors may be amenable to transplantation, resection, or a local ablative procedure, such as percutaneous ethanol injection or radiofrequency ablation [36], most patients must be allocated to undergo palliative therapy [5, 7]. Debate is ongoing regarding indications for and techniques of chemoembolization. Patients with advanced tumors, such as diffusely infiltrating tumors and tumors that have invaded the portal vein, have not been included in several studies [1, 2]. In daily clinical practice, however, patients with tumors in advanced stages and limited liver function also need treatment, even if they are not candidates for liver transplantation or resection.

We report our results with patients treated over a 5-year period who were not eligible for liver transplantation. Almost one third of the patients were found to have a diffusely infiltrating tumor, and almost one third had partial or complete portal venous thrombosis at the initial CT evaluation. The aim of this study was to evaluate our experience and results with a heterogeneous cohort of patients undergoing palliative therapy. This cohort encompasses patients with a more favorable prognosis because of limited disease and patients with a so-called poor prognosis because of tumors in advanced stages.


Materials and Methods
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
We selected 149 of a total of 258 patients with HCC not eligible for liver transplantation who were treated exclusively with TACE during the 5-year period June 1999–January 2005. Patient demographic and baseline characteristics are shown in Table 1. The diagnosis was confirmed with either CT- or sonography-guided needle biopsy or laparoscopy (n = 125) or had even been confirmed with two independent imaging techniques (MDCT, contrast-enhanced MRI, or contrast-enhanced sonography) combined with an increased {alpha}-fetoprotein level (> 400 µg/L).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 1: Baseline Characteristics (n = 149)

 

The treatment protocol consisted of repeated TACE treatments with a mixture of mitomycin C and iodized oil (Lipiodol Ultra Fluid, Guerbet) at an interval of 8 ± 2 weeks between procedures. A total of 688 TACE procedures (mean, 4.6 ± 3.55 [SD] per patient; 95% CI, 3.9–4.9; range, 1–17) were performed during the study period. A one-time TACE procedure was performed on 34 (22.8%) of the patients, two or three procedures on 38 (25.5%) of the patients, and more than three procedures on 77 (51.7%) patients.

Patients were included who had untreated HCC not suitable for curative treatment. The patients were not eligible for liver transplantation because of advanced age (> 65 years), tumor size or growth exceeding the Milan criteria (less than three tumors with a maximum diameter ≤ 3.0 cm or one tumor with a maximum diameter ≤ 5.0 cm), or the presence of a severe comorbid condition.

Patients were excluded from TACE if they had advanced liver disease (Child-Pugh class C; Okuda score III), a serum bilirubin concentration greater than 3.0 mg/dL, bacterial infection, extrahepatic tumor spread, encephalopathy, portosystemic shunt, or any contraindication to an arterial procedure (clotting test result showing impairment, platelet count < 50,000/mm3, prothrombin activity < 50%). They were excluded in the case of renal failure (serum creatinine concentration > 1.8 mg/dL), leukocyte count less than 3 x 109, and refractory ascites not controlled with diuretics. In patients with portal venous thrombosis, an individual decision was made for or against TACE on the basis of liver function (absence of Child-Pugh class B or C disease), performance status, and the vote of an interdisciplinary tumor board. Approval for TACE as palliative therapy for inoperable liver cancer was granted by the institutional investigation and ethics committee.

TACE was stopped if one of the following conditions was present: progressive tumor disease, occlusion of the common hepatic artery or of the tumor-feeding arteries, extrahepatic tumor spread, or progressive hepatic decompensation (Child-Pugh class C; Okuda score III).

Imaging
CT images were acquired within 24 hours before each TACE treatment. The investigation protocol included dynamic contrast-enhanced helical CT with a 4-MDCT scanner (Volume Zoom, Siemens Medical Solutions). An unenhanced CT scan was followed by arterial and portal venous phase acquisitions. Investigation parameters for the three phases were as follows: slice thickness, 3 mm; increment, 2.5 mm; collimation, 2 mm; 150 mL IV iomeprol (Imeron 300, Bracco); 50 mL saline bolus; flow, 5 mL/s; 150 mAs at 120 kV. After each TACE session, unenhanced CT was performed on the same or the next day to document the iodized oil distribution and to exclude displacement of the embolizing agent.

Technical Procedure
Transfemoral access with a 5-French catheter sheath was selected for all patients, and a 5-French standard catheter (Sidewinder or Cobra, Terumo) was used for angiography. The first step was to document the arterial supply to the liver. The mesenteric artery was examined to visualize any atypical blood supply to the liver. The common hepatic artery then was cannulated, and according to the individual anatomic disposition, the catheter was placed in a position distal to the origin of the gastroduodenal artery in the common hepatic artery or in the right or left lobar artery. If a stable catheter position was not achieved at this level, a 2.2-French microcatheter was used for superselective intubation of the segmental vessels.

TACE was performed with a suspension of a maximum of 20 mL iodized oil (Lipiodol Ultra Fluid, Guerbet) and mitomycin C (10 mg) mixed immediately before administration. In the case of bilateral tumor spread, the total dose was distributed under continuous fluoroscopic guidance to both liver lobes (two thirds of the total dose to the right lobe, one third to the left); in cases of unilateral tumor growth, the dose was administered only to the right or the left lobar artery. The treatment was terminated after the total dose was administered or stasis or reflux was attained in the appropriate section. The patients were usually hospitalized for one night and were dismissed the next day if no complications developed. Nausea, pain, or fever that occurred in association with the TACE treatment was managed symptomatically with antiemetics (e.g., tropisetron 5–15 mg IV), analgesics (e.g., metamizole IV), or antipyretics (e.g., paracetamol 500–1,000 mg orally). No antibiotic prophylaxis was given.

Laboratory Studies and Clinical Findings
Biochemical and tumor markers were checked every 8 ± 2 weeks. In all patients, serum {alpha}-fetoprotein, transaminase (aspartate amino transferase, alanine amino transferase), and serum cholinesterase levels, blood count, and coagulation values (partial thromboplastin time, thrombin time, Quick's test result or international normalized ratio) were assessed. The degree of cirrhosis was classified according to Child-Pugh class (A–C) and Okuda score (I–III). Liver function was impaired in 23.5% of the patients (Child-Pugh class B). An Okuda score of II was documented in 50.3% of the patients and an Okuda score of I in 49.7% (Table 1).

CT Evaluation
The number of tumors and the maximal transverse and longitudinal diameters of the marker lesion in the disease process were assessed through synopsis of the contrast-enhanced CT images. For patients who received TACE more than six times, an interim analysis was performed after three procedures. Tumor response was assessed on the basis of the cross-sectional CT findings, and interim best response to therapy was assessed according to the World Health Organization classification [8]. The maximum diameters of the largest lesion were recorded and compared with the measurements on the last available follow-up CT scans. Progressive disease was considered more than a 25% increase in maximum tumor diameter or the presence of new tumor; stable disease, less than 25% decrease or an increase in tumor size; minor response, 26–50% decrease in maximum tumor size; partial response, more than 50% decrease in maximum tumor size; complete remission, no tumor found. Iodized oil accumulation was classified as 0–25%, 26–50%, 51–75%, and 76–100% on a visual ana log scale on postintervention CT scans. In addi tion, correct distribution of embolization agent was confirmed on a postintervention unenhanced CT scan.

Tumor attenuation was analyzed with a visual analog score in the arterial phase and classified as high, low, or mixed. Patency of the portal vein and hepatic arteries and veins was determined on the preinterventional CT scan and during catheter angiography. Infiltration of the liver capsule was suggested if the tumor had contact with the liver capsule over a longer distance [9]. On the follow-up CT scans, presence or absence of pathologic lymph nodes was checked, as was extrahepatic tumor spread. Lymphatic metastasis was suggested if lymph nodes in the hepatoduodenal ligament were not suspected at previous evaluation and had grown to a diameter of more than 2.0 cm in the course of disease without evidence of regression in the subsequent course.

Statistical Analysis
The database was analyzed with the statistical program SPSS version 12.0 for Windows (SPSS). Continuous ordinal data were expressed as mean ± SD, and qualitative data as frequency and rate. The statistical significance of quantitative data was determined with the Mann-Whitney test, and categoric data were compared with use of the chi-square test. Univariate analysis to identify predictors of survival was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method for the baseline variables. The log-rank test was used to describe significant differences. On the basis of the results of the univariate analysis, factors found significant or considered important were subjected to multivariate analysis with a Cox proportional hazards model. Two-tailed p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical tests were performed bilaterally.


Results
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Tumor Characteristics
Most (n = 129, 86.6%) of the patients had multifocal tumor disease; unifocal tumors were found in only 20 (13.4%) of the patients (Table 2). Tumors were restricted to a single liver lobe in 37.6% of the patients. Both liver lobes were involved in 62.4%. Tumors were classified according to findings on arterial CT scans as having high, low, or mixed attenuation in 55.0%, 21.5%, and 23.5% of the patients, respectively. Portal venous thrombosis was found in 44 (29.5%) of the patients on the initial CT scan. Thrombosis of the common trunk and thrombosis of the right or left portal vein each were found in 22 (14.8%) of the patients. Tumor infiltration of the portal vein was visualized on contrast-enhanced CT scans of 37 of the 44 patients with portal venous thrombosis. In more than one half of the patients (67.8%), helical CT showed infiltration of the liver capsule.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 2: Tumor Characteristics (n = 149)

 

Course of Disease
At the end of the investigation period, 16.8% (n = 25) of the patients were alive, and 83.2% (n = 124) had died (Table 3). Follow-up CT scans were available for 91.9% (137/149) of the patients. Stable disease, regression, or progression was found in 65.9%, 14.1%, and 18.8% of the patients, respectively. The mean size of the marker lesion was 6.3 ± 3.8 cm (95% CI, 5.3–6.4 cm; range, 0.8–17.0 cm) before TACE and 6.5 ± 4.8 cm (95% CI, 5.3–6.7 cm; range, 0.8–20.9 cm) after the last TACE procedure. After the last TACE session, extrahepatic tumor manifestation was suspected in 48.3% of the patients. Presumably malignant intraabdominal lymph nodes were found in 23.5% and lung metastasis in 15.4% of the patients. The cause of the deaths of 6.5% of the patients remained unclear. Approximately three fourths (74.2%) of the patients probably died of tumor disease, but in 13.7% of the cases, progressive liver decompensation was considered the cause of death. Three patients died of esophageal variceal bleeding.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 3: Course of Disease (n = 149)

 

Survival and Prognosis
The overall 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates for the total cohort were 53.6%, 24.6%, and 13.2%, respectively, and the mean survival time was 18.3 months (95% CI, 15.0–21.4 months) (Fig. 1). Results of univariate and multivariate analyses (Tables 4, 5, 6) showed a significant correlation between death and response to TACE (response or stable disease vs tumor progression, p = 0.013) (Fig. 2). Response depended on tumor size and the number of tumors. The response was significantly better for small tumors than for larger tumor nodules (p < 0.0001). In addition, response was significantly better in hypervascular lesions than in lesions with mixed or low attenuation (p = 0.007). A significant benefit was found among patients with limited disease (p = 0.02). The 1-, 2- and 3-year survival rates for patients with unifocal tumors were calculated to be 68.4%, 46.1%, and 25.6%. Patients with multifocal diffusely infiltrating tumors had overall survival rates of only 37.5%, 16.6%, and 9.2%.


Figure 1
View larger version (8K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1 Graph shows Kaplan-Meier survival curve for total cohort. Crosses indicate censored data.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 4: Actuarial Survival and Results of Univariate Log-Rank Test

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 5: Actuarial Survival and Results of Univariate Analysis

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 6: Results of Multivariate Analysis with Cox Proportional Hazards Model

 

Figure 2
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 2 Graph shows Kaplan-Meier survival curve according to response to transarterial chemoembolization. Survival was significantly better among patients who responded to treatment (p = 0.017). Black line indicates response; gray line, no response; crosses, censored data.

 

Initial serum {alpha}-fetoprotein level was related to extension of the tumor disease (p = 0.024). Univariate and multivariate analyses showed a significant correlation between elevation of the serum {alpha}-fetoprotein level and course of disease. Patients with elevated (> 10 µg/L) {alpha}-fetoprotein levels had a significantly worse outcome. Furthermore, functional liver status had a major influence on long-term survival. Results of univariate and multivariate analyses showed that Okuda score had a significant influence on survival. Patients with an Okuda score of II at the first CT evaluation had 2- and 3-year survival rates of only 16.1% and 8.5% (Fig. 3).


Figure 3
View larger version (9K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 3 Graph shows Kaplan-Meier survival curve comparing initial Okuda scores. Black line indicates Okuda score of I; gray line, Okuda score of II; crosses, censored data (p < 0.0001).

 
Complications During Treatment
Significant changes were found in laboratory values before and after the last TACE session (Table 7). Activated prothrombin ratio decreased (p < 0.0001). A relevant decrease in the total protein level and a statistically significant increase in {alpha}-fetoprotein and serum bilirubin levels (p < 0.05) also were observed. Serum cholinesterase levels were not significantly different before and after TACE.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 7: Laboratory Test Results Before and After Transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE)

 

Clinically apparent complications developed in 35 (23.5%) of the patients (Table 8). Even after repeated treatments, permanent occlusion of the common hepatic artery or right or left lobar artery forcing interruption of the TACE procedure occurred in only 2.7% of the patients. Distinct hepatic arterial spasm was found in 6.8% of the patients. In 4.7% of patients who underwent repeated treatments, early stasis or reflux developed after injection of the embolic agent. One case of dissection of the common hepatic artery necessitating interruption of treatment was documented. On control angiography, however, the situation had improved, so the treatment was resumed. Severe vomiting necessitating prolonged hospitalization occurred in 7.4% of the patients. Displacement of iodized oil into the gastroduodenal artery or gastric branches with subsequent severe pancreatitis in one case and gastric ulcer in another was found in 1.3% of the patients. No deaths associated with the TACE treatment occurred.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 8: Overall Complications (n = 149)

 


Discussion
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Although results of numerous studies on TACE in the management of HCC have been published, there are still conflicting recommendations regarding indications, chemotherapeutic agents, and outcome [12, 911]. Furthermore, the technical procedure is still under debate. How selective should we be in performing TACE? Is it justified to manage only the visible nodules with superselective TACE, or should the chemotherapeutic agent be administered unselectively with the risk of provoking worsening of already impaired liver function?

Most (86.6%) patients have multifocal tumor disease and are not eligible for liver transplantation. Therefore the aim of our embolization protocol, which is similar to that of other authors [2], was not superselective treatment of only tumor-feeding vessels. In the first treatment session, we routinely administered some of the embolization material to presumably uninvolved regions. This procedure was based on histopathologic observations and experience that in as many as one third of patients, additional tumor nodules are found in surgical specimens that are not recognized on CT or MRI [1214].

Even though many authors have proposed using embolizing agents, such as absorbable gelatin sponge, polyvinyl alcohol particles, and microspheres, after administering the iodized oil–chemotherapeutic suspension, there are concerns about provoking early occlusion of the hepatic arteries [9, 15, 16]. Because our treatment protocol provided for regular sequential treatment, which is considered superior to a one-time procedure [11, 1719], we abstained from using particles or microspheres.

The probability of survival for the total cohort was even worse than that reported in previous studies [1, 2, 9, 20, 21]. In 2002 Llovet and colleagues [1] conducted a randomized controlled trial in which results among patients treated with TACE were compared with those among patients who received only the best supportive care. The authors reported favorable cumulative 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates of 82%, 63%, and 29% among patients treated with chemoembolization. Another randomized trial in 2002, by Lo et al. [2], had 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates of 57%, 31%, and 26%. In our cohort, the 1-year survival was 53.6%, and the 2-year and 3-year survival rates were only 24.6% and 13.2%. Llovet et al. explained their very positive findings by the use of restrictive selection criteria. They included only patients with predominantly preserved liver function and a limited tumor load. They excluded patients with factors considered less favorable for outcome, such as age older than 75 years and the presence of diffusely infiltrating neoplasms, portal venous thrombosis, or vascular invasion. Unlike Llovet and colleagues, we did not formulate such restrictive selection criteria from the start. We did not even exclude elderly patients or patients with portal venous thrombosis or large tumors.

In line with the findings of Tsukioka et al. [22], patient age did not have a negative influence on outcome after TACE in our cohort. However, as in another study [9], univariate analysis revealed a significantly worse survival rate among patients with portal venous thrombosis. As in other studies [23, 24], portal venous thrombosis was present in almost one third of the patients in our cohort. As in still other studies [20, 25, 26], the mean 3-year survival rate was poor. None of the patients with portal venous thrombosis survived 3 years, and only 12% survived 2 years or more. In our cohort, however, the 1-year survival rate among patients with portal venous thrombosis was comparable with that in a study by Uraki et al. [27] in 2004. Those investigators found a mean survival time of 15 months among patients presenting with portal venous thrombosis; the 1-year survival rate was 42%.

In contrast to studies conducted by others [15, 28, 29], multivariate analysis in our study did not reveal a statistically significant difference in survival among patients with and those without portal venous thrombosis. One explanation may be the circumstance that patients who died very early of advanced tumor disease were included in the total cohort, so the influence of portal venous thrombosis was masked.

Even though the danger of provoking acute liver failure is estimated to be quite small if liver function is well preserved [30], there are concerns about the long-term consequences for hepatic function. As others [20, 31, 32] have found, TACE proved safe for our patients, even those with complete or partial thrombosis of the portal vein. Frequency of death within 30 days after TACE did not reach statistical significance. We found no consistent data in the literature about the frequency of acute or chronic liver failure after TACE.

Although we excluded patients with disease in Child-Pugh class C or with an Okuda score of III, in more than one half of our patients, disease was classified as having an Okuda score of II. We found distinct changes between the first and last control laboratory evaluations. Liver function, characterized by bilirubin level, serum protein level, and prothrombin ratio, worsened significantly in our cohort. As a sign of progressive liver decompensation, ascites was observed significantly more often on the last control CT scan than on the initial scan. Retrospective analysis showed that death was related to liver decompensation and not to tumor progression in only 13.5% of the cases. This finding is almost identical to the results presented by Kiely and colleagues [21] in 2006. Those authors proposed that TACE may be safe even for patients with limited liver volume. Although survival tended to be shorter among patients with Child-Pugh class B disease, statistical analysis showed no significant difference. As in a study by Lo and colleagues [2], however, univariate and multivariate analyses showed Okuda score to be a relevant predictor of the course of disease. The probability of survival was significantly better among patients with Okuda I disease than those with Okuda II disease.

In addition to Okuda score at the first treatment session, individual response to the procedure had a highly significant effect on patient survival, as has been found by other authors [1, 27, 33]. Adequate local tumor control and stable or regressive tumor disease were associated with a favorable long-term prognosis significantly more often than in patients with tumor progression while being treated with TACE. In addition, tumor control in the whole liver, particularly suppression of new tumor nodules, was a crucial criterion in prognosis. Patients with no evidence of new tumors in addition to the initially documented tumor nodules had a clearly better outcome. Cox regression analysis showed that response to TACE and lack of new tumors are key to a more favorable outcome. As have other study groups, we found a close correlation between response or treatment failure and the extent and number of tumors, vascularization of the nodule, and uptake of iodized oil [12, 9, 21, 33]. TACE was less promising in the management of large tumors, poorly vascularized lesions, multifocal disease, and poor iodized oil accumulation within the tumor (p < 0.05).

As found by Huppert et al. [9], local tumor progression was associated significantly more often with massive (> 50%) diffusely infiltrating tumors. The threshold for serum {alpha}-feto protein concentration in our analysis was 100 µg/L. When the {alpha}-fetoprotein level exceeded this limit, we found a significantly worse outcome than among patients with {alpha}-fetoprotein levels that did not exceed this limit in the univariate analysis. Multivariate analysis with the Cox model revealed {alpha}-fetoprotein value was an independent prognostic factor, as found in other studies [15, 28, 34, 35].

We are aware of the limitations of our study. First, there might have been selection bias in that only patients not eligible for other treatments were included and thus represented a negative proportion of all the HCC patients treated during the last 5 years. Second, there was no randomized control group for comparison. Nevertheless, our findings from a single university hospital emphasize the value of palliative TACE treatment of these patients. Major benefit was found particularly among patients who responded to treatment. Initial {alpha}-fetoprotein level and Okuda score of liver function were considered further independent prognostic factors for survival. We found that even with portal venous thrombosis, patients may profit from TACE and should not be routinely excluded from this treatment.


References
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 

  1. Llovet JM, Real MI, Montana X, et al. Arterial embolisation or chemoembolisation versus symptomatic treatment in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002; 359:1734 -1739[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Lo CM, Ngan H, Tso WK, et al. Randomized controlled trial of transarterial lipiodol chemoembolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2002;35 : 1164-1171[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Llovet JM, Burroughs A, Bruix J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet 2003; 6:1907 -1917
  4. Yuen MF, Chan AO, Wong BC, et al. Transarterial chemoembolization for inoperable, early stage hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with Child-Pugh grade A and B: results of a comparative study in 96 Chinese patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98 : 1181-1185[Medline]
  5. Geschwind JF, Ramsey DE, Choti MA, Thuluvath PJ, Huncharek MS. Chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma: results of a metaanalysis. Am J Clin Oncol 2003;26 : 344-349[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Bolondi L, Sofia S, Siringo S, et al. Surveillance programme of cirrhotic patients for early diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost effectiveness analysis. Gut2001; 48:251 -259[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Fisher RA, Maroney TP, Fulcher AS, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma: strategy for optimizing surgical resection, transplantation and palliation. Clin Transplant 2002;16 [suppl 7]: 52-58[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Miller AB, Hoogstraten B, Staquet M, Winkler A. Reporting results of cancer treatment. Cancer 1981;47 : 207-214[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Huppert PE, Lauchart W, Duda S, et al. Chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinomas: which factors determine therapeutic response and survival? Rofo 2004;176 : 375-385[Medline]
  10. Geschwind JF. Chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: where does the truth lie? J Vasc Interv Radiol2002; 13:991 -994[Medline]
  11. Hashimoto T, Nakamura H, Hori S, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma: efficacy of transcatheter oily chemoembolization in relation to macroscopic and microscopic patterns of tumor growth among 100 patients with partial hepatectomy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol1995; 18:82 -86[Medline]
  12. Molmenti EP, Klintmalm GB. Hepatocellular cancer in liver transplantation. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg2001; 8:427 -34[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Gonzalez-Uriarte J, Valdivieso A, Gastaca M, et al. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients. Transplant Proc 2003;35 : 1827-1829[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Valls C, Cos M, Figueras J, et al. Pretransplantation diagnosis and staging of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: value of dual-phase helical CT. AJR 2004;182 : 1011-1017[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Ueno K, Miyazono N, Inoue H, Nishida H, Kanetsuki I, Nakajo M. Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization therapy using iodized oil for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: evaluation of three kinds of regimens and analysis of prognostic factors Cancer2000; 88:1574 -1581[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Ramsey DE, Geschwind JF. Chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma: what to tell the skeptics—review and meta-analysis. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 2002;5 : 122-126[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Jaeger HJ, Mehring UM, Castaneda F, et al. Sequential transarterial chemoembolization for unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 1996;19 : 388-396[CrossRef][Medline]
  18. Spreafico C, Marchiano A, Regalia E, et al. Chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients who undergo liver transplantation. Radiology 1994;192 : 687-690[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Vogl TJ, Schroeder H, Trapp M, et al. Multi-sequential arterial chemoembolization of advanced hepatocellular carcinomas: computerized tomography follow-up parameters for evaluating effectiveness of therapy. Rofo 2000; 172:43 -50[Medline]
  20. Georgiades CS, Hong K, D'Angelo M, Geschwind JF. Safety and efficacy of transarterial chemoembolization in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein thrombosis. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005; 16:1653 -1659[Medline]
  21. Kiely JM, Rilling WS, Touzios JG, et al. Chemoembolization in patients at high risk: results and complications. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006; 17:47 -53[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Tsukioka G, Kakizaki S, Sohara N, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma in extremely elderly patients: an analysis of clinical characteristics, prognosis and patient survival. World J Gastroenterol2006; 12:48 -53[Medline]
  23. Ogren M, Bergqvist D, Bjorck M, Acosta S, Eriksson H, Sternby NH. Portal vein thrombosis: prevalence, patient characteristics and lifetime risk—a population study based on 23796 consecutive autopsies. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12 : 2115-2119[Medline]
  24. Albacete RA, Matthews MJ, Saini N. Portal vein thromboses in malignant hepatoma. Ann Intern Med 1967;67 : 337-348[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Izaki K, Sugimoto K, Sugimura K, Hirota S. Transcatheter arterial embolization for advanced tumor thrombus with marked arterioportal or arteriovenous shunt complicating hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiat Med 2004; 22:155 -162[Medline]
  26. Lee HS, Kim JS, Choi IJ, Chung JW, Park JH, Kim CY. The safety and efficacy of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and main portal vein obstruction: a prospective controlled study. Cancer1997; 79:2087 -2094[CrossRef][Medline]
  27. Uraki J, Yamakado K, Nakatsuka A, Takeda K. Transcatheter hepatic arterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma invading the portal veins: therapeutic effects and prognostic factors. Eur J Radiol 2004; 51:12 -18[CrossRef][Medline]
  28. Llado L, Virgili J, Figueras J, et al. A prognostic index of the survival of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. Cancer2000; 88:50 -57[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Jang MK, Lee HC, Kim IS, et al. Role of additional angiography and chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who achieved complete necrosis following transarterial chemoembolization. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004;19 : 1074-1080[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. Huang YS, Chiang JH, Wu JC, Chang FY, Lee SD. Risk of hepatic failure after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: predictive value of the monoethylglycinexylidide test. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97 : 1223-1227[CrossRef][Medline]
  31. Pentecost MJ, Daniels JR, Teitelbaum GP, Stanley P. Hepatic chemoembolization: safety with portal vein thrombosis. J Vasc Interv Radiol 1993; 4:347 -351[Medline]
  32. Fan J, Wu ZQ, Tang ZY, et al. Multimodality treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with tumor thrombi in portal vein. World J Gastroenterol 2001;7 : 28-32[Medline]
  33. Carr BI. Hepatic artery chemoembolization for advanced stage HCC: experience of 650 patients. Hepatogastroenterology2002; 49:79 -86[Medline]
  34. Allgaier HP, Deibert P, Olschewski M, et al. Survival benefit of patients with inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma treated by a combination of transarterial chemoembolization and percutaneous ethanol injection: a single-center analysis including 132 patients. Int J Cancer 1998; 79:601 -605[CrossRef][Medline]
  35. Huang YH, Wu JC, Chau GY, et al. Supportive treatment, resection and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: an analysis of survival in 419 patients. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1999;11 : 315-321[Medline]

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
B.-K. Kang, J. H. Kim, K. M. Kim, G.-Y. Ko, H.-K. Yoon, D. I. Gwon, and K.-B. Sung
Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Attempted Portal Vein Embolization in 25 Patients
Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2009; 193(5): W446 - W451.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Herber, S. C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Manzl, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Herber, S. C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Manzl, N.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS