Efficacy of Superselective Conventional Transarterial Chemoembolization Using Guidance Software for Hepatocellular Carcinoma within Three Lesions Smaller Than 3 cm

The indication of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) has advanced to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage A when surgical resection (SR), thermal ablation, and bridging to transplantation are contraindicated; however, TACE for small HCC is frequently difficult and ineffective because of less hypervascularity and the presence of tumor portions receiving a dual blood supply. Here, we report outcomes of superselective conventional TACE (cTACE) for 259 patients with HCCs within three lesions smaller than 3 cm using guidance software. Automated tumor feeder detection (AFD) functionality was applied to identify tumor feeders on cone-beam computed tomography during hepatic arteriography (CBCTHA) data. When it failed, the feeder was identified by manual feeder detection functionality and/or selective angiography and CBCTHA. Regarding the technical success in 382 tumors (mean diameter, 17.2 ± 5.9 mm), 310 (81.2%) were completely embolized with a safety margin (5 mm wide for HCC ≤25 mm and 10 mm wide for HCC >25 mm). In 61 (16.0%), the entire tumor was embolized but the safety margin was not uniformly obtained. The entire tumor was not embolized in 11 (2.9%). Regarding the tumor response at 2–3 months after cTACE in 303 tumors excluding those treated with combined radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or SR and lost to follow-up, 287 (94.7%) were classified into complete response, seven (2.3%) into partial response, and nine (3.0%) into stable disease. The mean follow-up period was 44.9 ± 27.6 months (range, 1–109) and the cumulative local tumor progression rates at 1, 3, 5, and 7 years were 17.8, 27.8, 32.0, and 36.0%, respectively. The 1-, 3-, 5-, and 7-year overall and recurrence-free survival rates in 175 patients, excluding those with Child–Pugh C class, who died of other malignancies, or who underwent combined RFA or hepatic resection, were 97.1 and 68.7, 82.8 and 34.9, 64.8 and 20.2, and 45.3 and 17.3%, respectively. Our results indicate the efficacy of superselective cTACE using guidance software for HCC within three lesions smaller than 3 cm.

Balloon-Occluded Transarterial Chemoembolization: In Which Size Range Does It Perform Best? A Comparison of Its Efficacy versus Conventional Transarterial Chemoembolization, Using Propensity Score Matching

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The aim of this multicenter comparison of balloon-occluded transarterial chemoembolization (B-TACE) versus conventional TACE (cTACE) in treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was to assess in which size range the 2 techniques offered higher complete response (CR) and objective response (OR) rates in a single session, and to evaluate the possibility of using B-TACE to reduce the need for re-treatment. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> 325 patients were retrospectively evaluated: 91 patients in the B-TACE group (22 with cTACE [B-cTACE] and 69 with drug-eluting microsphere TACE [B-DEM-TACE]) and 234 in the cTACE group. The results were compared according to tumor size: (A) &#x3c;30 mm, (B) 30–50 mm, and (C) &#x3e;50 mm; OR and CR rates after the first session and the number of TACE re-interventions within a 6-month period were also evaluated using propensity score matching (PSM). <b><i>Results:</i></b> The best target ORs were very high (93.2%) and similar between the 2 treatments both before (94.4% for cTACE and 90.1% for B-TACE) and after PSM (94.5% for cTACE and 90.1%; <i>p</i> = 0.405), with slightly better results for the cTACE cohort probably due to better cTACE effectiveness in smaller lesions. In lesions &#x3c;30 mm, cTACE obtained a slightly higher CR rate than B-TACE (61.9 vs. 56.3%, <i>p</i> = 0.680), whereas in intermediate-sized HCCs (30–50 mm), B-TACE showed a significant superiority in achieving a CR (72.3 vs. 54.1%, respectively; <i>p</i> = 0.047). In larger lesions (&#x3e;50 mm), cTACE and B-TACE performed equally, with a poor CR rate (22.6 vs. 23.1%, respectively; <i>p</i> = 1.000). These results were additionally confirmed using PSM. The patients treated with B-TACE had a significantly lower re-treatment rate than the cTACE cohort (12.1 vs. 26.9%, respectively; <i>p</i> = 0.005). B-cTACE and B-DEM-TACE demonstrated similar ORs, with a slightly better CR rate for B-cTACE (68.2 vs. 56.5%, respectively; <i>p</i> = 0.456). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> In HCCs of 30–50 mm, B-TACE should be preferred to cTACE, whereas in smaller nodules (&#x3c;30 mm), cTACE can suffice in achieving a good CR rate. The statistically significant lower re-treatment rate of the B-TACE cohort after a single procedure reduced the risk of complications due to multiple TACE, which could worsen the patient prognosis.

Drug-eluting beads TACE is safe and non-inferior to conventional TACE in HCC patients with TIPS

Objectives This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness between transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) with drug-eluting beads (DEB-TACE) and conventional TACE (cTACE) using lipiodol-based regimens in HCC patients with a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS). Methods This retrospective study included patients with patent TIPS who underwent TACE from January 2013 to January 2019 that received either DEB-TACE (DEB-TACE group, n = 57) or cTACE (cTACE group, n = 62). The complications, liver toxicity, overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), and objective response rate (ORR) were compared between the groups. Results Altogether, 119 patients (50 ± 11 years, 107 men) were evaluated. The incidence of adverse events, including abdominal pain within 7 days (45.6% vs 79.0%, p < 0.001) and hepatic failure within 30 days (5.3% vs 19.4%, p = 0.027), were significantly lower in the DEB-TACE group than in the cTACE group. Compared to the cTACE group, the DEB-TACE group also showed mild liver toxicities in terms of increased total bilirubin (8.8% vs 22.6%), alanine aminotransferase (5.3% vs 21.0%), and aspartate aminotransferase (10.5% vs 29.0%) levels. The DEB-TACE group had better ORR than the cTACE group (70.2% vs 50.0%). The median OS and TTP were longer in the DEB-TACE group (11.4 vs 9.1 months, hazard ratio [HR] = 2.46, p < 0.001; 6.9 vs 5.2 months, HR = 1.47, p = 0.045). Multivariable analysis showed that α-fetoprotein levels, Barcelona clinic liver cancer stage, and treatment allocation were independent predictors of OS. Conclusion DEB-TACE is safe and effective in HCC patients with a TIPS and is potentially superior to cTACE in terms of complications, liver toxicities, OS, TTP, and ORR. Key Points • DEB-TACE is safe and effective in HCC patients after a TIPS procedure. • DEB-TACE improves overall survival, objective response rate, and liver toxicities and is non-inferior to cTACE in terms of time to progression. • DEB-TACE might be a potential new therapeutic option for HCC patients with TIPS.

Treatment Response, Survival, and Safety of Transarterial Chemoembolization With CalliSpheres® Microspheres Versus Conventional Transarterial Chemoembolization in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis

BackgroundDrug-eluting embolic transarterial chemoembolization (DEE-TACE) is an advance in TACE technique. However, at present there is insufficient evidence to support that DEE-TACE is superior to conventional TACE (cTACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TACE with CalliSpheres® microspheres (CSM-TACE) compared with cTACE in patients with HCC.Data SourcesPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI and Wanfang Databases were searched to identify relevant articles published before March 26, 2020. The data regarding treatment response, survival profile, adverse events and liver function indexes were retrieved.ResultsA total of 16 studies with 1454 HCC patients (722 treated with CSM-TACE and 732 with cTACE) were included. Patients receiving CSM-TACE had higher 1-month complete response (CR), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) (odds ratio (OR): 2.00, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.29–3.09; OR: 2.87, 95% CI: 2.15–3.83; OR: 2.01, 95% CI: 1.37–2.95, respectively), 3-month CR, ORR, DCR (OR: 4.04, 95%CI: 2.46–6.64; OR: 3.39, 95%CI: 2.45–4.70; OR: 1.71, 95%CI: 1.14–2.55 respectively), and 6-month CR, ORR, DCR (OR: 4.02, 95%CI: 2.26–7.16; OR: 3.00, 95%CI: 2.05–4.38; OR: 2.66, 95%CI: 1.70–4.16 respectively) than those treated with cTACE. Furthermore, CSM-TACE exhibited a trend toward improved progression free survival (hazard ratio (HR): 0.86, 95%CI: 0.67–1.11) and overall survival (HR: 0.79, 95%CI: 0.59–1.07) over cTACE although these differences did not reach statistical significance. In terms of safety, the two TACE treatments showed similar post-treatment pain (OR: 0.84, 95%CI: 0.55–1.28), fever (OR: 0.99, 95%CI: 0.60–1.63), nausea/vomiting (OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.60–1.17), as well as 1-month follow-up alanine aminotransferase (Mean difference (MD): −3.66, 95%CI: −10.38–3.07), aspartate aminotransferase (MD: −2.30, 95%CI: −8.91–4.31) and total bilirubin (MD: −0.15, 95%CI: −2.26–1.96).ConclusionCSM-TACE displays superior treatment response, non-inferior survival profile and safety over cTACE in HCC patients.

TACTICS: Final overall survival (OS) data from a randomized, open label, multicenter, phase II trial of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) therapy in combination with sorafenib as compared with TACE alone in patients (pts) with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

270 Background: To date many trials have been conducted to compare the efficacy and toxicity between TACE plus molecular targeted agents and TACE alone; all of them failed to show its clinical benefit in terms of progression free survival (PFS) or OS. In TACTICS trial (NCT01217034) TACE plus sorafenib significantly improved PFS over TACE alone in patients with unresectable HCC. ( Gut 2020;69:1374-1376). Here we will report a final OS analysis from TACTICS trial with predefined mature OS events. Methods: Patients with unresectable HCC were randomized to TACE plus sorafenib (n=80) or TACE alone (n=76). Patients in the combination group received sorafenib 400 mg once daily for 2–3 weeks before TACE, followed by 800 mg twice daily during on-demand conventional TACE sessions until time to untreatable (unTACEable) progression (TTUP), defined as untreatable tumor progression, transient deterioration to Child-Pugh C or appearance of vascular invasion/extrahepatic spread. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), which is defined as TTUP, or time to any cause of death and OS. Multiplicity was adjusted by gatekeeping hierarchical testing. Results: At the cut-off date of July 31, 2020, 131 OS events were observed. Median OS was 36.2 mo with TACE plus sorafenib vs 30.8 mo with TACE alone (HR, 0.861 [95%CI, 0.607, 1.223]; P=0.40). ΔOS was 5.4 mo. Updated PFS was 22.8 mo with TACE plus sorafenib vs 13.5 mo with TACE alone (HR, 0.661[95%CI, 0.466, 0.938]; P=0.02). Post-trial treatments with active procedures/agents were observed in 47 (58.8%) in TACE plus sorafenib and in 58 (76.3%) with TACE alone. Anticancer procedures in TACE alone group include resection/ablation in 14, transarterial therapy in 53 and radiation in 7. Anticancer medications in TACE alone include targeted agents in 40 (29 sorafenib, 5 regorafenib, 3 lenvatinib, 3 ramucirumab), other systemic chemotherapy in 5 and immunotherapy in 5. Safety was consistent with the primary analysis, with no new signals identified. Conclusion: In TACTICS, TACE plus sorafenib did not show OS benefit as compared with TACE alone although significantly better PFS was consistently observed. OS in TACE plus sorafenib in TACTICS trial showed the longest OS (36.2 mo) with the longest ΔOS (5.4 mo) as compared with the previous 5 TACE combination trials. The major reason for negative OS result was speculated that many post-trial active treatments were performed in control arm (76.3%), which implies that OS endpoint in TACE combination trial may not be feasible anymore in current era of sequential therapy with many active locoregional and systemic treatments. Clinical trial information: NCT01217034.

Recent Updates of Transarterial Chemoembolilzation in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is a standard treatment for intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this review, we summarize recent updates on the use of TACE for HCC. TACE can be performed using two techniques; conventional TACE (cTACE) and drug-eluting beads using TACE (DEB-TACE). The anti-tumor effect of the two has been reported to be similar; however, DEB-TACE carries a higher risk of hepatic artery and biliary injuries and a relatively lower risk of post-procedural pain than cTACE. TACE can be used for early stage HCC if other curative treatments are not feasible or as a neoadjuvant treatment before liver transplantation. TACE can also be considered for selected patients with limited portal vein thrombosis and preserved liver function. When deciding to repeat TACE, the ART (Assessment for Retreatment with TACE) score and ABCR (AFP, BCLC, Child-Pugh, and Response) score can guide the decision process, and TACE refractoriness needs to be considered. Studies on the combination therapy of TACE with other treatment modalities, such as local ablation, radiation therapy, or systemic therapy, have been actively conducted and are still ongoing. Recently, new prognostic models, including analysis of the neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, radiomics, and deep learning, have been developed to help predict survival after TACE.

Trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) in treatment of non-resectable hepatocellular carcinoma: comparative study between conventional TACE and drug eluting bead TACE

To compare tumour response and complications of conventional TACE with lipidol versus DEB-TACE in the treatment of non-resectable HCC.Prospective non randomized comparative clinical trial was performed for patients receiving TACE at interventional radiology unit in Radiodiagnosis department in Zagazig university hospitals. Forty patients were included in this study, 16 patients were treated with drug eluting beads TACE and 24 patients were treated with conventional TACE.Follow up triphasic CT was performed 1 month after the procedure, we found that complete response was 6 cases (25 %) in c TACE group, and 4 cases (25%) in drug eluting bead TACE group, Partial response was achieved in 11 cases (45.8%) in c TACE group, and in 8 cases (50 %) in DEBs-TACE group, Cases with stable disease were 5 cases (20.8%) in c TACE group, and it was 3 cases (18.7%) in DEBs-TACE group, progressive disease is noted in two cases (8.3 %) in c TACE group, and one case (6.2 %) in drug eluting TACE group. Complications were as follow: 18 cases (75%) with abdominal pain in c TACE group, and 6 cases (37.5%) with abdominal pain in DEBs-TACE group, Nausea and vomiting were noted in 13 cases (54.17%) in c TACE group and in 3 cases (18.75%)in DEBs TACE group, Alopecia was noted in 8 cases (33.3 %) in c TACE group and in one case (6.25%) in DEBs TACE group.There were no significant differences between two groups regarding tumour response after 1 month. Almost all complications were significantly lower in DEBs-TACE group than in c TACE group, especially with abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting and alopecia. Abbreviations: c TACE: conventional trans-arterial chemoembolization, DEB TACE: drug eluting beads trans-arterial chemoembolization, HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma, CR: complete response, PR: partial response, SD: stable disease, PD: progressive disease.