Table 1. Key prospective and retrospective studies for radioembolization in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Study (year)	Analysis	Regimen	Line†	Patients (n)	Ref.
Radioembolization combined with first-line chemotherapy
Gray et al. (2001)	Prospective	90Y resin m + FUDR HAC vs FUDR HAC	1–2	36 vs 34	[15]
Van Hazel et al. (2004)	Prospective	90Y resin m + 5FU/LV vs 5FU/LV	1	11 vs 10	[16]
Sharma et al. (2007)	Prospective	90Y resin m + FOLFOX	1	25	[17]
Radioembolization combined with second- or third-line chemotherapy
Van Hazel et al. (2009)	Prospective	90Y resin m + irinotecan	2–4	25	[18]
Lim et al. (2005)	Prospective	90Y resin m ± 5FU	2	30	[20]
Radioembolization as salvage therapy in chemorefractory mCRC
Hendlisz et al. (2010)	Prospective	90Y resin m + 5FU vs 5FU	Salv	21 vs 23	[36]
Seidensticker et al. (2012)	Prospective	90Y resin m vs matched control	Salv	29 vs 29	[37]
Cosimelli et al. (2010)	Prospective	90Y resin m	Salv	50	[21]
Kennedy et al. (2006)	Retrospective	90Y resin m	Salv	208	[38]
Kennedy (2012)	Retrospective	90Y resin m	Salv	506	[39]

^†1: first-line treatment; 2: second-line; 4: fourth-line.

5FU: 5-fluorouracil; FOLFOX: 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and leucovorin; FUDR: Floxuridine; HAC: Hepatic arterial chemotherapy; LV: Leucovorin; m: Microspheres; mCRC: Metastatic colorectal cancer; Salv: Salvage therapy of chemotherapy refractory disease.