Abstract
Purpose
The most common cause of death in advanced/metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is liver failure due to tumor progression. While retrospective studies and meta-analyses of systemic therapy combined with liver-directed therapy have been performed, prospective studies of safety/efficacy of antiangiogenesis followed by intra-arterial therapies are lacking. We tested our hypothesis that sorafenib followed by yttrium 90 glass microspheres (90Y GMs) is safe and that survival outcomes may improve by controlling hepatic tumors.
Methods
We enrolled 38 Child–Pugh A patients with advanced/metastatic HCC. In sum, 34 received sorafenib, followed after 4 weeks by 90Y GMs. Analysis of safety and survival outcomes was performed to assess adverse events, median progression-free survival, and overall survival.
Results
A total of 34 patients were evaluable: 14 (41.2%) with chronic hepatitis, nine (26.5%) with vascular invasion, and eleven (32.4%) with extrahepatic diseases. Safety analysis revealed that the combination therapy was well tolerated. Grade III–IV adverse events comprised fatigue (n=3), diarrhea (n=2), nausea (n=1), vomiting (n=2), hypertension (n=4), thrombocytopenia (n=1), hyperbilirubinemia (n=1), proteinuria (n=1), hyponatremia (n=1), and elevated alanine or aspartate aminotransferase (n=5). Median progression-free and overall survival were 10.4 months (95% CI 5.8–14.4) and 13.2 months (95% CI 7.9–18.9), respectively. Twelve patients (35.3%) achieved partial responses and 16 (47.0%) stable disease. Median duration of sorafenib was 20 (3–90) weeks, and average dose was 622 (466–800) mg daily. Dosimetry showed similar mean doses between planned and delivered calculations to normal liver and tumor:normal liver uptake ratio, with no significant correlation with adverse events at 3 and 6 months post-90Y treatment.
Conclusion
This is the first prospective study to evaluate sorafenib followed by 90Y in patients with advanced HCC. The study validated our hypothesis of safety with encouraging efficacy signals of the sequencing treatment, and provides proof of concept for future combination modalities for patients with advanced or metastatic HCC.
Clinical Trial Registration Number
Keywords: HCC, sorafenib, yttrium 90, BCLC, hepatocellular carcinoma
Introduction
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the second-leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide and one of the fastest-growing causes of death in the US.1,2 Curative treatment options include surgical resection, transplantation, and radiofrequency ablation; however, <30% of new HCC patients are eligible for these treatments based on Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stages of very early (0) or early (A).3 A majority of HCC patients initially present with intermediate-stage (BCLC-B) or advanced-stage disease (BCLC-C), and their prognosis remains poor. Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), transarterial embolization (TAE), and transarterial radioembolization (TARE) using yttrium-90 glass microspheres (90Y GMs) are viable treatment options for patients with BCLC-B HCC. Frontline sorafenib, lenvatinib, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, and second-line regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab, nivolumab with and without ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab systemic therapies are the FDA-approved systemic therapy options available for patients with advanced HCC.4–12 Notably, the most common cause of death in patients with advanced or extrahepatic spread is intrahepatic progression of HCC, resulting in liver failure, even in metastatic disease.13 However, the role of the combination of systemic and local therapies in advanced/metastatic HCC (BCLC-C) is not well established. Retrospective studies and meta-analyses of sorafenib combined with liver-directed therapy have been performed. However, there are no prospective studies available providing information on the feasibility and efficacy of antiangiogenic therapy followed by intra-arterial therapy in HCC, given the theoretical risk of altering vascularity of HCC tumors, which is necessary for intra-arterial agent delivery. In this single-arm phase II study, we tested our hypothesis that sorafenib followed by 90Y is safe and that HCC survival outcomes may improve by controlling localized liver tumors in advanced/metastatic HCC. Our main study goal was to determine the safety and efficacy of sorafenib followed by 90Y GMs in patients with advanced or metastatic HCC with BCLC C and Child–Pugh A class. We used dosimetry to compare calculated to delivered doses after the application of sorafenib (antiangiogenesis therapy) to normal liver and HCC tumors to predict adverse event (AE) rates and progression-free survival (PFS).
Methods
We conducted a single-arm, single-institution, phase II study to determine the safety and efficacy of sorafenib followed by 90Y GMs in patients with advanced HCC. The study was approved by the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, Texas) Institutional Review Board and was deemed compliant with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from each subject. Inclusion criteria were >18 years of age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1, histologically or cytologically documented HCC (documentation of original biopsy for diagnosis was acceptable if tumor tissue were unavailable) or clinical diagnosis of HCC by American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases criteria in cirrhotic subjects, and Child–Pugh A.14 Histological confirmation was mandatory for patients without cirrhosis. Patients were required to have at least one tumor lesion that could be accurately measured on at least one dimension according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and the target lesion must not have been previously treated with local therapy (such as radiation therapy, hepatic arterial therapy, TACE, RFA, percutaneous ethanol injection, or cryoablation). Patients who had received local therapy, such as radiation therapy, TAE, TACE, RFA, percutaneous ethanol injection, or cryoablation, were eligible if the previously treated lesions had progressed or recurred and could be identified as target lesions. Local therapy had to have been completed at least 4 weeks prior to the baseline scan. Patients were required to have serum creatinine <1.5× the upper limit of normal and prothrombin time 6 seconds above control. Exclusion criteria were prior 90Y-GM treatment, prior radiation therapy to the liver, prior systemic therapy for HCC (including sorafenib), complete main portal vein thrombosis, tumor replacement of >70% of the total liver volume on the basis of a visual estimation by the investigator or tumor replacement of >50% of the total liver volume in the presence of albumin 3 mg/dL, eligibility for curative treatment (ablation, resection, or transplantation), contraindications to angiography and selective visceral arterial catheterization, any known contraindications to sorafenib, significant gastrointestinal bleeding within 30 days, metastatic brain disease, renal failure requiring dialysis, and any history of symptomatic pulmonary compromise, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
Study Medication and 90Y-GM Administration
The starting dose of sorafenib was 400 mg twice a day, starting 4 weeks (± 1 week) before 90Y-GM administration. Diagnostic hepatic angiography followed by transarterial injection of technetium-99m macroaggregated albumin (99mTcMAA) was performed within 1 week of study enrollment for 90Y GM–treatment planning. Embolization of hepaticoenteric arterial branches was performed as per the interventional radiologist’s discretion. Patients underwent planar and SPECT/CT imaging after administration of 99mTcMAA for determination of lung shunt fraction and assessment of perfused liver volume intended for 90Y-GM treatment. On a subsequent patient visit, 90Y GMs (TheraSphere) were administered via transarterial infusion into the target territory. All tumors were treated in a single session. Retreatment with 90Y was not allowed. Dosimetry was calculated according to the package insert (https://www.btg-im.com/getattachment/TheraSphere/Products/Indications/TheraSphere-Package-Insert_USA_Rev-14.pdf.aspx) with a target dose to the perfused tissue of 80–150 Gy at the discretion of the treating physician. Patients underwent SPECT/CT post-90Y treatment imaging within 24 hours for qualitative treatment verification.
Dosimetry Methods and Analysis
Three-dimensional distributions of 99mTc-MAA and 90YGMs within liver tissue were established with cross-sectional SPECT/CT imaging using previously published methods.15,16 99mTc-MAA and 90Y SPECT/CT images were based on iterative reconstruction with attenuation and scatter corrections. The SPECT images were quantified using self-calibration17 and converted to absorbed-dose maps based on a local-dose deposition algorithm for 90Y.18,19 Tumors and normal-liver volumes of interest were segmented by an interventional radiologist. An additional criterion for the dosimetric analysis in this work was that patients needed to have at least a single tumor >2.5 cm in size, due to the spatial resolution of 90YSPECT. The largest eligible tumors were selected from each patient, and the number of tumors per patient was limited to three in order to minimize any bias in the results.
Assessment
The duration of each cycle was 4 weeks. During the study period, patients underwent clinical and laboratory evaluations every 4 weeks to determine the safety of the treatment. Tumor evaluations were performed initially after 12 weeks and then every 8 weeks either by magnetic resonance or computer tomography scans. We used RECIST 1.120 to assess response to treatment.
Statistical Methods and Analysis
The primary end point of this study was the safety of the combination of sorafenib and 90Y GMs and rate of AEs (NCI-CTCAE version 5.0) for the first ten patients, and the protocol was amended to be extended to 40 patients with the primary end point of PFS. The secondary end points were overall survival (OS) and time to radiographic progression (TTRP). We employed Bayesian methods21,22 to monitor toxicity and futility. Categorical variables are presented as frequencies, percentages, and 95% CIs, and continuous variables are summarized with descriptive statistics. PFS duration was calculated as the period from the study-registration date to the date of disease progression or death, whichever occurred first, or to the date of last follow-up for patients who were alive without disease progression. The TTRP was calculated as the period from the study-registration date to the date of radiographic disease progression. OS duration was calculated as the period from the date of study registration to the date of death or last follow-up for patients who were alive at the time of data collection. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate the probability of survival, and the log rank-test was used to compare survival between subgroups of patients. SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) and S-Plus 8.2 (Tibco, Palo Alto, CA, USA) were used for statistical analysis.
Results
Patient Characteristics
Among 40 patients assessed for eligibility, two declined therapy and four patients were ineligible for 90Y-GM treatment, the latter receiving sorafenib only. A total of 34 patients received both sorafenib and 90Y GMs. In sum, 25 (73.5%) were male, 16 (47.0%) Caucasian, 20 (58.8%) had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1, 20 (58.8%) did not have chronic hepatitis, 20 (58.8%) had metabolic syndrome, and 22 (64.7%) had evidence of cirrhosis. Most patients (28, 82.3%) had multifocal tumors, 27 (79.4%) had ≤50% tumor involvement of the liver based on visual assessment, four (11.8%) metastasis, and 27 (79.4%) AFP ≥400 ng/mL at baseline. Patients’ demographics and clinicopathological characteristics are shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
Baseline demographic and clinicopathological characteristics of patients (n=34)
| n | ||
|---|---|---|
| Sex | Female | 9 (26.5%) |
| Male | 25 (73.5%) | |
| Ethnicity | Asian | 4 (11.8%) |
| African American | 1 (2.9%) | |
| Hispanic | 5 (14.7%) | |
| Missing | 8 (23.5%) | |
| Caucasian | 16 (47.1%) | |
| Pathology | Clear cell | 1 (2.9%) |
| Moderately differentiated | 12 (35.3%) | |
| Moderately to poorly differentiated | 1 (2.9%) | |
| No biopsy | 11 (32.4%) | |
| Not stated | 3 (8.8%) | |
| Poorly differentiated | 2 (5.9%) | |
| Well differentiated | 1 (2.9%) | |
| Well to moderately differentiated | 3 (8.8%) | |
| Hepatitis | Hepatitis B only | 3 (8.8%) |
| Hepatitis B and C coinfection | 4 (11.8%) | |
| Hepatitis C only | 7 (20.6%) | |
| No virus infection | 20 (58.8%) | |
| Smoking | Missing | 2 (5.9%) |
| No | 20 (58.8%) | |
| Yes | 12 (35.3%) | |
| History of alcohol abuse | Missing | 1 (2.9%) |
| No | 15 (44.1%) | |
| Yes | 18 (52.9%) | |
| Family history of cancer | Missing | 1 (2.9%) |
| No | 17 (50%) | |
| Yes | 16 (47.1%) | |
| Family history of HCC | Missing | 2 (5.9%) |
| No | 31 (91.2%) | |
| Yes | 1 (2.9%) | |
| History of cancer | No | 32 (94.1%) |
| Yes | 2 (5.9%) | |
| Hypertension | No | 7 (20.6%) |
| Yes | 27 (79.4%) | |
| Diabetes | No | 15 (44.1%) |
| Yes | 19 (55.9%) | |
| Hemochromatosis | No | 33 (97.1%) |
| Yes | 1 (2.9%) | |
| Autoimmune hepatitis | No | 34 (100%) |
| Nonalcoholic fatty-liver disease | No | 29 (85.3%) |
| Yes | 5 (14.7%) | |
| Steatosis | No | 25 (73.5%) |
| Yes | 9 (26.5%) | |
| Evidence of cirrhosis | No | 12 (35.3%) |
| Yes | 22 (64.7%) | |
| Metabolic syndrome | No | 14 (41.2%) |
| Yes | 20 (58.8%) | |
| ECOG | 0 | 14 (41.2%) |
| 1 | 20 (58.8%) | |
| Vascular invasion | No | 25 (73.5%) |
| Yes | 9 (26.5%) | |
| Portal vein thrombosis | No | 26 (76.5%) |
| Yes | 8 (23.5%) | |
| Number of nodules | 1 | 6 (17.6%) |
| 2–3 | 8 (23.5%) | |
| >3 | 20 (58.8%) | |
| Tumor nodularity | Multinodular | 28 (82.4%) |
| Uninodular | 6 (17.6%) | |
| Tumor volume | ≤50% | 27 (79.4%) |
| >50% | 7 (20.6%) | |
| Metastasis | None | 30 (88.2%) |
| Present | 4 (11.8%) | |
| Lymph-node disease | None | 27 (79.4%) |
| Present | 7 (20.6%) | |
| Encephalopathy | Grade 1–2 | 1 (2.9%) |
| None | 33 (97.1%) | |
| Ascites | None | 30 (88.2%) |
| Slight | 4 (11.8%) | |
| Prior treatment | Local therapy (chemoembolization) | 4 (11.8%) |
| No therapy | 28 (82.4%) | |
| Surgery or transplant | 2 (5.9%) | |
| Child–Pugh grade | A | 33 (97.1%) |
| B | 1 (2.9%) | |
| TNM | Stage I | 4 (11.8%) |
| Stage II | 4 (11.8%) | |
| Stage IIIA | 11 (32.4%) | |
| Stage IIIB | 5 (14.7%) | |
| Stage IVA | 6 (17.6%) | |
| Stage IVB | 4 (11.8%) | |
| CLIP | Stage 0–2 | 28 (82.4%) |
| Stage 3 | 5 (14.7%) | |
| Stage 4–6 | 1 (2.9%) | |
| Okuda | Stage I | 23 (67.6%) |
| Stage II | 11 (32.4%) | |
| Stage III | 0 (0%) | |
| INR, Child–Pugh | 1.7 | 34 (100%) |
| Albumin, Child–Pugh | 2.8–3.5 g/dL | 4 (11.8%) |
| >3.5 g/dL | 30 (88.2%) | |
| Albumin, Okuda | >3 g/dL | 33 (97.1%) |
| 3 g/dL | 1 (2.9%) | |
| Bilirubin, Child–Pugh | 2 mg/dL | 34 (100%) |
| Bilirubin, Okuda | 3 mg/dL | 34 (100%) |
| AFP, CLIP | <400 | 27 (79.4%) |
| ≥400 | 7 (20.6%) | |
| n | Mean ± SD, median (range) | |
| BMI | 34 | 28.65±4.06, 27.86 (21.44–39.05) |
| Age at study enrollment | 34 | 66.71±8.5, 66.5 (42–82) |
| Tumor size (cm) | 34 | 8.85±4.7, 8.6 (2.3–21.3) |
Abbreviations: CLIP, Cancer of the Liver Italian Program; INR, international normalized ratio; TNM, tumor–node–metastasis; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; BMI, body-mass index.
Treatment Details
The median duration of sorafenib treatment was 20 (3–90) weeks, and the average dose was 622 (466–800 mg) daily. Fifteen patients (44.1%) eventually discontinued sorafenib due to disease progression, and 23 (67.6%) underwent dose reductions due to AEs (Supplementary Table 1).
A total of 34 patients were treated with 90Y GMs: ten (29.4%) had whole-liver treatment, eleven (32.4%) lobar, eight (23.5%) lobar and concurrent contralateral segmental treatment, and five (14.7%) two or three segmental treatments. Four patients were excluded after diagnostic angiography for lack of tumor vascularity, gross arterial portal shunt with poor tumor enhancement, elevation of bilirubin, or noncompliance. The median hepatopulmonary shunt was 8.9% (3.3%–19%). The median period between diagnostic angiography and 90Y radioembolization was 22 (10–41) days.
Toxicity Analysis
Grade III–IV AEs from the combination of sorafenib and 90Y GMs comprised fatigue (n=3), diarrhea (n=2), nausea (n=1), vomiting (n=2), hypertension (n=4), thrombocytopenia (n=1), hyperbilirubinemia (n=1), proteinuria (n=1), hyponatremia (n=1), and elevated alanine or aspartate aminotransferase (n=5). Table 2 summarizes the AEs.
Table 2.
Adverse events
| Toxicity grade, n (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1–2 | 3 | 4 | |
| Constitutional events | |||
| Fever without neutropenia | 4 (11.8) | 0 | 0 |
| Fatigue | 10 (29.4) | 3 (8.8) | 0 |
| Weight Loss | 5 (14.7) | 1 (2.9) | 0 |
| Gastrointestinal events | |||
| Anorexia | 8 (23.5) | 0 | 0 |
| Nausea | 11 (32.4) | 1 (2.9) | 0 |
| Vomiting | 3 (8.8) | 2 (5.9) | 0 |
| Constipation | 2 (5.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Diarrhea | 12 (35.3) | 2 (5.9) | 0 |
| Dermatological events | |||
| Hyperhidrosis | 2 (5.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Alopecia | 3 (8.8) | 0 | 0 |
| Dry skin | 3 (8.8) | 0 | 0 |
| Rash, acneiform | 3 (8.8) | 0 | 0 |
| Rash, maculopapular | 5 (14.7) | 0 | 0 |
| Palmar–plantar erythrodysesthesia | 6 (17.6) | 1 (2.9) | 0 |
| Skin ulceration | 1 (2.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Gastrointestinal | |||
| Nosebleed | 1 (2.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Duodenal fistula | 1 (2.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Bloating | 2 (5.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Abdominal pain | 3 (8.8) | 0 | 0 |
| Other | |||
| Anemia | 2 (5.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Elevated alanine aminotransferase | 6 (17.6) | 2 (5.9) | 0 |
| Elevated alkaline phosphatase | 10 (29.4) | 0 | 0 |
| Elevated aspartate aminotransferase | 6 (17.6) | 3 (8.8) | 1 (2.9) |
| Hyperbilirubinemia | 10 (29.4) | 1 (2.9) | 0 |
| Hyponatremia | 0 | 1 (2.9) | 0 |
| Dry mouth | 1 (2.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Hypertension | 7 (20.6) | 4 (11.8) | 0 |
| Hypomagnesemia | 5 (14.7) | 0 | 0 |
| Elevated creatinine | 1 (2.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Proteinuria | 3 (8.8) | 1 (2.9) | 0 |
| Decreased white blood cells (leukopenia) | 1 (2.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Hypophosphatemia | 0 | 1 (2.9) | 0 |
| Elevated INR | 2 (5.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Hypocalcemia | 1 (2.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Hypoalbuminemia | 4 (11.8) | 0 | 0 |
| Neutropenia | 5 (14.7) | 0 | 0 |
| Thrombocytopenia | 8 (23.5) | 1 (2.9) | 0 |
| Mucositis | 0 | 1 (2.9) | 0 |
| Hoarseness of voice | 2 (5.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Thromboembolic event | 1 (2.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Injury, poisoning and procedural complications (other) | 1 (2.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Cough | 2 (5.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Encephalopathy | 0 | 1 (2.9) | 0 |
| Headache | 3 (8.8) | 0 | 0 |
| Vertigo | 1 (2.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Sore throat | 1 (2.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Peripheral sensory neuropathy | 2 (5.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Dysgeusia | 3 (8.8) | 0 | 0 |
| Neoplasms — benign, malignant, and unspecified* | 1 (2.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Investigations (other) | 2 (5.9) | 0 | 0 |
| Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders (other) | 1 (2.9) | 0 | 0 |
Note: *Melanoma (right upper skin lesion).
Abbreviation: INR, international normalized ratio.
Response Analysis
Of the 34 patients who received both sorafenib and 90Y GMs, 12 (35.3%) experienced partial response, 16 (47.0%) had stable disease, and four (11.8%) experienced disease progression on restaging CT at week 16 according to RECIST 1.1, while two (5.9%) came off the study due to toxicity. There was no complete response. Of all 38 patients (including the four who received sorafenib only), 12 (31.6%), 17 (44.7%), and four (10.5%) had partial response, stable disease, and disease progression, respectively, while five (13.2%) came off the study due to toxicity. Table 3 summarizes the responses.
Table 3.
Responses in 34 patients who received both sorafenib and 90Y
| n | ||
|---|---|---|
| CT at week 16 | Off-study | 2 (5.8%) |
| PD | 4 (11.8%) | |
| PR | 12 (35.3%) | |
| SD | 16 (47.1%) |
Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography; PD, progression of disease; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease.
Survival Outcomes
A total of 33 of the 34 patients who received both sorafenib and 90Y GMs had PFS events (disease progression or death, whichever occurred first). Median PFS was 10.3 (95% CI 5.8–14.4) months (Figure 1). Of 38 patients who received sorafenib only or both sorafenib and 90Y GMs, 35 had known PFS events. Median PFS was 10.4 (95% CI 5.8–14.4) months. Log-rank tests indicated that PFS was significantly associated with hepatitis status (p=0.002), metabolic syndrome (p=0.044), portal vein thrombosis (p=0.028), number of nodules or tumor morphology (p=0.022), and metastatic status (p=0.015; Table 4). In sum 32 of the 34 patients died, with an estimated median OS of 13.2 (95% CI 7.9–18.9) months (Figure 2). The median OS of the 38 patients who received sorafenib only or both sorafenib and 90Y GMs was 13.9 (95% CI 10.8–18.9) months. Log-rank tests indicated that OS was significantly associated with tumor nodularity (p=0.041), hepatitis status (p=0.010), and evidence of cirrhosis (p=0.005; Table 5). Table 6 presents the estimated median TTRP and 1- and 2-year PFS probability for 34 patients. The estimated median TTRP was 10.4 months (95% CI 5.8–18.8) months in both the 34 patients who received both sorafenib and 90Y GMs and the 38 who received sorafenib only or both sorafenib and 90Y GMs. Log-rank tests indicated that TTRP was significantly associated with hepatitis status (p=0.036), BCLC or TNM cancer stage (p=0.041 and 0.023), portal vein thrombosis (p=0.047), and metastasis (p=0.008). Supplementary Tables 2–4 present Cox model results and HRs for PFS, OS, and TTRP.
Figure 1.
Progression-free survival (PFS).
Table 4.
Log-rank comparison of PFS among subgroups
| n | Event | Median PFS (95% CI) | 1-year PFS (95% CI) | 2-year PFS (95% CI) | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All patients | 34 | 33 | 10.32 (5.78–14.36) | 0.441 (0.302, 0.644) | 0.118 (0.047, 0.295) | ||
| Sex | Female | 9 | 9 | 12.25 (5.72, NA) | 0.556 (0.31, 0.997) | 0.222 (0.065, 0.754) | |
| Male | 25 | 24 | 10.25 (5.22, 14.36) | 0.4 (0.247, 0.646) | 0.08 (0.021, 0.302) | 0.175 | |
| Pathology | Missing | 14 | 14 | 9.07 (5.72, 18.79) | 0.357 (0.177, 0.721) | 0.296 | |
| Poor | 3 | 3 | 13.14 (3.29, NA) | 0.667 (0.3, 1) | 0.333 (0.067, 1) | ||
| Good/moderate | 17 | 16 | 10.25 (4.66, 23.03) | 0.471 (0.284, 0.779) | 0.176 (0.063, 0.493) | ||
| Child–Pugh | A | 33 | 32 | 10.25 (5.72, 14.36) | 0.424 (0.285, 0.631) | 0.121 (0.048, 0.304) | 0.591 |
| B | 1 | 1 | 19.48 (NA, NA) | 1 (1, 1) | |||
| BCLC | Stage B | 9 | 9 | 14.36 (7.75, NA) | 0.667 (0.42, 1) | 0.222 (0.065, 0.754) | 0.375 |
| Stage C | 25 | 24 | 6.54 (5.22, 13.14) | 0.36 (0.213, 0.607) | 0.08 (0.021, 0.302) | ||
| CLIP | Stage 0–2 | 28 | 27 | 11.32 (5.78, 18.5) | 0.5 (0.345, 0.724) | 0.143 (0.058, 0.354) | 0.193 |
| Stage 3 | 5 | 5 | 10.25 (3.06, NA) | 0.2 (0.035, 1) | |||
| Stage 4–6 | 1 | 1 | 4.63 (NA, NA) | ||||
| Okuda | Stage I | 23 | 23 | 7.75 (5.72, 18.79) | 0.435 (0.273, 0.693) | 0.13 (0.045, 0.375) | 0.916 |
| Stage II | 11 | 10 | 11.07 (5.03, NA) | 0.455 (0.238, 0.868) | 0.091 (0.014, 0.589) | ||
| AFP, CLIP | <400 | 27 | 26 | 11.07 (6.54, 18.5) | 0.481 (0.326, 0.712) | 0.148 (0.06, 0.366) | 0.066 |
| ≥400 | 7 | 7 | 4.63 (2.76, NA) | 0.286 (0.089, 0.922) | |||
| TNM | Stage I | 4 | 4 | 22.36 (13.14, NA) | 1 (1, 1) | 0.5 (0.188, 1) | 0.114 |
| Stage II | 4 | 4 | 9.4 (2.76, NA) | 0.5 (0.188, 1) | |||
| Stage IIIA | 11 | 11 | 12.98 (7.75, NA) | 0.545 (0.318, 0.936) | |||
| Stage IIIB | 5 | 4 | 11.07 (5.22, NA) | 0.4 (0.137, 1) | 0.2 (0.035, 1) | ||
| Stage IVA | 6 | 6 | 4.16 (3.06, NA) | 0.167 (0.028, 0.997) | 0.167 (0.028, 0.997) | ||
| Stage IVB | 4 | 4 | 5.21 (1.71, NA) | ||||
| Hepatitis | Hepatitis B only | 3 | 2 | 17.54 (5.78, NA) | 0.667 (0.3, 1) | 0.333 (0.067, 1) | 0.002 |
| Hepatitis B and C coinfection | 4 | 4 | 2.91 (2.73, NA) | ||||
| Hepatitis C only | 7 | 7 | 5.47 (5.03, NA) | 0.167 (0.028, 0.997) | |||
| No virus infection | 20 | 20 | 13.01 (10.38, 20.66) | 0.6 (0.42, 0.858) | 0.15 (0.053, 0.426) | ||
| Smoking | Missing | 2 | 1 | 17.89 (2.76, NA) | 0.5 (0.125, 1) | 0.5 (0.125, 1) | 0.62 |
| No | 20 | 20 | 6.16 (4.66, 18.5) | 0.35 (0.193, 0.636) | 0.15 (0.053, 0.426) | ||
| Yes | 12 | 12 | 13.01 (7.75, NA) | 0.583 (0.362, 0.941) | |||
| Alcohol abuse | Missing | 1 | 1 | 2.76 (NA, NA) | 0.04 | ||
| No | 15 | 14 | 10.38 (4.66, 23.03) | 0.4 (0.215, 0.743) | 0.133 (0.037, 0.484) | ||
| Yes | 18 | 18 | 11.65 (5.78, 18.79) | 0.5 (0.315, 0.794) | 0.111 (0.03, 0.41) | ||
| History of cancer | No | 32 | 31 | 10.73 (5.72, 17.54) | 0.469 (0.324, 0.678) | 0.125 (0.05, 0.313) | 0.328 |
| Yes | 2 | 2 | 6.16 (5.78, NA) | ||||
| Family history of HCC | Missing | 2 | 2 | 5.22 (4.66, NA) | 0.013 | ||
| No | 31 | 30 | 11.07 (6.54, 18.5) | 0.484 (0.336, 0.696) | 0.129 (0.052, 0.322) | ||
| Yes | 1 | 1 | 2.76 (NA, NA) | ||||
| Hypertension | No | 7 | 7 | 6.54 (5.22, NA) | 0.054 | ||
| Yes | 27 | 26 | 12.98 (5.72, 18.79) | 0.556 (0.396, 0.778) | 0.148 (0.06, 0.366) | ||
| Nonalcoholic fatty-liver disease | No | 29 | 29 | 10.25 (5.78, 17.54) | 0.483 (0.331, 0.704) | 0.103 (0.035, 0.302) | 0.938 |
| Yes | 5 | 4 | 10.38 (4.66, NA) | 0.2 (0.035, 1) | 0.2 (0.035, 1) | ||
| Steatosis | No | 25 | 25 | 10.25 (5.78, 17.54) | 0.44 (0.283, 0.685) | 0.08 (0.021, 0.302) | 0.667 |
| Yes | 9 | 8 | 11.07 (3.06, NA) | 0.444 (0.214, 0.923) | 0.222 (0.065, 0.754) | ||
| Evidence of cirrhosis | No | 12 | 11 | 11.65 (5.78, NA) | 0.5 (0.284, 0.88) | 0.25 (0.094, 0.666) | 0.09 |
| Yes | 22 | 22 | 9.07 (5.03, 17.54) | 0.409 (0.248, 0.676) | 0.045 (0.007, 0.308) | ||
| Metabolic syndrome | No | 14 | 14 | 6.16 (3.29, 18.79) | 0.214 (0.079, 0.584) | 0.044 | |
| Yes | 20 | 19 | 13.01 (6.54, 20.66) | 0.6 (0.42, 0.858) | 0.2 (0.083, 0.481) | ||
| Portal vein thrombosis | No | 26 | 25 | 12.61 (6.54, 19.48) | 0.538 (0.377, 0.769) | 0.154 (0.062, 0.379) | 0.028 |
| Yes | 8 | 8 | 4.93 (3.06, NA) | 0.125 (0.02, 0.782) | |||
| Number of nodules | 1 | 6 | 6 | 22.36 (13.14, NA) | 0.833 (0.583, 1) | 0.5 (0.225, 1) | 0.022 |
| 2–3 | 8 | 8 | 5.78 (4.66, NA) | 0.25 (0.075, 0.83) | |||
| >3 | 20 | 19 | 9 (5.72, 18.79) | 0.4 (0.234, 0.684) | 0.05 (0.007, 0.338) | ||
| Tumor nodularity | Multinodular | 28 | 27 | 7.15 (5.22, 13.04) | 0.357 (0.217, 0.587) | 0.036 (0.005, 0.245) | 0.032 |
| Uninodular | 6 | 6 | 22.36 (13.14, NA) | 0.833 (0.583, 1) | 0.5 (0.225, 1) | ||
| Tumor volume | ≤50% | 27 | 27 | 7.75 (5.72, 14.36) | 0.444 (0.292, 0.678) | 0.111 (0.038, 0.323) | 0.728 |
| >50% | 7 | 6 | 11.07 (4.63, NA) | 0.429 (0.182, 1) | 0.143 (0.023, 0.877) | ||
| Tumor morphology | Massive/extension ≥50% | 7 | 6 | 11.07 (4.63, NA) | 0.429 (0.182, 1) | 0.143 (0.023, 0.877) | 0.049 |
| Multinodular and ≤50% | 21 | 21 | 6.54 (5.03, 13.04) | 0.333 (0.182, 0.61) | |||
| Uninodular and ≤50% | 6 | 6 | 22.36 (13.14, NA) | 0.833 (0.583, 1) | 0.5 (0.225, 1) | ||
| Metastasis | None | 30 | 29 | 11.66 (6.54, 18.5) | 0.5 (0.35, 0.715) | 0.133 (0.054, 0.332) | 0.015 |
| Present | 4 | 4 | 5.21 (1.71, NA) | ||||
| Prior treatment | Local therapy (chemo/radioembolization) | 4 | 4 | 9.84 (2.83, NA) | 0.5 (0.188, 1) | 0.303 | |
| No therapy | 28 | 27 | 10.73 (5.72, 18.5) | 0.464 (0.312, 0.691) | 0.143 (0.058, 0.354) | ||
| Surgery or transplant | 2 | 2 | 4.8 (3.06, NA) | ||||
| ECOG | 0 | 14 | 14 | 7.15 (4.66, 30.35) | 0.429 (0.234, 0.785) | 0.143 (0.04, 0.515) | 0.636 |
| 1 | 20 | 19 | 10.73 (5.72, 18.79) | 0.45 (0.277, 0.731) | 0.1 (0.027, 0.372) | ||
| Vascular invasion | No | 25 | 25 | 12.25 (6.54, 18.5) | 0.52 (0.357, 0.758) | 0.12 (0.042, 0.347) | 0.436 |
| Yes | 9 | 8 | 5.22 (3.06, NA) | 0.222 (0.065, 0.754) | 0.111 (0.018, 0.705) |
Figure 2.
Overall survival (OS).
Table 5.
Log-rank comparison of OS among subgroups
| n | Events | Median OS (95% CI) | 1-year OS (95% CI) | 2-year OS (95% CI) | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All patients | 34 | 32 | 12.25 (7.75, 19.48) | 0.58 (0.435, 0.775) | 0.244 (0.134, 0.446) | ||
| Sex | Female | 9 | 9 | 19.48 (12.25, NA) | 0.778 (0.549, 1) | 0.444 (0.214, 0.923) | 0.055 |
| Male | 25 | 23 | 12.02 (7.46, 18.63) | 0.507 (0.342, 0.751) | 0.169 (0.069, 0.412) | ||
| Pathology | Missing | 14 | 13 | 12.02 (7.75, NA) | 0.55 (0.337, 0.897) | 0.079 (0.012, 0.515) | 0.167 |
| Poor | 3 | 3 | 17.28 (3.29, NA) | 0.667 (0.3, 1) | 0.333 (0.067, 1) | ||
| Good/moderate | 17 | 16 | 16.92 (7.46, 38.53) | 0.588 (0.395, 0.876) | 0.353 (0.185, 0.672) | ||
| Child–Pugh | A | 33 | 31 | 12.25 (7.75, 18.63) | 0.567 (0.419, 0.767) | 0.252 (0.139, 0.459) | 0.818 |
| B | 1 | 1 | 19.48 (NA, NA) | 1 (1, 1) | |||
| CLIP | Stage 0–2 | 28 | 26 | 12.25 (7.46, 25.07) | 0.6 (0.442, 0.815) | 0.3 (0.168, 0.535) | 0.689 |
| Stage 3 | 5 | 5 | 11.47 (11.07, NA) | 0.4 (0.137, 1) | |||
| Stage 4–6 | 1 | 1 | 13.67 (NA, NA) | 1 (1, 1) | |||
| Okuda | Stage I | 23 | 22 | 14.36 (7.75, 30.55) | 0.598 (0.426, 0.841) | 0.322 (0.176, 0.592) | 0.337 |
| Stage II | 11 | 10 | 12.25 (7.42, NA) | 0.545 (0.318, 0.936) | 0.091 (0.014, 0.589) | ||
| AFP, CLIP | <400 | 27 | 26 | 12.25 (7.75, 25.07) | 0.593 (0.433, 0.81) | 0.296 (0.166, 0.53) | 0.283 |
| ≥400 | 7 | 6 | 13.67 (3.42, NA) | 0.536 (0.257, 1) | |||
| TNM | Stage I | 4 | 4 | 26.33 (14.36, NA) | 1 (1, 1) | 0.5 (0.188, 1) | 0.777 |
| Stage II | 4 | 4 | 9.86 (2.76, NA) | 0.5 (0.188, 1) | 0.25 (0.046, 1) | ||
| Stage IIIA | 11 | 11 | 12.25 (7.75, NA) | 0.636 (0.407, 0.995) | 0.182 (0.052, 0.637) | ||
| Stage IIIB | 5 | 4 | 11.07 (5.22, NA) | 0.4 (0.137, 1) | 0.2 (0.035, 1) | ||
| Stage IVA | 6 | 6 | 9.44 (7.06, NA) | 0.333 (0.108, 1) | 0.167 (0.028, 0.997) | ||
| Stage IVB | 4 | 3 | 13.67 (2.53, NA) | 0.75 (0.426, 1) | 0.375 (0.084, 1) | ||
| Hepatitis | Hepatitis B only | 3 | 1 | NA (5.58, NA) | 0.667 (0.3, 1) | 0.667 (0.3, 1) | 0.01 |
| Hepatitis B and C coinfection | 4 | 4 | 7.44 (2.76, NA) | ||||
| Hepatitis C only | 7 | 7 | 7.41 (5.22, NA) | 0.333 (0.108, 1) | |||
| No virus infection | 20 | 20 | 17.89 (13.67, 33.44) | 0.8 (0.643, 0.996) | 0.35 (0.193, 0.636) | ||
| Smoking | Missing | 2 | 1 | 17.89 (2.76, NA) | 0.5 (0.125, 1) | 0.5 (0.125, 1) | 0.756 |
| No | 20 | 19 | 12.25 (7.06, 35.38) | 0.589 (0.406, 0.855) | 0.268 (0.127, 0.565) | ||
| Yes | 12 | 12 | 13.3 (7.75, NA) | 0.583 (0.362, 0.941) | 0.167 (0.047, 0.591) | ||
| Alcohol abuse | Missing | 1 | 1 | 2.76 (NA, NA) | <0.001 | ||
| No | 15 | 14 | 12.25 (11.07, NA) | 0.6 (0.397, 0.907) | 0.267 (0.115, 0.617) | ||
| Yes | 18 | 17 | 14.36 (7.46, 25.07) | 0.595 (0.403, 0.88) | 0.238 (0.101, 0.559) | ||
| History of cancer | No | 32 | 31 | 12.96 (11.07, 19.48) | 0.594 (0.446, 0.791) | 0.25 (0.137, 0.456) | 0.615 |
| Yes | 2 | 1 | 7.46 (NA, NA) | ||||
| Family history of HCC | Missing | 2 | 1 | 6.93 (NA, NA) | <0.001 | ||
| No | 31 | 30 | 13.67 (11.07, 20.3) | 0.613 (0.463, 0.811) | 0.258 (0.142, 0.469) | ||
| Yes | 1 | 1 | 2.76 (NA, NA) | ||||
| Hypertension | No | 7 | 6 | 11.47 (7.75, NA) | 0.343 (0.112, 1) | 0.171 (0.029, 1) | 0.688 |
| Yes | 27 | 26 | 13.67 (7.46, 20.3) | 0.63 (0.471, 0.841) | 0.259 (0.137, 0.49) | ||
| Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease | No | 29 | 28 | 14.36 (7.75, 20.3) | 0.613 (0.457, 0.822) | 0.252 (0.133, 0.478) | 0.534 |
| Yes | 5 | 4 | 11.07 (6.93, NA) | 0.4 (0.137, 1) | 0.2 (0.035, 1) | ||
| Steatosis | No | 25 | 24 | 13.67 (7.75, 25.07) | 0.63 (0.464, 0.855) | 0.252 (0.126, 0.503) | 0.956 |
| Yes | 9 | 8 | 11.47 (5.22, NA) | 0.444 (0.214, 0.923) | 0.222 (0.065, 0.754) | ||
| Evidence of cirrhosis | No | 12 | 10 | 25.07 (16.92, NA) | 0.917 (0.773, 1) | 0.55 (0.322, 0.938) | 0.003 |
| Yes | 22 | 22 | 9.41 (7.06, 18.5) | 0.409 (0.248, 0.676) | 0.091 (0.024, 0.341) | ||
| Metabolic syndrome | No | 14 | 13 | 7.75 (5.58, NA) | 0.321 (0.145, 0.712) | 0.161 (0.045, 0.568) | 0.1 |
| Yes | 20 | 19 | 15.82 (12.25, 33.44) | 0.75 (0.582, 0.966) | 0.3 (0.154, 0.586) | ||
| Portal vein thrombosis | No | 26 | 24 | 14.36 (7.75, 30.55) | 0.646 (0.484, 0.862) | 0.323 (0.183, 0.57) | 0.086 |
| Yes | 8 | 8 | 11.27 (7.42, NA) | 0.375 (0.153, 0.917) | |||
| Number of nodules | 1 | 6 | 6 | 26.33 (14.36, NA) | 0.833 (0.583, 1) | 0.5 (0.225, 1) | 0.124 |
| 2–3 | 8 | 8 | 12.14 (7.06, NA) | 0.625 (0.365, 1) | 0.25 (0.075, 0.83) | ||
| >3 | 20 | 18 | 11.47 (7.46, 20.3) | 0.482 (0.303, 0.768) | 0.161 (0.057, 0.452) | ||
| Tumor nodularity | Multinodular | 28 | 26 | 12.02 (7.46, 18.63) | 0.524 (0.366, 0.75) | 0.187 (0.085, 0.412) | 0.041 |
| Uninodular | 6 | 6 | 26.33 (14.36, NA) | 0.833 (0.583, 1) | 0.5 (0.225, 1) | ||
| Tumor volume | ≤50% | 27 | 26 | 12.25 (7.75, 25.07) | 0.583 (0.422, 0.806) | 0.272 (0.145, 0.511) | 0.771 |
| >50% | 7 | 6 | 13.67 (7.42, NA) | 0.571 (0.301, 1) | 0.143 (0.023, 0.877) | ||
| Tumor morphology | Massive/extension ≥50% | 7 | 6 | 13.67 (7.42, NA) | 0.571 (0.301, 1) | 0.143 (0.023, 0.877) | 0.121 |
| Multinodular and ≤50% | 21 | 20 | 12.02 (7.06, 20.3) | 0.508 (0.33, 0.781) | 0.203 (0.085, 0.486) | ||
| Uninodular and ≤50% | 6 | 6 | 26.33 (14.36, NA) | 0.833 (0.583, 1) | 0.5 (0.225, 1) | ||
| Metastasis | None | 30 | 29 | 12.25 (7.75, 19.48) | 0.567 (0.414, 0.775) | 0.233 (0.122, 0.446) | 0.803 |
| Present | 4 | 3 | 13.67 (2.53, NA) | 0.75 (0.426, 1) | 0.375 (0.084, 1) | ||
| Prior treatment | Local therapy (chemo/radioembolization) | 4 | 4 | 12.37 (4.76, NA) | 0.5 (0.188, 1) | 0.677 | |
| No therapy | 28 | 26 | 12.25 (7.75, 19.48) | 0.599 (0.44, 0.814) | 0.262 (0.139, 0.494) | ||
| Surgery or transplant | 2 | 2 | 25 (11.47, NA) | 0.5 (0.125, 1) | 0.5 (0.125, 1) | ||
| ECOG | 0 | 14 | 13 | 14.36 (7.75, NA) | 0.55 (0.337, 0.897) | 0.314 (0.14, 0.704) | 0.799 |
| 1 | 20 | 19 | 12.25 (7.46, 20.3) | 0.6 (0.42, 0.858) | 0.2 (0.083, 0.481) | ||
| Vascular invasion | No | 25 | 24 | 14.36 (7.75, 30.55) | 0.632 (0.466, 0.856) | 0.295 (0.158, 0.548) | 0.442 |
| Yes | 9 | 8 | 11.47 (7.42, NA) | 0.444 (0.214, 0.923) | 0.111 (0.018, 0.705) |
Abbreviations: CLIP, Cancer of the Liver Italian Program; TNM, tumor–node–metastasis; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; NA, not applicable.
Table 6.
Log-rank comparison of time to radiological progression (TTRP) among subgroups
| n | Events | Median TTRP (95% CI) | 1-year PD-free rate (95% CI) | 2-year PD-free rate (95% CI) | p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All patients | 34 | 22 | 10.38 (5.78, 18.79) | 0.461 (0.298, 0.713) | 0.068 (0.011, 0.418) | ||
| Sex | Female | 9 | 5 | 23.03 (5.72, NA) | 0.508 (0.257, 1) | 0.509 | |
| Male | 25 | 17 | 10.38 (5.78, 18.79) | 0.457 (0.272, 0.766) | 0.065 (0.01, 0.43) | ||
| Pathology | Missing | 14 | 8 | 10.38 (5.72, NA) | 0.363 (0.136, 0.966) | 0.777 | |
| Poor | 3 | 1 | 13.14 (NA, NA) | 1 (1, 1) | |||
| Good/moderate | 17 | 13 | 10.25 (4.66, NA) | 0.438 (0.242, 0.794) | 0.11 (0.02, 0.604) | ||
| Child–Pugh | A | 33 | 22 | 10.25 (5.78, 18.79) | 0.437 (0.273, 0.7) | 0.055 (0.008, 0.363) | 0.195 |
| B | 1 | 0 | NA (NA, NA) | 1 (1, 1) | |||
| CLIP | Stage 0–2 | 28 | 17 | 12.98 (6.54, NA) | 0.529 (0.348, 0.804) | 0.088 (0.015, 0.53) | 0.124 |
| Stage 3 | 5 | 4 | 6.65 (2.73, NA) | 0.25 (0.046, 1) | |||
| Stage 4–6 | 1 | 1 | 4.63 (NA, NA) | ||||
| Okuda | Stage I | 23 | 16 | 10.38 (5.78, 20.66) | 0.484 (0.294, 0.797) | 0.069 (0.011, 0.454) | 0.751 |
| Stage II | 11 | 6 | 10.25 (4.63, NA) | 0.385 (0.145, 1) | |||
| AFP, CLIP | <400 | 27 | 16 | 10.38 (6.54, NA) | 0.486 (0.3, 0.789) | 0.093 (0.015, 0.555) | 0.148 |
| ≥400 | 7 | 6 | 5.78 (3.06, NA) | 0.343 (0.112, 1) | |||
| TNM | Stage I | 4 | 2 | 21.75 (13.14, NA) | 1 (1, 1) | 0.5 (0.125, 1) | 0.023 |
| Stage II | 4 | 2 | 13.04 (6.54, NA) | 0.667 (0.3, 1) | |||
| Stage IIIA | 11 | 8 | 12.98 (5.72, NA) | 0.583 (0.34, 1) | |||
| Stage IIIB | 5 | 2 | 18.79 (NA, NA) | 0.8 (0.516, 1) | |||
| Stage IVA | 6 | 4 | 5.03 (3.06, NA) | ||||
| Stage IVB | 4 | 4 | 5.21 (1.71, NA) | ||||
| Hepatitis | Hepatitis B only | 3 | 2 | 11.66 (5.78, NA) | 0.5 (0.125, 1) | 0.036 | |
| Hepatitis B and C coinfection | 4 | 3 | 3.06 (2.73, NA) | ||||
| Hepatitis C only | 7 | 5 | 5.72 (5.03, NA) | 0.278 (0.054, 1) | |||
| No virus infection | 20 | 12 | 13.04 (10.25, NA) | 0.599 (0.388, 0.926) | 0.114 (0.019, 0.675) | ||
| Smoking | Missing | 2 | 0 | NA (NA, NA) | 0.736 | ||
| No | 20 | 14 | 6.54 (4.66, NA) | 0.293 (0.123, 0.696) | 0.098 (0.016, 0.603) | ||
| Yes | 12 | 8 | 13.04 (6.54, NA) | 0.675 (0.43, 1) | |||
| Alcohol abuse | Missing | 1 | 0 | NA (NA, NA) | 0.85 | ||
| No | 15 | 9 | 6.54 (4.63, NA) | 0.365 (0.159, 0.837) | |||
| Yes | 18 | 13 | 13.04 (5.78, NA) | 0.529 (0.321, 0.87) | 0.088 (0.014, 0.564) | ||
| History of cancer | No | 32 | 20 | 12.98 (5.72, 20.66) | 0.504 (0.332, 0.764) | 0.075 (0.012, 0.455) | 0.283 |
| Yes | 2 | 2 | 6.16 (5.78, NA) | ||||
| Family history of HCC | Missing | 2 | 2 | 5.22 (4.66, NA) | 0.261 | ||
| No | 31 | 20 | 12.98 (6.54, 20.66) | 0.501 (0.329, 0.762) | 0.074 (0.012, 0.453) | ||
| Yes | 1 | 0 | NA (NA, NA) | ||||
| Hypertension | No | 7 | 4 | 6.54 (5.78, NA) | 0.147 | ||
| Yes | 27 | 18 | 12.98 (5.72, 23.03) | 0.555 (0.378, 0.815) | 0.082 (0.014, 0.498) | ||
| Nonalcoholic fatty-liver disease | No | 29 | 19 | 12.98 (6.54, 20.66) | 0.527 (0.354, 0.785) | 0.078 (0.013, 0.474) | 0.082 |
| Yes | 5 | 3 | 4.66 (4.66, NA) | ||||
| Steatosis | No | 25 | 19 | 10.38 (5.78, 20.66) | 0.446 (0.275, 0.723) | 0.074 (0.012, 0.454) | 0.695 |
| Yes | 9 | 3 | 13.14 (3.06, NA) | 0.711 (0.433, 1) | |||
| Evidence of cirrhosis | No | 12 | 9 | 10.25 (5.72, NA) | 0.379 (0.164, 0.873) | 0.521 | |
| Yes | 22 | 13 | 12.98 (5.03, NA) | 0.521 (0.32, 0.849) | 0.13 (0.024, 0.694) | ||
| Metabolic syndrome | No | 14 | 9 | 6.54 (5.78, NA) | 0.366 (0.152, 0.881) | 0.484 | |
| Yes | 20 | 13 | 12.98 (5.72, NA) | 0.521 (0.321, 0.844) | 0.13 (0.024, 0.693) | ||
| Portal vein thrombosis | No | 26 | 16 | 12.98 (6.54, NA) | 0.546 (0.361, 0.827) | 0.091 (0.015, 0.547) | 0.047 |
| Yes | 8 | 6 | 4.63 (2.73, NA) | 0.194 (0.035, 1) | |||
| Number of nodules | 1 | 6 | 3 | 13.14 (13.14, NA) | 0.833 (0.583, 1) | 0.417 (0.1, 1) | 0.085 |
| 2–3 | 8 | 7 | 5.78 (4.66, NA) | 0.188 (0.036, 0.976) | |||
| >3 | 20 | 12 | 12.98 (5.78, NA) | 0.503 (0.296, 0.855) | |||
| Tumor nodularity | Multinodular | 28 | 19 | 10.25 (5.72, 18.79) | 0.397 (0.232, 0.68) | 0.168 | |
| Uninodular | 6 | 3 | 13.14 (13.14, NA) | 0.833 (0.583, 1) | 0.417 (0.1, 1) | ||
| Tumor volume | ≤50% | 27 | 18 | 10.38 (5.78, 23.03) | 0.488 (0.311, 0.764) | 0.081 (0.013, 0.492) | 0.505 |
| >50% | 7 | 4 | 10.25 (4.63, NA) | 0.312 (0.067, 1) | |||
| Tumor morphology | Massive/extension ≥50% | 7 | 4 | 10.25 (4.63, NA) | 0.312 (0.067, 1) | 0.356 | |
| Multinodular and ≤50% | 21 | 15 | 6.54 (5.72, NA) | 0.412 (0.23, 0.735) | |||
| Uninodular and ≤50% | 6 | 3 | 13.14 (13.14, NA) | 0.833 (0.583, 1) | 0.417 (0.1, 1) | ||
| Metastasis | None | 30 | 18 | 12.98 (6.54, 23.03) | 0.544 (0.364, 0.813) | 0.081 (0.013, 0.489) | 0.008 |
| Present | 4 | 4 | 5.21 (1.71, NA) | ||||
| Prior treatment | Local therapy (chemo/radioembolization) | 4 | 4 | 9.84 (2.83, NA) | 0.5 (0.188, 1) | 0.259 | |
| No therapy | 28 | 16 | 10.38 (5.78, NA) | 0.493 (0.306, 0.796) | 0.094 (0.016, 0.562) | ||
| Surgery or transplant | 2 | 2 | 4.8 (3.06, NA) | ||||
| ECOG | 0 | 14 | 8 | 6.54 (4.66, NA) | 0.45 (0.226, 0.898) | 0.3 (0.104, 0.863) | 0.827 |
| 1 | 20 | 14 | 10.38 (6.54, NA) | 0.476 (0.276, 0.821) | |||
| Vascular invasion | No | 25 | 16 | 12.98 (6.54, NA) | 0.545 (0.36, 0.826) | 0.091 (0.015, 0.546) | 0.057 |
| Yes | 9 | 6 | 4.63 (3.06, NA) | 0.203 (0.037, 1) |
Abbreviations: CLIP, Cancer of the Liver Italian Program; TNM, tumor–node–metastasis; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; NA, not applicable.
Dosimetry Analysis
There was a total of 53 tumors from 34 patients for dosimetry analysis in this study. Thirteen patients were multitumor cases, with seven having two tumors and six having three. Tumors of 1–2.5 cm in size were segmented and included as nontarget tumors.
The population median treated-liver mean dose was similar between planned (120 [85–145] Gy) and delivered (115 [84–140] Gy) calculations. The population-averaged mean dose to normal liver was estimated at 80.9 Gy for planning MAA, similar to the posttreatment 90Y SPECT/CT estimate of 84.6 Gy. AE grades for bilirubin, albumin, and ascites (AE criteria typically related to radioembolization) were evaluated at baseline and at 3 and 6 months postradioembolization. No statistically significant correlation was observed among mean absorbed doses to normal liver.
The tumor:normal-liver uptake ratio showed similar medians of 2.3 (0.3–8.4) and 2.1 (0.7–6.9) in planned 99mTc-MAA and delivered 90Y-GM images; however, paired differences showed a wide 95% CI: −3 to 4. The population-averaged mean dose to tumors was estimated at 192 Gy, with median doses of 168 vs 144 Gy between responding vs nonresponding tumor subgroups. Higher median tumor-absorbed doses led to RECIST response, but this association was not statistically significant. Improved concordance between planned and delivered estimates of mean dose to tumors was observed when delivery catheters were within 1 cm and when a single (or >80% dominant) lesion was present.16
Discussion
Putative benefit from a combination of systemic antiangiogenesis therapy followed by liver-directed therapy including 90Y GMs or TACE has not been validated in advanced or metastatic HCC. This is the first prospective study to evaluate sorafenib followed by 90Y GMs in patients with advanced or metastatic HCC (BCLC stage C) with a prospective radiation-dosing plan and concurrent sorafenib and 90Y GMs. The results of this study suggest that systemic antiangiogenesis (sorafenib) followed by intra-arterial therapy (90Y GMs) in patients with advanced/metastatic HCC is safe. This study also suggests that the addition of 90Y to systemic therapy could potentially provide survival benefits, with increased PFS and OS in patients with advanced HCC, although it was not a randomized clinical trial.
Patients enrolled in this study were initially categorized as having advanced disease (BCLC C) at presentation. The landmark randomized SHARP trial established the role of frontline therapy with sorafenib in advanced-HCC patients and indicated median OS of 10.7 months in its sorafenib arm (versus 7.9 months in the placebo arm) and median PFS of 5.5 months.9 The use of 90Y GMs in combination with systemic therapy for advanced HCC is still investigational, and the current study presents the safety and clinical benefit from sequencing this combination therapy in patients with advanced HCC. The principal-outcome measures of this study included median PFS of 10.4 months. This is a remarkable PFS benefit when compared to that shown with sorafenib in the SHARP study (5.5 months) and other systemic therapy regimens, including the new standard-of-care therapy of atezolizumab–bevacizumab, which has a median PFS of 6.8 months.7 Median OS in 34 patients who received both sorafenib and 90Y was 13.2 months, and that in 38 patients who either received sorafenib only or both sorafenib and 90Y was 13.9 months. This observed median OS is longer than the OS of 10.7 months demonstrated in the SHARP trial, which included patients with BCLC B. The REFLECT study showed a median OS of 12.3 months, CheckMate 459 14.7 months, and IMbrave150 13.2 months in the sorafenib arm, including patients with BCLC A (IMbrave150) and BCLC B.23–25 The DOSISPHERE trial showed OS of 26.6 months in its personalized dosimetry group and 10.7 months in the standard dosimetry group. However, this study included only patients with unresectable but locally advanced disease and excluded those with extrahepatic and metastatic diseases.26 In this regard, our study suggests encouraging OS and potential survival benefit in patients with advanced HCC, as we included only patients with BCLC C. More importantly, sorafenib followed by 90Y did not lead to alterations in tumor vascularity, which could have manifested on lower delivered 90Y dose than calculated 90Y dose. Additionally, our team and others have been adopting personalized dosimetry methodology as a new standard approach to 90Y planning, and have found significant improvements in response rates in HCC. Therefore, future combined local and systemic therapy trials in HCC should follow a personalized dosimetry approach.
Notably, the role of local therapies for HCC has been established in intermediate-stage HCC (BCLC-B);27 however, their role is less clear in advanced-stage HCC (BCLC C), although they can be used for local disease control in patients with adequate liver function and good performance status. Transarterial therapies, such as TACE and TARE (using 90Y GMs), are frequently used for intermediate-stage HCC (BCLC B), with the main goal being local disease control. They are also used as a bridge to downsize HCC tumors for liver transplantation by delivering chemotherapeutic agents with vaso-occlusive materials to the arteries that feed HCC (TACE) or by delivering radioactive microspheres to the vascular territory of HCC (TARE).28 In TACE, tumor injury is created by occluding the blood supply for hepatic tumors using an almost-exclusive hepatic arterial blood supply to the tumor tissue, as opposed to the main portal vein supply to the normal hepatic parenchyma. However, 90Y GMs are not used for complete occlusion of the arterial supply, since oxygen is still needed for free-radical formation in the tumor tissue for radiation therapy.29 Therefore, 90Y therapy has a lower incidence of postembolization syndrome than TACE.
Sorafenib has been studied in combination with liver-directed therapy in patients with advanced-stage disease. In a recent meta-analysis of five studies that included two randomized clinical trials, a TACE–sorafenib combination resulted in longer time to progression (combined HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39–0.95; p=0.031) than TACE alone or TACE plus placebo, with no OS benefit.30 However, the SORAMIC study — a randomized trial of 90Y radioembolization followed by sorafenib vs sorafenib monotherapy in advanced HCC — did not show OS benefit, with median OS of 12.1 months in the 90Y + sorafenib arm and 11.4 months in the sorafenib arm (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81–1.25; p=0.953).31 In a retrospective multicenter study of 325 patients by Sangro et al, 90Y treatment yielded median OS duration of 10 (95% CI 7.7–10.9) months in BCLC C patients.32 In a single-center, prospective, longitudinal cohort study of 291 patients by Salem et al, median OS was 7.3 (95% CI 6.5–10.1) in BCLC C patients, and patients with Child–Pugh class A had a median OS of 17.2 (95% CI 14.9–24.0) months.33 Another single-center, retrospective, longitudinal cohort study of 74 (BCLC B and C) patients treated with 90Y GMs and sorafenib found median OS of 12.4 (95% CI 9.1–15.6) months.34 Additionally, the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials recently compared the safety and efficacy of 90Y resin microspheres vs sorafenib for advanced-HCC patients.35,36 Neither study demonstrated OS benefit for 90Y resin microspheres vs sorafenib. Limitations in the 90Y arms included a lack of 90Y treatment in 22% and 29% of patients, respectively, and a lack of prospective radiation-dose planning. Notably, a subset analysis of the SARAH trial examined the relationship between the tumor-absorbed dose and survival, and demonstrated that increased tumor-absorbed doses yielded improved survival.37 Patients with tumor-absorbed doses >100 Gy vs <100 Gy had significantly improved OS of 14.1 months vs 6.1 months. In addition, the probability of tumor control was directly related to tumor dose with a tumor-control probability of 90% at 150 Gy tumor-absorbed dose. Furthermore, some recent retrospective studies have demonstrated statistically significant difference in the mean tumor doses of responders vs nonresponders using GMs.18,38,39 Reported tumor-dose thresholds have a wide range, mainly due to dose dependence on the imaging modality, dosimetry technique, and microsphere-specific activity at the time of treatment. For HCC with GMs, mean tumor doses of 342–353 Gy have been reported for responders by some,26,39 while others have reported the threshold dose for tumor response as 160–220 Gy.18,38 These dose-threshold values change to around 100 Gy when resin microspheres are used. Finally, as demonstrated in DOSISPHERE, all future studies would benefit from the use of personalized dosimetry for treatment planning.
Although our dosimetry studies confirmed the same trend of 90Y dose–dependent tumor response, this was not statistically significant. However, this could be related to the small number of patients, the use of standard dosimetry, and the concurrent use of systemic therapy. Future studies using personalized dosimetry models in planning and treatment may more accurately determine the vascular effects of systemic therapy and lead to improved outcomes. The importance of dosimetry in 90Y-GM treatments is reflected in recent 90Y-dosimetry consensus publications by international multidisciplinary working groups.40
In conclusion, to date, there has been no evidence from prospective studies to suggest the safety or efficacy of antiangiogenesis followed by intra-arterial therapies, such as 90Y, in HCC. Remarkably, sorafenib pretreatment in our study did not preclude the 90Y-GM procedure on the basis of vascularity changes or vascular injury. This has been the main concern with initiating sorafenib, which is an antiangiogenesis agent, before intra-arterial therapy. This is the first prospective study to illustrate the safety of sorafenib followed by 90Y GMs in advanced HCC. Therefore, it provides proof of concept for future studies of similar sequencing of combined antiangiogenesis and intra-arterial therapies in HCC, including combinations of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab with 90Y GMs or TACE.
Limitations of our study include being a single-institution, single-arm, phase II study, which may have posed institutional and investigator bias, the small sample, and the lack of a control group. In particular, multivariate analyses were not feasible, due to the low number of patients. This added uncertainty in interpretation of survival-outcome data. However, we would like to highlight that our patients were all selected according to BCLC stage C, including patients with metastatic disease, a group with historically poor survival, yet median PFS was 10.5 months. Notably, the phase III STOP-HCC trial of 90Y followed by sorafenib versus sorafenib alone in unresectable HCC excluded patients with extrahepatic disease (NCT01556490). Therefore, future studies with a larger number of patients are warranted to assess sequential systemic therapy and 90Y in the metastatic disease setting to determine whether it can control local liver tumors, delay liver failure, and thus offer a survival advantage.
Acknowledgments
This work has been edited by Ann Sutton, supported in part by a Cancer Center Support Grant (P30 CA016672). The abstract of this paper was presented at the Annual ASCO Conference 2017 as a poster presentation with interim findings, and has been published in “Poster abstracts” in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. It was also presented at the ESMO 2017 Congress as a poster presentation with interim findings, and the abstract published in “Poster abstracts” in Annals of Oncology.
Funding Statement
Bayer HealthCare/Onyx Pharmaceuticals.
Translational Relevance
To date, there have been no published prospective studies of antiangiogenesis therapy followed by intra-arterial therapy in advanced HCC. Therefore, we tested our hypothesis of safety and efficacy of sorafenib followed after 4 weeks by 90Y to better control hepatic tumors and delay deaths related to liver failure. We applied dosimetry methods to confirm similar “planned” to “delivered” 90Y doses. Remarkably, sorafenib pretreatment did not preclude the 90Y procedure based on vascularity changes or vascular injury, which has been the main concern with initiating sorafenib, which is an antiangiogenesis agent, before intra-arterial therapies. This study is the first prospective illustration of the safety of antiangiogenesis and sorafenib followed by 90Y in HCC, and provides proof of concept for future studies of similar sequencing in HCC.
Disclosure
SCK has received research grants from Boston Scientific and ABK Biomedical and served as a consultant for Sirtex Medical, Boston Scientific, ABK Biomedical, and Terumo Medical. JK reports personal fees from Johnson and Johnson, Boston Scientific and grants from LungLife AI outside the submitted work. AM reports grants and personal fees from BTG, Sirtex Medical, and ABK Biomedical outside the submitted work. The authors declare no other potential conflicts of interest.
References
- 1.Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136(5):E359–386. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Mittal S, El-Serag HB. Epidemiology of hepatocellular carcinoma: consider the population. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2013;47 Suppl:S2–6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Llovet JM, Di Bisceglie AM, Bruix J, et al. Design and endpoints of clinical trials in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(10):698–711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Abou-Alfa GK, Meyer T, Cheng AL, et al. Cabozantinib in patients with advanced and progressing hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(1):54–63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Bruix J, Qin S, Merle P, et al. Regorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment (RESORCE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10064):56–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.El-Khoueiry AB, Sangro B, Yau T, et al. Nivolumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (CheckMate 040): an open-label, non-comparative, Phase 1/2 dose escalation and expansion trial. The Lancet. 2017;389(10088):2492–2502. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Finn RS, Qin S, Ikeda M, et al. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(20):1894–1905. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Kudo M, Finn RS, Qin S, et al. Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10126):1163–1173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(4):378–390. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Yau T, Kang Y-K, Kim T-Y, et al. Nivolumab (NIVO) + ipilimumab (IPI) combination therapy in patients (pts) with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC): results from CheckMate 040. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(15_suppl):4012. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Zhu AX, Finn RS, Edeline J, et al. Pembrolizumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with sorafenib (KEYNOTE-224): a non-randomised, open-label Phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(7):940–952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Zhu AX, Kang YK, Yen CJ, et al. Ramucirumab after sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and increased α-fetoprotein concentrations (REACH-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(2):282–296. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Couto OF, Dvorchik I, Carr BI. Causes of death in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Dig Dis Sci. 2007;52(11):3285–3289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Bruix J, Sherman M; American Association for the Study of Liver D. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology. 2011;53(3):1020–1022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Siman W, Mikell JK, Kappadath SC. Practical reconstruction protocol for quantitative (90)Y bremsstrahlung SPECT/CT. Med Phys. 2016;43(9):5093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Thomas MA, Mahvash A, Abdelsalam M, Kaseb AO, Kappadath SC. Planning dosimetry for (90) Y radioembolization with glass microspheres: evaluating the fidelity of (99m) Tc-MAA and partition model predictions. Med Phys. 2020;7(10):5333–5342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Balagopal A, Kappadath SC. Characterization of (90) Y-SPECT/CT self-calibration approaches on the quantification of voxel-level absorbed doses following (90) Y-microsphere selective internal radiation therapy. Med Phys. 2018;45(2):875–883. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Kappadath SC, Mikell J, Balagopal A, Baladandayuthapani V, Kaseb A, Mahvash A. Hepatocellular carcinoma tumor dose response after (90) Y-radioembolizationWith glass microspheres using (90) Y-SPECT/CT-BasedVoxel Dosimetry. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;102(2):451–461. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Mikell JK, Mahvash A, Siman W, Mourtada F, Kappadath SC. Comparing voxel-based absorbed dosimetry methods in tumors, liver, lung, and at the liver-lung interface for (90)Y microsphere selective internal radiation therapy. EJNMMI Phys. 2015;2(1):16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(2):228–247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Thall PF, Simon RM, Estey EH. Bayesian sequential monitoring designs for single-arm clinical trials with multiple outcomes. Stat Med. 1995;14(4):357–379. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Thall PF, Wooten LH, Tannir NM. Monitoring event times in early phase clinical trials: some practical issues. Clin Trials. 2005;2(6):467–478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Yamashita T, Kudo M, Ikeda K, et al. REFLECT-a phase 3 trial comparing efficacy and safety of lenvatinib to sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: an analysis of Japanese subset. J Gastroenterol. 2020;55(1):113–122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Yau T, Park JW, Finn RS, et al. CheckMate 459: a randomized, multi-center phase III study of nivolumab (NIVO) vs sorafenib (SOR) as first-line (1L) treatment in patients (pts) with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). Ann Oncol. 2019;30:v874–v875. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Cheng AL, Qin S, Ikeda M, et al. LBA3 - IMbrave150: efficacy and safety results from a ph III study evaluating atezolizumab (atezo) + bevacizumab (bev) vs sorafenib (Sor) as first treatment (tx) for patients (pts) with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Ann Oncol. 2019;30:ix186–ix187. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Garin E, Tselikas L, Guiu B, et al. Personalised versus standard dosimetry approach of selective internal radiation therapy in patients with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (DOSISPHERE-01): a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 2 trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;6(1):17–29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.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(9319):1734–1739. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Kishore S, Friedman T, Madoff DC. Update on embolization therapies for Hepatocellular carcinoma. Curr Oncol Rep. 2017;19(6):40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Pesapane F, Nezami N, Patella F, Geschwind JF. New concepts in embolotherapy of HCC. Med Oncol. 2017;34(4):58. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Wang G, Liu Y, Zhou SF, et al. Sorafenib combined with transarterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Hepatol Int. 2016;10(3):501–510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Ricke J, Klümpen HJ, Amthauer H, et al. Impact of combined selective internal radiation therapy and sorafenib on survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2019;71(6):1164–1174. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Sangro B, Carpanese L, Cianni R, et al. Survival after yttrium-90 resin microsphere radioembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma across Barcelona clinic liver cancer stages: a European evaluation. Hepatology. 2011;54(3):868–878. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Salem R, Lewandowski RJ, Mulcahy MF, et al. Radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma using Yttrium-90 microspheres: a comprehensive report of long-term outcomes. Gastroenterology. 2010;138(1):52–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Teyateeti A, Mahvash A, Long JP, et al. Survival outcomes for Yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization with and without sorafenib for unresectable Hepatocellular carcinoma patients. J Hepatocell Carcinoma. 2020;7:117–131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Chow PKH, Gandhi M, Tan SB, et al. SIRveNIB: selective internal radiation therapy versus sorafenib in Asia-Pacific patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(19):1913–1921. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Vilgrain V, Pereira H, Assenat E, et al. Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(12):1624–1636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Hermann AL, Dieudonné A, Ronot M, et al. Relationship of tumor radiation-absorbed dose to survival and response in hepatocellular carcinoma treated with transarterial radioembolization with (90)Y in the SARAH study. Radiology. 2020;296(3):673–684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Chan KT, Alessio AM, Johnson GE, et al. Prospective Trial using internal pair-production positron emission tomography to establish the Yttrium-90 radioembolization dose required for response of Hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;101(2):358–365. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Garin E, Lenoir L, Edeline J, et al. Boosted selective internal radiation therapy with 90Y-loaded glass microspheres (B-SIRT) for hepatocellular carcinoma patients: a new personalized promising concept. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;40(7):1057–1068. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Salem R, Padia SA, Lam M, et al. Clinical and dosimetric considerations for Y90: recommendations from an international multidisciplinary working group. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2019;46(8):1695–1704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]