Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 10, pp 3463–3479 | Cite as

Correlation between SACE (Subjective Angiographic Chemoembolization Endpoint) score and tumor response and its impact on survival after DEB-TACE in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

  • Victoria Susanne Antonia HabbelEmail author
  • Martin Zeile
  • Gregor Alexander Stavrou
  • Frank Wacker
  • Roland Brüning
  • Karl-Jürgen Oldhafer
  • Thomas Rodt
Interventional Radiology
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To asses angiographic and computed tomographic success criteria during and after transcatheter arterial drug-eluting bead chemoembolization (DEB-TACE) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and its impact on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Methods

In this retrospective single-center study, 50 patients with unresectable HCC having undergone DEB-TACE from January 2010 to July 2015 were assessed. The angiographic endpoint was classified by Subjective Angiographic Chemoembolization Endpoint (SACE) scale. Relative tumor density in arterial (DArt) and portal venous phase (DPV) computed tomography post- versus pre-DEB-TACE were calculated, respectively. Tumor response according to modified Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) was assessed. Univariate Kaplan–Meier and Cox regression analysis were carried out.

Results

SACE scores I, II, III, and IV were found in 1 (2%), 20 (40%), 15 (30%), and 14 (28%) patients, respectively. Median OS and PFS were 14.2 and 5.5 months, respectively. Death rates at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years were 24%, 38%, and 52%, respectively. SACE score during DEB-TACE significantly correlated with local and overall mRECIST results (local: p < 0.001, r = 0.49, overall: p = 0.042, r = 0.29) and inversely correlated with DPV (p = 0.005, r = − 0.40). In univariate analysis, progressive disease (PD) according to mRECIST and increase of DArt and DPV were associated with significantly shorter PFS. Modified RECIST independently predicted OS (hazard ratio for complete remission vs. PD = 0.15, 95% confidence interval 0.03–0.68, p = 0.014).

Conclusions

A direct impact of SACE on PFS or OS could not be shown. However, SACE significantly correlated with local and overall mRECIST tumor response that again significantly predicted OS. We therefore postulate an indirect impact of SACE on OS. Consequently, complete embolization should be attempted.

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma Transcatheter arterial drug-eluting bead chemoembolization TACE Subjective Angiographic Chemoembolization Endpoint scale SACE Tumor density mRECIST 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank PD Dr. Med. Bruno Neuner, Campus Virchow-Hospital, Charité Berlin, as well as Sebastian Häckl and Florian Lasch, Institute for Biometry, Hannover Medical School for their statistical guidance throughout the study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethical Committee of Hannover Medical School, Germany.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Stuver S TD (2008) Cancer of the Liver and Biliary Tract. In: Adami HO, Hunter D, Trichopoulos D, editors Textbook of Cancer Epidemiology 2nd ed New York:.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311174.003.0012
  3. 3.
    Bruix J, Sherman M, American Association for the Study of Liver D (2011) Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 53 (3):1020–1022.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.24199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Forner A, Reig ME, de Lope CR, Bruix J (2010) Current strategy for staging and treatment: the BCLC update and future prospects. Seminars in liver disease 30 (1):61–74.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1247133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Forner A, Llovet JM, Bruix J (2012) Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet 379 (9822):1245–1255.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61347-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Varela M, Real MI, Burrel M, Forner A, Sala M, Brunet M, Ayuso C, Castells L, Montana X, Llovet JM, Bruix J (2007) Chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma with drug eluting beads: efficacy and doxorubicin pharmacokinetics. Journal of hepatology 46 (3):474–481.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2006.10.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lammer J, Malagari K, Vogl T, Pilleul F, Denys A, Watkinson A, Pitton M, Sergent G, Pfammatter T, Terraz S, Benhamou Y, Avajon Y, Gruenberger T, Pomoni M, Langenberger H, Schuchmann M, Dumortier J, Mueller C, Chevallier P, Lencioni R, Investigators PV (2010) Prospective randomized study of doxorubicin-eluting-bead embolization in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: results of the PRECISION V study. Cardiovascular and interventional radiology 33 (1):41–52.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-009-9711-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sacco R BI, Bertini M, Bozzi E, Romano A, Petruzzi P, Tumino E, Ginanni B, Federici G, Cioni R. (2011) Conventional versus doxorubicin-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22:1545–1552. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2011.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dhanasekaran R, Kooby DA, Staley CA, Kauh JS, Khanna V, Kim HS (2010) Comparison of conventional transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and chemoembolization with doxorubicin drug eluting beads (DEB) for unresectable hepatocelluar carcinoma (HCC). Journal of surgical oncology 101 (6):476–480.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.21522 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Facciorusso A (2018) Drug-eluting beads transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: Current state of the art. World journal of gastroenterology : WJG 24 (2):161–169.  https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v24.i2.161 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kloeckner R, Weinmann A, Prinz F, Pinto dos Santos D, Ruckes C, Dueber C, Pitton MB (2015) Conventional transarterial chemoembolization versus drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. BMC cancer 15:465.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1480-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Golfieri R, Giampalma E, Renzulli M, Cioni R, Bargellini I, Bartolozzi C, Breatta AD, Gandini G, Nani R, Gasparini D, Cucchetti A, Bolondi L, Trevisani F (2014) Randomised controlled trial of doxorubicin-eluting beads vs conventional chemoembolisation for hepatocellular carcinoma. British journal of cancer.  https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2014.199
  13. 13.
    Choi SJ, Kim J, Kim HS, Park H (2017) Parametric response mapping of dynamic CT: enhanced prediction of survival in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with transarterial chemoembolization. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42 (7):1871–1879.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1082-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shim JH, Lee HC, Kim SO, Shin YM, Kim KM, Lim YS, Suh DJ (2012) Which response criteria best help predict survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma following chemoembolization? A validation study of old and new models. Radiology 262 (2):708–718.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11110282 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barman PM, Sharma P, Krishnamurthy V, Willatt J, McCurdy H, Moseley RH, Su GL (2014) Predictors of Mortality in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Undergoing Transarterial Chemoembolization. Digestive diseases and sciences.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-014-3247-7
  16. 16.
    Han K, Kim JH, Yoon HM, Kim EJ, Gwon DI, Ko GY, Yoon HK, Ko HK (2014) Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for infiltrative hepatocellular carcinoma: clinical safety and efficacy and factors influencing patient survival. Korean J Radiol 15 (4):464–471.  https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2014.15.4.464 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kwan SW, Fidelman N, Ma E, Kerlan RK, Jr., Yao FY (2012) Imaging predictors of the response to transarterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a radiological-pathological correlation. Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society 18 (6):727–736.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.23413 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Choi H, Charnsangavej C, de Castro Faria S, Tamm EP, Benjamin RS, Johnson MM, Macapinlac HA, Podoloff DA (2004) CT evaluation of the response of gastrointestinal stromal tumors after imatinib mesylate treatment: a quantitative analysis correlated with FDG PET findings. AJR American journal of roentgenology 183 (6):1619–1628.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.183.6.01831619 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beuzit L, Edeline J, Brun V, Ronot M, Guillygomarc’h A, Boudjema K, Gandon Y, Garin E, Rolland Y (2016) Comparison of Choi criteria and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma treated with glass-microspheres Yttrium-90 selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT). European journal of radiology 85 (8):1445–1452.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.05.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Imai N, Katano Y, Kuzuya T, Honda T, Hayashi K, Ishigami M, Itoh A, Hirooka Y, Goto H (2013) An increase in lesion density can predict lower local recurrence after transarterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepato-gastroenterology 60 (125):965–970.  https://doi.org/10.5754/hge121229 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bryant MK, Dorn DP, Zarzour J, Smith JK, Redden DT, Saddekni S, Abdel Aal AK, Gray SH, Eckhoff DE, Dubay DA (2014) Computed tomography predictors of hepatocellular carcinoma tumour necrosis after chemoembolization. HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association 16 (4):327–335.  https://doi.org/10.1111/hpb.12149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jin B, Wang D, Lewandowski RJ, Riaz A, Ryu RK, Sato KT, Larson AC, Salem R, Omary RA (2011) Chemoembolization endpoints: effect on survival among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR American journal of roentgenology 196 (4):919–928.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.10.4770 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lewandowski RJ, Wang D, Gehl J, Atassi B, Ryu RK, Sato K, Nemcek AA, Jr., Miller FH, Mulcahy MF, Kulik L, Larson AC, Salem R, Omary RA (2007) A comparison of chemoembolization endpoints using angiographic versus transcatheter intraarterial perfusion/MR imaging monitoring. Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR 18 (10):1249–1257.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2007.06.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    de Korompay N, Alshammari M, Klass D, Chou FY, Chung J, Ho S, Liu DM (2018) Intraprocedural Parenchymal Blood Volume Is a Predictor of Treatment Response for Chemoembolization in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Results of a Prospective Study. Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR 29 (7):928–935.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2018.01.783 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bruix J, Sherman M, Practice Guidelines Committee AAftSoLD (2005) Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 42 (5):1208–1236.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.20933 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lencioni R, Llovet JM (2010) Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Seminars in liver disease 30 (1):52–60.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1247132 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wiggermann P, Sieron D, Brosche C, Brauer T, Scheer F, Platzek I, Wawrzynek W, Stroszczynski C (2011) Transarterial Chemoembolization of Child-A hepatocellular carcinoma: drug-eluting bead TACE (DEB TACE) vs. TACE with cisplatin/lipiodol (cTACE). Medical science monitor: international medical journal of experimental and clinical research 17 (4):CR189-195Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Song MJ, Chun HJ, Song DS, Kim HY, Yoo SH, Park CH, Bae SH, Choi JY, Chang UI, Yang JM, Lee HG, Yoon SK (2012) Comparative study between doxorubicin-eluting beads and conventional transarterial chemoembolization for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of hepatology 57 (6):1244–1250.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2012.07.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ronot M, Bouattour M, Wassermann J, Bruno O, Dreyer C, Larroque B, Castera L, Vilgrain V, Belghiti J, Raymond E, Faivre S (2014) Alternative Response Criteria (Choi, European association for the study of the liver, and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST]) Versus RECIST 1.1 in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib. The oncologist 19 (4):394–402.  https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2013-0114
  30. 30.
    Larson AC, Wang D, Atassi B, Sato KT, Ryu RK, Lewandowski RJ, Nemcek AA, Jr., Mulcahy MF, Kulik LM, Miller FH, Salem R, Omary RA (2008) Transcatheter intraarterial perfusion: MR monitoring of chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma–feasibility of initial clinical translation. Radiology 246 (3):964–971.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2463070725 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jin B, Wang D, Lewandowski RJ, Ryu RK, Sato KT, Larson AC, Salem R, Omary RA (2011) Quantitative 4D transcatheter intraarterial perfusion MRI for standardizing angiographic chemoembolization endpoints. AJR American journal of roentgenology 197 (5):1237–1243.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.10.5821 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gaba RC (2012) Chemoembolization practice patterns and technical methods among interventional radiologists: results of an online survey. AJR American journal of roentgenology 198 (3):692–699.  https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.11.7066 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maeda S, Fujiyama S, Tanaka M, Ashihara H, Hirata R, Tomita K (2002) Survival and local recurrence rates of hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated by transarterial chemolipiodolization with and without embolization. Hepatol Res 23 (3):202–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wang J, Cheng JJ, Huang KY, Zhuang ZG, Zhang XB, Chi JC, Hua XL, Xu JR (2016) Quantitative assessment of angiographic perfusion reduction using color-coded digital subtraction angiography during transarterial chemoembolization. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41 (3):545–552.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0622-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cohen J, Cohen J (2003) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. 3rd edn. L. Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, N.J.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General and Visceral Surgery and Surgical OncologyAsklepios Klinik BarmbekHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Semmelweis Medical FacultyAsklepios Campus HamburgHamburgGermany
  3. 3.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyMarienkrankenhaus GmbHHamburgGermany
  4. 4.Department of General, Visceral, Thoracic and Pediatric SurgeryKlinikum SaarbrückenSaarbrückenGermany
  5. 5.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyHannover Medical SchoolHannoverGermany
  6. 6.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional RadiologyAsklepios Klinik BarmbekHamburgGermany
  7. 7.Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / Neuroradiology and Nuclear MedicineKlinikum LueneburgLüneburgGermany

Personalised recommendations