Radioembolization for the Treatment of Primary and Metastatic Liver Cancers
- 1 Downloads
Radioembolization using 90Y microspheres (glass or resin) has been introduced as an effective intraarterial therapy for unresectable primary and metastatic liver cancers. Although the basic therapeutic effect of chemoembolization results from ischemia, the therapeutic efficacy of radioembolization comes from radiation. Furthermore, compared with surgical resection and local ablation therapy, radioembolization is available with less limitation on the sites or number of liver cancers. The radioisotope 90Y is a β-radiation emitter without γ-radiation, with the emission of secondary bremsstrahlung photons and small numbers of positrons. Administration of 90Y microspheres into the hepatic artery can deliver a high dose of radiation selectively to the target tumor with limited radiation exposure to the surrounding normal parenchyma, and has low systemic toxicity. In general, radioembolization has been considered for patients with unresectable primary or metastatic liver-only or liver-dominant cancers with no ascites or other clinical signs of liver failure, life expectancy of > 12 weeks, and good performance status. Here, we review the current radioactive compounds, pretreatment assessment, and indications for radioembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, and liver metastases from colorectal cancer.
KeywordsRadioembolization Yttrium-90 Hepatocellular carcinoma Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma Liver metastasis
This paper was written as part of Konkuk University's research support program for its faculty on sabbatical leave in 2019.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Eun Jeong Lee, Hyun Woo Chung, Joon Hyung Jo, and Young So declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required and informed consent is not applicable.
- 4.Doherty B, Nambudiri VE, Palmer WC. Update on the diagnosis and treatment of cholangiocarcinoma. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2017;19(2):017–0542-4.Google Scholar
- 5.Hickey R, Lewandowski RJ, Prudhomme T, Ehrenwald E, Baigorri B, Critchfield J, et al. 90Y radioembolization of colorectal hepatic metastases using glass microspheres: safety and survival outcomes from a 531-patient multicenter study. J Nucl Med. 2016;57:665–71.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 22.Inarrairaegui M, Pardo F, Bilbao JI, Rotellar F, Benito A, D'Avola D, et al. Response to radioembolization with yttrium-90 resin microspheres may allow surgical treatment with curative intent and prolonged survival in previously unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2012;38:594–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Sofocleous CT, Violari EG, Sotirchos VS, Shady W, Gonen M, Pandit-Taskar N, et al. Radioembolization as a salvage therapy for heavily pretreated patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases: factors that affect outcomes. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2015;14:296–305.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Kennedy AS, Ball D, Cohen SJ, Cohn M, Coldwell DM, Drooz A, et al. Multicenter evaluation of the safety and efficacy of radioembolization in patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases selected as candidates for (90)Y resin microspheres. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2015;6:134–42.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 34.Zarva A, Mohnike K, Damm R, Ruf J, Seidensticker R, Ulrich G, et al. Safety of repeated radioembolizations in patients with advanced primary and secondary liver tumors and progressive disease after first selective internal radiotherapy. J Nucl Med. 2014;55:360–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 45.Vilgrain V, Pereira H, Assenat E, Guiu B, Ilonca AD, Pageaux GP, 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;18:1624–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 51.Kuhlmann JB, Euringer W, Spangenberg HC, Breidert M, Blum HE, Harder J, et al. Treatment of unresectable cholangiocarcinoma: conventional transarterial chemoembolization compared with drug eluting bead-transarterial chemoembolization and systemic chemotherapy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;24:437–43.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 55.Hoffmann RT, Paprottka PM, Schon A, Bamberg F, Haug A, Durr EM, et al. Transarterial hepatic yttrium-90 radioembolization in patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: factors associated with prolonged survival. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012;35:105–16.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 56.Reimer P, Virarkar MK, Binnenhei M, Justinger M, Schon MR, Tatsch K. Prognostic factors in overall survival of patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma treated by means of yttrium-90 radioembolization: results in therapy-naive patients. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2018;41:744–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 58.Hendlisz A, Van den Eynde M, Peeters M, Maleux G, Lambert B, Vannoote J, et al. Phase III trial comparing protracted intravenous fluorouracil infusion alone or with yttrium-90 resin microspheres radioembolization for liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3687–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 59.Seidensticker R, Denecke T, Kraus P, Seidensticker M, Mohnike K, Fahlke J, et al. Matched-pair comparison of radioembolization plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone for chemotherapy refractory liver-dominant colorectal metastases. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012;35:1066–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 61.Gibbs P, Gebski V, Van Buskirk M, Thurston K, Cade DN, Van Hazel GA, et al. Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with yttrium-90 resin microspheres plus standard systemic chemotherapy regimen of FOLFOX versus FOLFOX alone as first-line treatment of non-resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer: the SIRFLOX study. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:897,2407–14-897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 62.Dutton SJ, Kenealy N, Love SB, Wasan HS, Sharma RA, FOXFIRE Protocol Development Group and the NCRI Colorectal Clinical Study Group. FOXFIRE protocol: an open-label, randomised, phase III trial of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and folinic acid (OxMdG) with or without interventional selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable liver-only or liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer. BMC Cancer. 2014;14(497):2407–14-497.Google Scholar
- 63.van Hazel GA, Heinemann V, Sharma NK, Findlay MP, Ricke J, Peeters M, et al. SIRFLOX: randomized phase III trial comparing first-line mFOLFOX6 (plus or minus bevacizumab) versus mFOLFOX6 (plus or minus bevacizumab) plus selective internal radiation therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1723–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 64.Virdee PS, Moschandreas J, Gebski V, Love SB, Francis EA, Wasan HS, et al. Protocol for combined analysis of FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-global randomized phase III trials of chemotherapy +/- selective internal radiation therapy as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. JMIR Res Protoc. 2017;6:e43.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 65.Wasan HS, Gibbs P, Sharma NK, Taieb J, Heinemann V, Ricke J, et al. First-line selective internal radiotherapy plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer (FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-global): a combined analysis of three multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trials. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18:1159–71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar