Bartley Thornburg

Pretransplant Portal Vein Recanalization-Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt in Patients With Complete Obliterative Portal Vein Thrombosis.

Background Chronic, obliterative portal vein (PV) thrombosis (PVT) represents a relative contraindication to liver transplantation (LT) in some centers. When PV thromboembolectomy is not feasible, alternative techniques (portacaval hemitransposition, portal arterialization, multivisceral transplantation) are associated with suboptimal outcomes. In cases where a chronically thrombosed PV has become obliterated, we developed PV recanalization (PVR)-transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) to potentiate LT. We evaluated the impact of PVR-TIPS on liver function, transplant eligibility, and long-term outcomes after LT. Methods Forty-four patients with chronic obliterative main PVT were identified during our institutional LT selection committee. After joint imaging review by transplant surgery/radiology, these patients underwent PVR-TIPS to potentiate transplant eligibility. Patients were followed by hepatology/transplant until LT, and ultimately in posttransplant clinic. The TIPS venography and serial ultrasound/MRI were used subsequently to document PV patency. Results The main PV (MPV) was completely thrombosed in 17 of 44 (39%) patients; near complete (>95%) occlusion was noted in 27 of 44 (61%) patients. Direct transhepatic and transsplenic punctures were required in 11 of 43 (26%) and 3 of 43 (7%) cases, respectively. Technical success was 43 of 44 (98%) cases. At PVR-TIPS completion, persistence of MPV thrombus was noted in 33 of 43 (77%) cases. One-month TIPS venography demonstrated complete resolution of MPV thrombosis in 22 of 29 (76%) without anticoagulation. Thirty-six patients were listed for transplantation; 18 (50%) have been transplanted. Eighty-nine percent MPV patency rate and 82% survival were achieved at 5 years. Conclusions The PVR-TIPS may be considered for patients with obliterative PVT who are otherwise appropriate candidates for LT. The high rate of MPV patency post-TIPS placement suggests flow reestablishment as the dominant mechanism of thrombus resolution.

Portal Vein Recanalization–Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Using the Transsplenic Approach to Achieve Transplant Candidacy in Patients with Chronic Portal Vein Thrombosis

PURPOSE To present the transsplenic route as an alternative approach for portal vein recanalization-transjugular portosystemic shunt (PVR-TIPS) for chronic main portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in potential transplant candidates. MATERIALS AND METHODS In 2013-2014, 11 consecutive patients with cirrhosis-induced chronic main PVT underwent transsplenic PVR-TIPS. All patients had been denied listing for transplant because of the presence of main PVT, a relative contraindication in this center. The patients were followed for adverse events. Portal vein patency was assessed at 1 month by splenoportography and every 3 months subsequently by ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging. After PVR-TIPS, patients were reviewed (and subsequently listed for transplant) at a weekly multidisciplinary conference. RESULTS PVR-TIPS using the transsplenic approach was successful in all 11 patients with no major complications. Median age was 61 years (range, 33-67 y) and 9 of 11 patients (82%) were men. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis was the leading cause of liver disease in 4 of 11 patients (36%), and hepatitis C was present in 4 of 11 patients (36%). Complete main PVT was found in 8 of 11 patients (73%). Of 11 patients, 4 (36%) had a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score > 18, and 8 (73%) had a baseline Child-Pugh score of 7-10. Minor adverse events occurred in 2 of 11 patients (fever, encephalopathy). At the end of the procedure, 5 of 11 patients (45%) exhibited some minor remaining thrombus in the portal vein; 3 of the 5 patients (60%) had complete thrombus resolution at 1 month, with the remaining 2 patients having resolution at 3 months (no anticoagulation was needed). Three patients underwent successful liver transplant with end-to-end anastomoses. CONCLUSIONS Transsplenic PVR-TIPS is a potentially safe and effective method to treat PVT and improve transplant candidacy.

Independent Analysis of Albumin-Bilirubin Grade in a 765-Patient Cohort Treated with Transarterial Locoregional Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

PURPOSE To assess validity of albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade as a predictor of survival in patients undergoing transarterial embolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS Baseline albumin and bilirubin values of 765 consecutive patients treated with conventional transarterial chemoembolization or yttrium-90 ((90)Y) radioembolization at a single institution were used to determine liver function according to ALBI grade. Survival outcomes were stratified by ALBI grade using Kaplan-Meier and stratified by Child-Pugh (C-P) class and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage. Discriminatory ability was assessed by C-index. RESULTS For 428 patients receiving (90)Y radioembolization, ALBI grade yielded distinct survival curves (P < .001). When stratified by C-P class and BCLC stage, ALBI grade revealed different survival outcomes for C-P B (P = .001), BCLC A (P < .001), BCLC B (P = .001), and BCLC C (P < .001). When substratified by BCLC stage, ALBI grade was a better discriminator of survival than C-P class (C-index 0.792, 0.763, respectively). For 337 patients receiving transarterial chemoembolization, ALBI grade yielded distinct survival curves (P < .001). When stratified by C-P class and BCLC stage, ALBI grade provided distinct survival curves for C-P B (P = .02), BCLC B (P = .001), and BCLC C (P = .02). When substratified by BCLC stage, ALBI grade was a better discriminator of survival than C-P class (C-index 0.739, 0.735, respectively). CONCLUSIONS ALBI grade outperforms C-P class at discriminating survival in patients receiving transarterial chemoembolization or (90)Y radioembolization. ALBI grade is also valuable in patients with moderate liver dysfunction and BCLC B disease.

Portal Vein Recanalization and Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Creation for Chronic Portal Vein Thrombosis: Technical Considerations

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is common in cirrhotic patients and presents a challenge at the time of transplant. Owing to the increased posttransplant morbidity and mortality associated with complete PVT, the presence of PVT is a relative contraindication to liver transplantation at many centers. Our group began performing portal vein (PV) recanalization and transjugular intrahepatic portostystemic shunt placement (PVR-TIPS) several years ago to optimize the transplant candidacy of patients with PVT. The procedure has evolved to include transsplenic access to assist with recanalization, which is now our preferred method due to its technical success without significant added morbidity. Here, we describe in detail our approach to PVR-TIPS with a focus on the transsplenic method. The procedure was attempted in 61 patients and was technically successful in 60 patients (98%). After transitioning to transsplenic access to assist with recanalization, the technical success rate has improved to 100%. The recanalized portal vein and TIPS have maintained patency during follow-up, or to the time of transplant, in 55 patients (92%) with a mean follow-up of 16.7 months. In total, 23 patients (38%) have undergone transplant, all of whom received a physiologic anastomosis (end-to-end anastomosis in 22 of 23 patients, 96%). PVR-TIPS placement should be considered as an option for patients with chronic PVT in need of transplantation. Transsplenic access makes the procedure technically straightforward and should be considered as the primary method for recanalization.

Locoregional Therapy of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma can be treated using minimally invasive, image-guided, catheter-based or percutaneous techniques. Such procedures offer compelling clinical outcomes with a favorable side-effect profile in a population of patients who are poor candidates for surgical or systemic treatment. This article discusses key data regarding the effectiveness of locoregional therapies in treating these patients. Disease-specific treatment is discussed in the context of hepatocellular carcinoma, with additional data discussed in the context of transplantation. As rapid innovation occurs in the realm of oncology, interventional oncology represents a safe, effective alternative that continues to generate impressive data that could potentially change treatment paradigms.

Institutional decision to adopt Y90 as primary treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma informed by a 1,000-patient 15-year experience

Yttrium‐90 transarterial radioembolization (TARE) is a locoregional therapy (LRT) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this study, we present overall survival (OS) outcomes in a 1,000‐patient cohort acquired over a 15‐year period. Between December 1, 2003 and March 31, 2017, 1,000 patients with HCC were treated with TARE as part of a prospective cohort study. A comprehensive review of toxicity and survival outcomes was performed. Outcomes were stratified by baseline Child‐Pugh (CP) class, United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging systems. Albumin and bilirubin laboratory toxicities were compared to baseline. OS outcomes were reported using censoring and intention‐to‐treat methodologies. All treatments were outpatient, with a median one treatment per patient. Five hundred six (51%) were CP A, 450 (45%) CP B, and 44 (4%) CP C. Two hundred sixty‐three (26%) patients were BCLC A, 152 (15%) B, 541 (54%) C, and 44 (4%) D. Three hundred sixty‐eight (37%) were UNOS T1/T2, 169 (17%) T3, 147 (15%) T4a, 223 (22%) T4b, and 93 (9%) N/M. In CP A patients, censored OS for BCLC A was 47.3 (confidence interval [CI], 39.5‐80.3) months, BCLC B 25.0 (CI, 17.3‐30.5) months, and BCLC C 15.0 (CI, 13.8‐17.7) months. In CP B patients, censored OS for BCLC A was 27 (CI, 21‐30.2) months, BCLC B 15.0 (CI, 12.3‐19.0) months, and BCLC C 8.0 (CI, 6.8‐9.5) months. Forty‐nine (5%) and 110 (11%) patients developed grade 3/4 albumin and bilirubin toxicities, respectively. Conclusion: Based on our experience with 1,000 patients over 15 years, we have made a decision to adopt TARE as the first‐line transarterial LRT for patients with HCC. Our decision was informed by prospective data and incrementally reported demonstrating outcomes stratified by BCLC, applied as either neoadjuvant or definitive treatment. (Hepatology 2017).

Radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: Statistical confirmation of improved survival in responders by landmark analyses

Does imaging response predict survival in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)? We studied the ability of posttherapeutic imaging response to predict overall survival. Over 14 years, 948 patients with HCC were treated with radioembolization. Patients with baseline metastases, vascular invasion, multifocal disease, Child‐Pugh > B7, and transplanted/resected were excluded. This created our homogeneous study cohort of 134 patients with Child‐Pugh ≤ B7 and solitary HCC. Response (using European Association for Study of the Liver [EASL] and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 [RECIST 1.1] criteria) was associated with survival using Landmark and risk‐of‐death methodologies after reviewing 960 scans. In a subanalysis, survival times of responders were compared to those of patients with stable disease (SD) and progressive disease (PD). Uni/multivariate survival analyses were performed at each Landmark. At the 3‐month Landmark, responders survived longer than nonresponders by EASL (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; confidence interval [CI], 0.26‐0.82; P = 0.002) but not RECIST 1.1 criteria (HR, 0.70; CI, 0.37‐1.32; P = 0.32). At the 6‐month Landmark, responders survived longer than nonresponders by EASL (HR, 0.32; CI, 0.15‐0.77; P < 0.001) and RECIST 1.1 criteria (HR, 0.50; CI, 0.29‐0.87; P = 0.021). At the 12‐month Landmark, responders survived longer than nonresponders by EASL (HR, 0.34; CI, 0.15‐0.77; P <  0.001) and RECIST 1.1 criteria (HR, 0.52; CI 0.27‐0.98; P = 0.049). At 6 months, risk of death was lower for responders by EASL (P <  0.001) and RECIST 1.1 (P = 0.0445). In subanalyses, responders lived longer than patients with SD or PD. EASL response was a significant predictor of survival at 3‐, 6‐, and 12‐month Landmarks on uni/multivariate analyses. Conclusion: Response to radioembolization in patients with solitary HCC can prognosticate improved survival. EASL necrosis criteria outperformed RECIST 1.1 size criteria in predicting survival. The therapeutic objective of radioembolization should be radiologic response and not solely to prevent progression. (Hepatology 2018;67:873–883)

Transarterial approaches to primary and secondary hepatic malignancies

Transarterial therapies in the setting of primary and secondary liver malignancies are becoming an essential part of the oncology landscape. Most patients with hepatic malignancies are not candidates for curative surgical intervention, thereby warranting exploration of alternative means of treatment that preserves quality of life while providing clinical benefit. Herein, the data for intra-arterial chemoinfusion, transarterial chemoembolization, drug-eluting beads, and radioembolization are discussed in the setting of malignancies within the liver; outcome data relating to survival, time-to-progression, time-to-recurrence, and adverse events are presented. Further data regarding different treatment paradigms for hepatocellular carcinoma, metastatic colorectal carcinoma, neuroendocrine tumours, and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma are also provided. In light of these and forthcoming data, transarterial therapies seem to offer a viable treatment pathway for select populations of patients.

Single- versus Triple-Drug Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Comparing Outcomes by Toxicity, Imaging Response, and Survival

PURPOSE To determine the efficacy of single- versus triple-drug chemoembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, as measured by toxicity, tumor response, time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS). MATERIALS AND METHODS A single-center retrospective review was performed on 337 patients who underwent chemoembolization over a 14-year period; 172 patients underwent triple-drug conventional transarterial chemoembolization, and 165 patients underwent single-agent doxorubicin chemoembolization. Imaging characteristics and clinical follow-up after conventional transarterial chemoembolization were evaluated to determine TTP. Imaging response was determined per World Health Organization and European Association for the Study of Liver criteria. OS from time of first chemoembolization was calculated. RESULTS Median TTP was similar between groups: 7.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.1-9.4) and 6.8 months (95% CI, 4.6-8.6) for triple- and single-drug regimens, respectively (P > .05). For single-agent conventional transarterial chemoembolization, median OS varied significantly by Barcelona Clinic for Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage: A, 40.8 months; B, 36.4 months; C, 10.9 months (P < .01). Median OS for triple-drug therapy also varied significantly by BCLC: A, 28.9 months; B, 18.1 months; C, 9.0 months (P < .01). Single-drug conventional transarterial chemoembolization demonstrated longer median OS compared with triple-drug therapy (P < .05) for BCLC A/B patients. CONCLUSIONS Single-agent chemoembolization with doxorubicin and ethiodized oil demonstrates acceptable efficacy as measured by TTP and OS. Results compare favorably with traditional triple-drug therapy.

Types of Research Bias Encountered in IR.

Bias is a systemic error in studies that leads to inaccurate deductions. Relevant biases in the field of IR and interventional oncology were identified after reviewing articles published in the Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology and CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology. Biases cited in these articles were divided into three categories: preinterventional (health care access, participation, referral, and sample biases), periinterventional (contamination, investigator, and operator biases), and postinterventional (guarantee-time, lead time, loss to follow-up, recall, and reporting biases).