4.7 Article

Clinical outcomes of Y90 radioembolization for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma following curative resection

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00259-017-3792-3

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma; Y90 Radioembolization; Hepatic resection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To assess safety/efficacy of yttrium-90 radioembolization (Y90) in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following curative surgical resection. Methods With IRB approval, we searched our prospectively acquired database for patients that were treated with Y90 for recurrent disease following resection. Baseline characteristics and bilirubin toxicities following Y90 were evaluated. Intention-to-treat overall survival (OS) and time-to-progression (TTP) from Y90 were assessed. Results Forty-one patients met study inclusion criteria. Twenty-six (63%) patients had undergone minor (<= 3 hepatic segments) resection while 15 (37%) patients underwent major (> 3 hepatic segments) resections. Two patients (5%) had biliary-enteric anastomoses created during surgical resection. The median time from HCC resection to the first radioembolization was 17 months (95% CI: 13-37). The median number of Y90 treatment sessions was 1 (range: 1-5). Ten patients received (entire remnant) lobar Y90 treatment while 31 patients received selective (<= 2 hepatic segments) treatment. Grades 1/2/3/4 bilirubin toxicity were seen in nine (22%), four (10%), four (10%), and zero (0%) patients following Y90. No differences in bilirubin toxicities were identified when comparing lobar with selective approaches (P = 0.20). No post-Y90 infectious complications were identified. Median TTP and OS were 11.3 (CI: 6.5-15.5) and 22.1 months (CI: 10.3-31.3), respectively. Conclusions Radioembolization is a safe and effective method for treating recurrent HCC following surgical resection, with prolonged TTP and promising survival outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available