A Modified Floxuridine Reduced-Dose Protocol for Patients with Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases Treated with Hepatic Arterial Infusion.

BACKGROUND: Most patients treated with the standard dosing protocol (SDP) of hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) floxuridine require dose holds and reductions, thereby limiting their HAI therapy. We hypothesized that a modified dosing protocol (MDP) with a reduced floxuridine starting dose would decrease dose holds, dose reductions, and have similar potential to convert patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases (uCRLM) to resection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed our institutional database of patients with uCRLM treated with HAI between 2016 and 2022. In 2019, we modified the floxuridine starting dose to 50% (0.06 mg/kg) of the SDP (0.12 mg/kg). We compared treatment related outcomes between the SDP and MDP cohorts. RESULTS: Of n = 33 patients, 15 (45%) were treated on the SDP and 18 (55%) with our new institutional MDP. The MDP cohort completed more cycles before a dose reduction (mean 4.2 vs. 2), received more overall cycles (median 7.5 vs. 5), and averaged 39 more days of treatment (all P < 0.05). The SDP experienced more dose reductions (1.4 vs. 0.61) and dose holds (1.2 vs. 0.2; both P < 0.01). Of the patients in each group potentially convertible to hepatic resection, three patients (23%) in the SDP and six patients (35%) in the MDP group converted to resection (P = 0.691). Overall, four patients (27%) in the SDP developed treatment ending biliary toxicity compared with one patient (6%) in the MDP. CONCLUSIONS: A 50% starting dose of HAI floxuridine provides fewer treatment disruptions, more consecutive floxuridine cycles, and a similar potential to convert patients with initially uCRLM for disease clearance.

Adjuvant imatinib in high-risk resected gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Merely delaying the inevitable?

INTRODUCTION: Patients with high-risk resected gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) receiving adjuvant imatinib have improved recurrence-free survival (RFS), however whether a complete cytocidal effect exists is unknown. We investigated this using a normalized recurrence timeline measured from end of oncologic treatment (EOOT), defined as the later of resection or end of adjuvant therapy. METHODS: We reviewed patients with resected high-risk GIST at our cancer center from 2003 to 2018. RFS (measured from resection and EOOT), overall survival (OS), and time to imatinib resistance (TTIR) were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling. The performance of the Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) GIST nomogram was assessed. RESULTS: We identified 86 patients with high-risk GIST with a median 106 months of postsurgical follow-up. One-third (n = 29; 34%) did not receive adjuvant imatinib, while 57 (66%) did for a median of 3 years. The MSK nomogram-predicted 5-year RFS for patients receiving adjuvant imatinib was similar to those who did not (29% vs. 31%, p = 0.64). When RFS was measured from EOOT, the MSK-predicted RFS was independently associated with EOOT RFS (hazard ratio 0.22, p = 0.02), while adjuvant imatinib receipt and duration were not. Neither receipt nor duration of adjuvant imatinib were associated with TTIR or OS (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with adjuvant imatinib delays, but does not clearly impact ultimate recurrence, TTIR, or OS, suggesting many patients with high-risk GIST may receive adjuvant imatinib unnecessarily. Additional studies are needed to establish the benefit of adjuvant therapy versus initiating therapy at first radiographic recurrence.

Safety and Effectiveness of Portal Vein Embolization after Hepatic Arterial Infusion Therapy.

Portal vein embolization (PVE) is a tool potentially useful for inducing future liver remnant (FLR) hypertrophy in patients with advanced hepatic malignancies who are at high risk of hepatic insufficiency if treated with surgical resection. However, the safety and effectiveness of PVE in the context of patients who have undergone hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) are unknown. This retrospective, single-center study identified 9 patients who underwent PVE after HAI between January 2015 and December 2022. There were no major adverse events, including biliary injury or high-grade liver failure. Analysis showed an increase in standardized FLR from 21.1% (SEM ± 2.4) to 34.8% (SEM ± 2.1) over 9.8 weeks (SEM ± 1.2), with a mean kinetic growth rate of 1.9% (interquartile range, 0.9%-2.4%). Patients who have undergone HAI therapy should not be excluded from consideration of PVE as part of their operative clearance strategy.

Outcomes of Late-Line Systemic Treatment in GIST: Does Sequence Matter?

Ripretinib and avapritinib have demonstrated activity in the late-line treatment of gastrointestinal stomal tumors (GISTs). We investigated whether patients previously treated with ripretinib benefit from avapritinib, and vice versa. Patients diagnosed with metastatic/unresectable GIST and treated with both drugs at two institutions in 2000-2021 were included. Patients were grouped by drug sequence: ripretinib-avapritinib (RA) or avapritinib-ripretinib (AR). Radiographic response was evaluated using RECIST 1.1. Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests were used to compare time-to-progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS). Thirty-four patients (17 per group) were identified, with a median age of 48 years. The most common primary site was the small bowel (17/34, 50%), followed by the stomach (10/34, 29.4%). Baseline characteristics and tumor mutations were not significantly different between groups. Response rates (RRs) for ripretinib were 18% for RA and 12% for AR; RRs for avapritinib were 12% for AR and 18% for RA. Median TTPs for ripretinib were 3.65 months (95%CI 2-5.95) for RA and 4.73 months (1.87-15.84) for AR. Median TTPs for avapritinib were 5.39 months (2.86-18.99) for AR and 4.11 months (1.91-11.4) for RA. Median OS rates following RA or AR initiation were 29.63 (95%CI 13.8-50.53) and 33.7 (20.03-50.57) months, respectively. Both ripretinib and avapritinib were efficacious in the late-line treatment of GIST, with no evidence that efficacy depended on sequencing.

Clinician overconfidence in visual estimation of the posthepatectomy liver remnant volume: A proximal source of liver failure after major hepatic resection?

BACKGROUND: Post-hepatectomy liver failure is a source of morbidity and mortality after major hepatectomy and is related to the volume of the future liver remnant. The accuracy of a clinician's ability to visually estimate the future liver remnant without formal computed tomography liver volumetry is unknown. METHODS: Twenty physicians in diagnostic radiology, interventional radiology, and hepatopancreatobiliary surgery reviewed 20 computed tomography scans of patients without underlying liver pathology who were not scheduled for liver resection. We evaluated clinician accuracy to estimate the future liver remnant for 3 hypothetical major hepatic resections: left hepatectomy, right hepatectomy, and right trisectionectomy. The percent-difference between the mean and actual computed tomography liver volumetry (mean percent difference) was tested along with specialty differences using mixed-effects regression analysis. RESULTS: The actual future liver remnant (computed tomography liver volumetry) remaining after a hypothetical left hepatectomy ranged from 59% to 75% (physician estimated range: 50%-85%), 23% to 40% right hepatectomy (15%-50%), and 13% to 29% right trisectionectomy (8%-39%). For right hepatectomy, the mean future liver remnant was overestimated by 95% of clinicians with a mean percent difference of 22% (6%-45%; P < .001). For right trisectionectomy, 90% overestimated the future liver remnant by a mean percent difference of 25% (6%-50%; P < .001). Hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons overestimated the future liver remnant for proposed right hepatectomy and right trisectionectomy by a mean percent difference of 25% and 34%, respectively. Based on years of experience, providers with <10 years of experience had a greater mean percent difference than providers with 10+ years of experience for hypothetical major hepatic resections, but was only significantly higher for left hepatectomy (9% vs 6%, P = .002). CONCLUSION: A clinician's ability to visually estimate the future liver remnant volume is inaccurate when compared to computed tomography liver volumetry. Clinicians tend to overestimate the future liver remnant volume, especially in patients with a small future liver remnant where the risk of posthepatectomy liver failure is greatest.

Imaging of the hepatic arterial infusion pump: Primer for radiologists.

Hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) pumps are used to deliver liver-directed therapy by allowing the administration of selective chemotherapy to the liver via a catheter implanted most commonly into the gastroduodenal artery connected to a subcutaneous pump. This selective administration helps maximize the chemotherapeutic effect within the hepatic tumors while minimizing systemic toxicity. While HAI therapy has primarily been used to treat liver-only metastatic colorectal cancer, the indications have expanded to other malignancies, including intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Radiologists play an important role in pre-operative planning, assessment of treatment response, and evaluation for potential complications using various imaging studies, including computed tomography angiography, magnetic resonance imaging, and perfusion scintigraphy. This article describes the radiologist's role as part of a multi-disciplinary oncology team to help maximize the success of HAI therapy and also helps radiologists familiarize themselves with various aspects of HAI pumps.