Dose-effect relationships in neuroendocrine tumour liver metastases treated with [166Ho]-radioembolization.

PURPOSE: Aim of this study was to investigate a dose-response relationship, dose-toxicity relationship, progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in neuroendocrine tumour liver metastases (NELM) treated with holmium-166-microspheres radioembolization ([166Ho]-radioembolization). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single center, retrospective study included patients with NELM that received [166Ho]-radioembolization with post-treatment SPECT/CT and CECT or MRI imaging for 3 months follow-up. Post-treatment SPECT/CT was used to calculate tumour (Dt) and whole liver healthy tissue (Dh) absorbed dose. Clinical and laboratory toxicity was graded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 5 at baseline and three-months follow-up. Response was determined according to RECIST 1.1. The tumour and healthy doses was correlated to lesion-based objective response and patient-based toxicity. Kaplan Meier analyses were performed for progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Twenty-seven treatments in 25 patients were included, with a total of 114 tumours. Median follow-up was 14 months (3 - 82 months). Mean Dt in non-responders was 68 Gy versus 118 Gy in responders, p = 0.01. ROC analysis determined 86 Gy to have the highest sensitivity and specificity, resp. 83% and 81%. Achieving a Dt of ≥ 120 Gy provided the highest likelihood of response (90%) for obtaining response. Sixteen patients had grade 1-2 clinical toxicity and only one patient grade 3. No clear healthy liver dose-toxicity relationship was found. The median PFS was 15 months (95% CI [10.2;19.8]) and median OS was not reached. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the safety and efficacy of [166Ho]-radioembolization in NELM in a real-world setting. A clear dose-response relationship was demonstrated and future studies should aim at a Dt of ≥ 120 Gy, being predictive of response. No dose-toxicity relationship could be established.

Dragon 1 Protocol Manuscript: Training, Accreditation, Implementation and Safety Evaluation of Portal and Hepatic Vein Embolization (PVE/HVE) to Accelerate Future Liver Remnant (FLR) Hypertrophy.

STUDY PURPOSE: The DRAGON 1 trial aims to assess training, implementation, safety and feasibility of combined portal- and hepatic-vein embolization (PVE/HVE) to accelerate future liver remnant (FLR) hypertrophy in patients with borderline resectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. METHODS: The DRAGON 1 trial is a worldwide multicenter prospective single arm trial. The primary endpoint is a composite of the safety of PVE/HVE, 90-day mortality, and one year accrual monitoring of each participating center. Secondary endpoints include: feasibility of resection, the used PVE and HVE techniques, FLR-hypertrophy, liver function (subset of centers), overall survival, and disease-free survival. All complications after the PVE/HVE procedure are documented. Liver volumes will be measured at week 1 and if applicable at week 3 and 6 after PVE/HVE and follow-up visits will be held at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after the resection. RESULTS: Not applicable. CONCLUSION: DRAGON 1 is a prospective trial to assess the safety and feasibility of PVE/HVE. Participating study centers will be trained, and procedures standardized using Work Instructions (WI) to prepare for the DRAGON 2 randomized controlled trial. Outcomes should reveal the accrual potential of centers, safety profile of combined PVE/HVE and the effect of FLR-hypertrophy induction by PVE/HVE in patients with CRLM and a small FLR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04272931 (February 17, 2020). Toestingonline.nl: NL71535.068.19 (September 20, 2019).

Current Status and Future Direction of Hepatic Radioembolisation.

Radioembolisation is a locoregional treatment modality for hepatic malignancies. It consists of several stages that are vital to its success, which include a pre-treatment angiographic simulation followed by nuclear medicine imaging, treatment activity choice, treatment procedure and post-treatment imaging. All these stages have seen much advancement over the past decade. Here we aim to provide an overview of the practice of radioembolisation, discuss the limitations of currently applied methods and explore promising developments.

Adjuvant hepatic arterial infusion pump chemotherapy and resection versus resection alone in patients with low-risk resectable colorectal liver metastases - the multicenter randomized controlled PUMP trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrences are reported in 70% of all patients after resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), in which half are confined to the liver. Adjuvant hepatic arterial infusion pump (HAIP) chemotherapy aims to reduce the risk of intrahepatic recurrence. A large retrospective propensity score analysis demonstrated that HAIP chemotherapy is particularly effective in patients with low-risk oncological features. The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) --the PUMP trial-- is to investigate the efficacy of adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy in low-risk patients with resectable CRLM. METHODS: This is an open label multicenter RCT. A total of 230 patients with resectable CRLM without extrahepatic disease will be included. Only patients with a clinical risk score (CRS) of 0 to 2 are eligible, meaning: patients are allowed to have no more than two out of five poor prognostic factors (disease-free interval less than 12 months, node-positive colorectal cancer, more than 1 CRLM, largest CRLM more than 5 cm in diameter, serum Carcinoembryonic Antigen above 200 µg/L). Patients randomized to arm A undergo complete resection of CRLM without any adjuvant treatment, which is the standard of care in the Netherlands. Patients in arm B receive an implantable pump at the time of CRLM resection and start adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy 4-12 weeks after surgery, with 6 cycles of floxuridine scheduled. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints include overall survival, hepatic PFS, safety, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Pharmacokinetics of intra-arterial administration of floxuridine will be investigated as well as predictive biomarkers for the efficacy of HAIP chemotherapy. In a side study, the accuracy of CT angiography will be compared to radionuclide scintigraphy to detect extrahepatic perfusion. We hypothesize that adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy leads to improved survival, improved quality of life, and a reduction of costs, compared to resection alone. DISCUSSION: If this PUMP trial demonstrates that adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy improves survival in low-risk patients, this treatment approach may be implemented in the standard of care of patients with resected CRLM since adjuvant systemic chemotherapy alone has not improved survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PUMP trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), number: 7493 . Date of registration September 23, 2018.

Staging of adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction.

BACKGROUND: Clinical staging of adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) determines the curative treatment regimen containing either neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy followed by either gastrectomy or esophagectomy. The value of current diagnostic tools is a matter of debate. METHODS: A prospective database (2003-2013) was used to identify 266 consecutive patients with adenocarcinoma of the GEJ in order to evaluate the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and computed tomography (CT) regarding tumor localization according to Siewert, nodal status and its consequences on treatment strategy. RESULTS: Overall accuracy in determining tumor localization was 73% for endoscopy/EUS and 61% for CT (p = 0.018). With endoscopy/EUS, the accuracy was 97%, 66% and 75% respectively for type I, II and III. With CT this was respectively 69%, 57% and 80%. The overall accuracy for determining N-status (N0/N+) per patient was 75% for EUS and 71% for CT. Accuracy for determining a positive nodal station in patients without neoadjuvant therapy was 77% for EUS and 71% for CT (p = 0.001). Accuracy for detecting positive upper mediastinal nodes was 80-92%, whereas for peritumoral and abdominal nodes this was 50-80% in both EUS and CT. In 8/266 patients (3%) the type of surgery changed due to intraoperative findings. A radical resection was performed in 233 patients (88%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the suboptimal accuracy of determining tumor localization with EUS and CT, in only a small number of patients an intraoperative change of surgical treatment was needed. EUS is superior to CT in determining nodal status and tumor localization in GEJ tumors.

Surgical treatment of adenocarcinomas of the gastro-esophageal junction.

BACKGROUND: Patients with adenocarcinoma of the gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) may undergo either esophagectomy or gastrectomy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of surgical therapy with regard to postoperative outcome and survival in patients with Siewert type II tumors. METHODS: A prospective database of 266 consecutive patients with surgically resectable GEJ adenocarcinomas from 2003 to 2013 was analyzed. The surgical approach was based on preoperative imaging and intraoperative findings. RESULTS: According to the histopathological analysis, 67 patients (25 %) had type I tumor, 176 patients (66 %) had type II tumor, and 16 patients (6 %) had type III tumor. In total, 86 % were treated with esophagectomy and 14 % with gastrectomy. Overall 5-year survival was 38 %. In type II patients, the type of operation did not significantly influence overall survival on multivariate analysis (p = 0.606). A positive circumferential resection margin (CRM) at the site of the esophagus was more common with gastrectomy (29 vs. 11 %; p = 0.025). No significant differences in mortality, morbidity, or disease recurrence were found. In patients with type II tumors, upper mediastinal nodal involvement (subcarinal, paratracheal, and aortapulmonary window) was found in 11 % of the patients. In 34 % of patients treated with esophagectomy, paraesophageal lymph nodes metastases were harvested compared with 5 % of patients treated with gastrectomy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a type II GEJ adenocarcinoma, a positive CRM was more common with gastrectomy. Esophagectomy provides for a more complete para-esophageal lymphadenectomy. Furthermore, the high prevalence of mediastinal nodal involvement indicates that a full lymphadenectomy of these stations should be considered.