Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub
  • Research article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Tyrosine-kinase inhibitor combined with iodine-125 seed brachytherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma refractory to transarterial chemoembolization: a propensity-matched study

Cancer Imaging volume 23, Article number: 91 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the efficacy and safety of tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) combined with iodine-125 seed brachytherapy (TKI-I) versus TKI alone for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) refractory to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE).

Methods

Data of patients with TACE-refractory HCC who received TKI (sorafenib or lenvatinib) or TKI-I from September 2018 to December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. A propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to diminish potential bias. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP). Tumor responses and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were also compared between the two groups.

Results

A total of 132 patients were included in this study. Under PSM, 48 paired patients were selected for comparison. The median OS was 23.2 (95% CI 20.9–25.1) months in the TKI-I group versus 13.9 (95% CI 11.1–16.7) months in the TKI group (P < 0.001). The median TTP was 12.8 (95% CI 10.1–15.5) months in the TKI-I group versus 5.8 (95% CI 5.0-6.6) months in the TKI group (P < 0.001). Patients in the TKI-I group had higher objective response rate (68.8% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.001) and disease control rate (89.6% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.007) than those in the TKI group. The incidence and severity of TRAEs in the TKI-I group were comparable to those in the TKI group (any grade, 89.7% vs. 92.2%, P = 0.620; ≥grade 3, 33.8% vs. 32.8%, P = 0.902).

Conclusions

TKI-I was safe and significantly improved survival over TKI alone in HCC patients with TACE refractoriness.

Introduction

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common type of primary liver cancer, which is the third leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide [1]. Although disease at early stage may be curable by ablation, surgical resection or liver transplantation, the majority of patients are diagnosed with unresectable disease and thus have a poor prognosis [2,3,4]. Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is one of the most widely used nonsurgical treatments for unresectable HCC [2, 3]. In clinical practice, repeated TACE is often performed for maximizing treatment outcomes. However, it may lose its efficacy at some point, and in turn lead to deterioration of liver function and even worse, have adverse effects on survival [5,6,7,8]. On this condition, repetition of TACE is no longer beneficial and the patients enter the state termed TACE failure/refractoriness. It is recommended that, once TACE refractoriness occurs, the patients should be switched to other treatment modality immediately [5, 6].

Since randomized trials have demonstrated improved survival with sorafenib versus placebo [9, 10] and noninferiority of lenvatinib to sorafenib [11], these two tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been recommended as the first-line treatment options for advanced HCC [2, 3, 12]. Some studies [13, 14] have suggested that patients who switched to sorafenib after TACE refractoriness had a better prognosis than those continually treated with TACE. However, considering the persistently residual or progressive tumor on repeated TACE [5, 6] and the limited tumor response and survival prolongation with oral sorafenib [15, 16], the therapeutic outcomes of TKI monotherapy for TACE-refractory HCC may not be satisfactory, which brings forth an urgent demand for more effective treatment strategies.

Radiotherapy is a well-known local-regional treatment for many types of cancers, including HCC [17]. Iodine-125 seeds are a radioactive source for brachytherapy which can be implanted into the tumor and generate an even and quantifiable radiation dose distribution within the target area, while causing little radiation toxicity to surrounding normal tissues [18, 19]. Previous studies, including ours, have revealed that iodine-125 seed brachytherapy alone or plus other treatments was effective for HCC, with a sufficient tumor control as well as an increased survival [19,20,21,22,23,24]. As radiotherapy can improve tumor response in HCC patients treated with sorafenib or lenvatinib and these TKIs can enhance sensitivity of tumors to radiation [25,26,27,28,29], combining TKI (sorafenib or lenvatinib) with iodine-125 seed brachytherapy (TKI-I) may possess a better anticancer activity than TKI alone on HCC refractory to TACE. Therefore, we conducted this retrospective study to investigate the efficacy and safety of TKI-I compared with TKI alone in HCC patients with TACE refractoriness.

Methods

Study design and patient selection

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University (approval number, 2022-KY-ks-05), and the requirement of informed consent was waived. Data of consecutive HCC patients with TACE refractoriness who underwent TKI-I (TKI-I group) or TKI (TKI group) treatment at our institution from September 2018 to December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed.

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) age from 18 to 75 years; (2) diagnosis of HCC with TACE refractoriness according to the criteria proposed by Japan Society of Hepatology [30]; (3) Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score ≤ 1; and (4) Child-Pugh class A/B liver function. The exclusion criteria were: (1) incomplete medical records; (2) extrahepatic spread; (3) tumor thrombus involving the main portal vein or vena cava; (4) previous treatment with hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy, radiotherapy or systemic therapy; (5) history of malignancies other than HCC; (6) history of organ transplantation; (7) prolongation of prothrombin time ≥ 4 s or platelet count < 50 × 109/L; (8) severe cardiac, pulmonary or renal dysfunction.

All baseline laboratory test and computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data were collected within one week before the initiation of TKI-I or TKI treatment.

TKI administration

All patients received sorafenib (Bayer Pharma, Leverkusen, Germany) or lenvatinib (Eisai, Tokyo, Japan) after TACE refractoriness was determined. Sorafenib at a dose of 400 mg was administered orally twice a day. Lenvatinib at a dose of 12 mg (bodyweight ≥ 60 kg) or 8 mg (bodyweight < 60 kg) was administered orally once a day. Interruption and dose reduction of TKI was allowed and depended on the presence and severity of toxicities according to the package insert. TKI treatment was continued until intolerable toxicity or disease progression occurred.

Iodine-125 seed implantation

Iodine-125 seed brachytherapy was indicated for patients with non-diffuse viable intrahepatic tumor and/or vascular tumor thrombosis who had good performance status (ECOG PS ≤ 1), Child-Pugh class A/B liver function, prothrombin time prolongation < 4 s and platelet count ≥ 50 × 109/L. Whether to combine iodine-125 seed brachytherapy or not was determined according to the physicians’ recommendation after discussion and the patients’ choice. For the patients treated with TKI-I, CT-guided iodine-125 seed implantation was performed within a week before or after TKI administration.

The iodine-125 seed (ZHIBO Bio-Medical Technology, Beijing, China) was shaped as cylinder with the following parameters: diameter of 0.8 mm; length of 4.5 mm; radioactivity of 0.6–0.8 mCi; initial dose rate of 8–10 cGy/h; energies of 27.4, 31.4 KeV for X-ray and 35.5 KeV for γ-ray; radioactive half-life of 60.1 days; and tissue half-value layer of 1.7 cm. Before seed implantation, abdominal CT/MRI images with 5-mm slice thickness were transmitted to a seed brachytherapy treatment planning system (Tianhang Kelin Technology Development, Beijing, China) and a preoperative planning was developed to determine the number and locations of seeds according to a prescription dose of 110–160 Gy, which allowed a complete coverage of the viable intrahepatic tumor and/or tumor thrombus. Iodine-125 seeds were implanted into the target lesions under CT guidance with 18-gauge Chiba needles and implant guns containing the seeds in the cartridge chamber. The space interval between adjacent seeds was 0.5-1.0 cm. Immediately after seed implantation, a CT scan was re-performed for verifying the distribution of iodine-125 seeds and assessing whether bleeding or other complications occurred.

If patients were found to have insufficient radioactive coverage of tumors by follow-up imaging, iodine-125 seed implantation was repeated based on a consensus after discussion by the attending physicians. The repeated procedure was performed only when the patients had a ECOG PS ≤ 2 with Child-Pugh class A/B, prothrombin time prolongation < 4 s and platelet count ≥ 50 × 109/L.

Follow-up

The patients were followed up at an interval of 4–8 weeks until death or their last follow-up. Each follow-up session included a detail history, physical examination, laboratory tests, contrast-enhanced abdominal CT or MRI, chest CT and other imaging examination if clinically indicated. The final follow-up ended on December 31, 2021.

Assessments and outcomes

The primary endpoints of this study were overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP). OS was defined as the time interval from diagnosis of TACE refractoriness to the time of death from any reason. TTP was defined as the time interval from diagnosis of TACE refractoriness to the first occurrence of disease progression.

Tumor response was classified into complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD) or progressive disease (PD) according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [31]. For patients with vascular invasion, treatment response of tumor thrombus was evaluated by using a modified standard: CR, complete disappearance or shrinkage of thrombus, or complete disappearance of enhancement inside thrombus; PR, ≥ 30% decrease in the largest perpendicular diameter of thrombus, or thrombus shrinking back to a higher-order branch of portal vein; PD, ≥ 20% increase in the largest perpendicular diameter of thrombus, or thrombus extending to a more proximal portal vein; SD, a tumor thrombus response between PR and PD. Objective response rate (ORR) was defined as the percentage of patients with a best tumor response rating of CR and PR. Disease control rate (DCR) was defined as the percentage of patients with a best tumor response rating of CR, PR and SD.

Adverse events (AEs) were recorded and evaluated in accordance with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were monitored until 90 days after the discontinuation of TKI-I or TKI treatment.

Statistical analyses

A 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed to minimize the potential selection bias. The propensity score was calculated by a logistic regression model using a caliper of 0.02 with variables of age, ECOG PS (0/1), Child-Pugh class (A/B), α-fetoprotein (AFP), number of tumors, largest tumor size, tumor distribution (bilobar/unilobar) and macrovascular invasion (yea/no) [32, 33]. Categorical data were presented as number of patients (percentage) and were compared by using χ2 test. Quantitative data (non-normally distributed) were presented as median (range) and were compared by using Mann-Whitney U test. OS and TTP curves were generated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared by using log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate analyses of prognostic factors for OS and TTP were conducted using Cox proportional hazard regression model. Variables with P < 0.10 in the univariate analysis were entered into the multivariate analysis. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS Statistics, version 26 (IBM, Armonk, New York, USA). All tests were two-tailed, P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Study population

During the study period, a total of 167 HCC patients with TACE refractoriness were treated with TKI-I or TKI alone at our hospital. Of these patients, 35 were excluded in that they met the excluded criteria. As a result, 132 patients were included in this study: 68 in the TKI-I group and 64 in the TKI group (Fig. 1). Before PSM, there were more patients had Child-Pugh class A liver function (P = 0.030), tumor number ≤ 3 (P = 0.023) or unilobar tumor distribution (P = 0.012) in the TKI-I group. Following PSM, 48-paired patients with well-balanced baseline characteristics were further selected (Table 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of patient selection. HCC hepatocellular carcinoma, TACE transarterial chemoembolization, TKI-I tyrosine-kinase inhibitor combined with iodine-125 seed brachytherapy, TKI tyrosine-kinase inhibitor, HAIC hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy, PT prothrombin time

Full size image
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the patients
Full size table

In the matched cohort, patients in TKI-I group had previously undergone a total of 165 TACE procedures with a median of 3 (range, 2–7) per patient, while those in TKI group had undergone a total of 170 TACE procedures with a median of 3 (range, 2–9) per patient. In both groups, 54.2% of the patients received TKI treatment with lenvatinib. The median largest tumor diameter was 8.3 (range, 3.0-20.2) cm and 8.9 (range, 3.0-19.1) cm in the TKI-I group and TKI group, respectively. 75.0% and 83.3% of the patients in TKI-I group and TKI group, respectively, had macrovascular invasion. The median follow-up for the patients was 15.9 (range, 3.2–40.0) months. The median duration of TKI administration was 12.1 (range, 1.4–39.1) months in TKI-I group and 5.4 (range, 0.9–17.2) months in TKI group (P < 0.001). A total of 143 iodine-125 seed implantation procedures (median of 3 per patient, range 1–6) were performed for the 48 patients in TKI-I group. The total number of implanted seeds was 4374, with a median of 81.5 (range, 19–186) per patient.

Overall survival

In the total cohort, 41 patients (60.3%) in TKI-I group and 49 patients (76.6%) in TKI group died during follow-up. The median OS was 21.9 (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.7–24.1) months for TKI-I group and 12.1 (95% CI 8.9–15.3) months for TKI group (P < 0.001).

In the matched cohort, 30 patients (62.5%) in TKI-I group and 35 patients (72.9%) in TKI group died during follow-up. The median OS was 23.2 (95% CI 20.9–25.1) months for TKI-I group and 13.9 (95% CI 11.1–16.7) months for TKI group (P < 0.001; Fig. 2). Multivariate analysis identified that treatment with TKI alone was an independent adverse prognostic factor for OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.546, 95% CI 2.015–6.239, P < 0.001; Table S1). Subgroup analyses for OS based on different variables showed that a trend of lower risk of death was achieved with the therapy of TKI-I over TKI alone in almost all the subgroups (Fig. S1).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Kaplan-Meier curves for overall survival in the matched cohort according to treatment modality. TKI-I tyrosine-kinase inhibitor combined with iodine-125 seed brachytherapy, TKI tyrosine-kinase inhibitor

Full size image

Time to progression

In the total cohort, 57 patients in both TKI-I group (83.8%) and TKI group (89.1%) experienced disease progression during follow-up. The median TTP of overall tumor, intrahepatic tumor and vascular tumor thrombus was 11.9 (95% CI 9.2–14.6), 11.9 (95% CI 9.5–14.3) and 15.8 (95% CI 11.2–20.4) months, respectively, for TKI-I group, and 5.7 (95% CI 4.4-7.0), 5.8 (95% CI 4.7-7.0) and 5.9 (95% CI 5.2–6.6) months, respectively, for TKI group (all P < 0.001).

In the matched cohort, 40 patients (83.3%) in TKI-I group and 43 patients (89.6%) in TKI group experienced disease progression during follow-up. The median TTP of overall tumor, intrahepatic tumor and vascular tumor thrombus was 12.8 (95% CI 10.1–15.5), 12.8 (95% CI 9.9–15.7) and 20.2 (95% CI 13.1–27.3) months, respectively, for TKI-I group, and 5.8 (95% CI 5.0-6.6), 5.9 (95% CI 4.7–7.1) and 6.3 (95% CI 5.4–7.1) months, respectively, for TKI group (all P < 0.001; Fig. 3A-C). Multivariate analysis identified that treatment with TKI alone was an independent adverse prognostic factor for TTP of overall tumor (HR = 3.305, 95% CI 1.965–5.558, P < 0.001; Table S1).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Kaplan-Meier curves for time to progression of (A) overall tumor, (B) intrahepatic tumor and (C) vascular tumor thrombus in the matched cohort according to treatment modality. TKI-I tyrosine-kinase inhibitor combined with iodine-125 seed brachytherapy, TKI tyrosine-kinase inhibitor

Full size image

Tumor responses

In the total cohort, the ORR and DCR of overall tumor (ORR, 61.8% vs. 28.1%, P < 0.001; DCR, 88.2% vs. 65.6%, P = 0.002), intrahepatic tumor (ORR, 63.2% vs. 29.7%, P < 0.001; DCR, 91.2% vs. 68.8%, P = 0.001) and vascular tumor thrombus (ORR, 74.5% vs. 12.5%, P < 0.001; DCR, 92.7% vs. 64.6%, P < 0.001) for TKI-I group were higher than those for TKI group (Table S2).

In the matched cohort, the ORR and DCR of overall tumor (ORR, 68.8% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.001; DCR, 89.6% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.007), intrahepatic tumor (ORR, 68.8% vs. 35.4%, P = 0.001; DCR, 91.7% vs. 70.8%, P = 0.009) and vascular tumor thrombus (ORR, 80.6% vs. 12.5%, P < 0.001; DCR, 91.7% vs. 67.5%, P = 0.010) for TKI-I group were also higher than those for TKI group (Table 2).

Table 2 Tumor responses for the patients in matched cohort
Full size table

Safety

There was no treatment-related death in the total cohort. The frequency and severity of TRAEs were similar between TKI-I group and TKI group (any grade, 89.7% vs. 92.2%, P = 0.620; ≥grade 3, 33.8% vs. 32.8%, P = 0.902; Table S3). AEs led to treatment interruption, dose reduction and treatment discontinuation of TKI in 31 (45.6%), 35 (51.5%) and 5 (7.4%) patients, respectively, in TKI-I group, and in 30 (46.9%), 31 (48.4%) and 5 (7.8%) patients, respectively, in TKI group. In TKI-I group, AEs related to iodine-125 seed implantation were observed in 10 patients (14.7%). Among them, right hemothorax (grade 4; successfully managed by intercostal artery embolization) and needle track tumor seeding (grade 3) occurred in one patient each (1.5%).

Discussion

Our study showed that the treatment with TKI-I was associated with better OS, TTP and tumor response than TKI alone in HCC patients with TACE refractoriness. These fndings were consistently substantiated by the total cohort and the propensity score-matched cohort. Additionally, the frequency of TRAEs in the TKI-I group was similar to that in the TKI group. All these results suggeted that, compared with TKI alone, the addition of iodine-125 seed brachytherapy to TKI might be a superior treatment option for TACE-refractory HCC.

Given that only a marginal survival benefit can be achieved with TKI monotherapy [9,10,11], sorafenib or lenvatinib has been often combined with other therapies to ameliorate prognosis in HCC patients [16, 34,35,36]. Previous studies [25,26,27,28,29] have suggested that radiotherapy could enhance treatment response for target lesions in HCC patients treated with sorafenib or lenvatinib. Meanwhile, these TKIs could increase radiosensitivity of tumors. Therefore, combining sorafenib/lenvatinib with iodine-125 seed brachytherapy might elicit synergistic antitumor effects on TACE-refractory HCC. In our study, the ORR, DCR and TTP of overall tumor, intrahepatic tumor and vascular tumor thrombus for TKI-I group were all much better than those for TKI group. We believed that it was the combination of TKI-I that provided a sustained tumor control, thus contributing to the prolonged OS in patients with TACE-refractory HCC.

Previous studies [13, 14, 37] have reported that HCC patients who received sorafenib after TACE refractoriness had a median OS of 20.5–25.4 months, which seemed longer than that for the patients treated with TKI alone in our study. However, it was noteworthy that these studies only enrolled patients with intermediate-stage disease, who were expected to obtain better outcomes than those included in our study (most of the patients had advanced-stage disease with macrovascular invasion). Additionally, the heavy tumor burden the patients borne in our study might also lead to the limited survival benefit. But in any case, compared with TKI alone, TKI-I did provide a significantly improved survival for TACE-refractory patients.

Currently, the treatment of HCC with vascular invasion is still a great challenge [6, 38]. Our study found that TKI-I conferred a higher treatment response of tumor thrombosis compared with TKI alone. More interestingly, with the therapy of TKI-I, the ORR and TTP of tumor thrombosis were better than those of intrahepatic tumors. This might be explained by whether a sufficient radioactive coverage was achieved for the viable tumors [29, 39]. Tumor thrombi were generally confined to the invaded vessels, and their tumor burden was mostly smaller than that of intrahepatic tumors, making them easier to be completely covered by the implanted iodine-125 seeds. Together, these results indicated that iodine-125 seed combination therapy possessed a remarkable therapeutic effect on controlling tumor thrombosis. Accordingly, for TACE-refractory HCC patients with vascular invasion, a more aggressive and effective therapy such as TKI-I was undoubtedly required.

In our study, the incidence and severity of TRAEs in TKI-I group were comparable to those in TKI group. This implied that the addition of iodine-125 seed brachytherapy did not significantly increase the risk of TRAEs in patients treated with TKI. Iodine-125 irradiation has a short penetration radius of 1.7 cm and thus avoid liver damage and gastroduodenal complications, which are commonly seen in external radiotherapy [40]. In our study, no severe AE caused by irradiation occurred and ≥ grade 3 seed implantation-related AEs were only observed in two patients.

Our study had some limitations. First, this study was a retrospective study. Since iodine-125 seed brachytherapy is a locoregional therapy that requires percutaneous transhepatic puncture, the patients with a good performance status, a preserved liver function and a smaller tumor burden were more likely to be recommended for combining this treatment. This treatment preference inevitably lead to selection bias. However, the bias was limited by applying a PSM analysis. Second, two TKIs were used in treatment of patients. Although subgroup analyses showed that the combination of iodine-125 brachytherapy could bring better survival benefits to the patients treated with either sorafenib or lenvatinib, the inconformity of treatment and its potential impact on clinical outcomes deserved attention. Third, the sample size of this study was limited. It is necessary to validate our findings with further large-scale randomized trials.

Conclusions

Our study showed safety and promising outcomes with the combination treatment of TKI-I in TACE-refractory patients. These patients could benefit from TKI-I and had significantly better tumor responses and improved survival in comparison with TKI alone. With the support of these findings, a randomized phase III trial comparing lenvatinib plus iodine-125 seed brachytherapy and lenvatinib alone for TACE-refractory HCC is ongoing (ClinicalTrials.gov; identifier: NCT05608213).

Data Availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

HCC:

Hepatocellular carcinoma

TACE:

Transarterial chemoembolization

TKI:

Tyrosine-kinase inhibitor

TKI-I:

Tyrosine-kinase inhibitor combined with iodine-125 seed brachytherapy

ECOG PS:

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status

CT:

Computed tomography

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

CR:

Complete response

PR:

Partial response

SD:

Stable disease

PD:

Progressive disease

ORR:

Objective response rate

DCR:

Disease control rate

OS:

Overall survival

TTP:

Time to progression

AE:

Adverse event

TRAE:

Treatment-related adverse event

PSM:

Propensity score matching

CI:

Confidence interval

HR:

Hazard ratio

References

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–49.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zhou J, Sun H, Wang Z, Cong W, Wang J, Zeng M, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma (2019 Edition). Liver Cancer. 2020;9:682–720.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2018;69:182–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Finn RS, Qin S, Ikeda M, Galle PR, Ducreux M, Kim TY, et al. Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1894–905.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lu J, Zhao M, Arai Y, Zhong BY, Zhu HD, Qi XL, et al. Clinical practice of transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: consensus statement from an international expert panel of International Society of Multidisciplinary Interventional Oncology (ISMIO). Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr. 2021;10:661–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Kudo M, Kawamura Y, Hasegawa K, Tateishi R, Kariyama K, Shiina S, et al. Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Japan: JSH Consensus statements and recommendations 2021 Update. Liver Cancer. 2021;10:181–223.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhong BY, Jin ZC, Chen JJ, Zhu HD, Zhu XL. Role of Transarterial Chemoembolization in the treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. J Clin Transl Hepatol. 2023;11:480–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kudo M, Han KH, Ye SL, Zhou J, Huang YH, Lin SM, et al. A changing paradigm for the treatment of Intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Asia-Pacific Primary Liver Cancer Expert Consensus statements. Liver Cancer. 2020;9:245–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, Hilgard P, Gane E, Blanc JF, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:378–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cheng AL, Kang YK, Chen Z, Tsao CJ, Qin S, Kim JS, et al. Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:25–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kudo M, Finn RS, Qin S, Han KH, Ikeda K, Piscaglia F, et al. Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2018;391:1163–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Benson AB, D’Angelica MI, Abbott DE, Anaya DA, Anders R, Are C, et al. Hepatobiliary cancers, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021;19:541–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Arizumi T, Ueshima K, Minami T, Kono M, Chishina H, Takita M, et al. Effectiveness of Sorafenib in patients with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) refractory and intermediate-stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Liver Cancer. 2015;4:253–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Ogasawara S, Chiba T, Ooka Y, Kanogawa N, Motoyama T, Suzuki E, et al. Efficacy of sorafenib in intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma patients refractory to transarterial chemoembolization. Oncology. 2014;87:330–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cai M, Li B, Lin L, Huang J, An Y, Huang W, et al. A reduction and pH dual-sensitive nanodrug for targeted theranostics in hepatocellular carcinoma. Biomater Sci. 2020;8:3485–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cai M, Huang W, Huang J, Shi W, Guo Y, Liang L, et al. Transarterial Chemoembolization Combined with Lenvatinib Plus PD-1 inhibitor for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study. Front Immunol. 2022;13:848387.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Chen LC, Lin HY, Hung SK, Chiou WY, Lee MS. Role of modern radiotherapy in managing patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Gastroenterol. 2021;27:2434–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhu ZX, Wang XX, Yuan KF, Huang JW, Zeng Y. Transarterial chemoembolization plus iodine-125 implantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB (Oxford). 2018;20:795–802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Huang M, Lin Q, Wang H, Chen J, Bai M, Wang L, et al. Survival benefit of chemoembolization plus Iodine125 seed implantation in unresectable hepatitis B-related hepatocellular carcinoma with PVTT: a retrospective matched cohort study. Eur Radiol. 2016;26:3428–36.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Chen K, Chen G, Wang H, Li H, Xiao J, Duan X, et al. Increased survival in hepatocellular carcinoma with iodine-125 implantation plus radiofrequency ablation: a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Hepatol. 2014;61:1304–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhang ZH, Zhang W, Gu JY, Liu QX, Ma JQ, Liu LX, et al. Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Tumor Thrombus with the use of Iodine-125 seed strand implantation and Transarterial Chemoembolization: a propensity-score analysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2018;29:1085–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Li J, Zhang L, Sun Z, Ge Y, Xiao H, Xie Q, et al. Iodine-125 seed implantation for residual hepatocellular carcinoma or cholangiocellular carcinoma in challenging locations after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization: initial experience and findings. J Contemp Brachytherapy. 2020;12:233–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Huang J, Huang W, Cai M, Guo Y, Zhou J, Zhu K. Hepatocellular carcinoma with tumor thrombus in portal vein branch: Transarterial chemoembolization combined with Iodine125 brachytherapy versus transarterial chemoembolization combined with sorafenib. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37:e15646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Huang J, Cai M, Huang W, Guo Y, Zhou J, Liang L, et al. Transarterial chemoembolization combined with sorafenib and iodine-125 seed brachytherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus: a retrospective controlled study. Chin Med J (Engl). 2021;135:113–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Chen J, He K, Han Y, Guo L, Su K, Wu Z. Clinical efficacy and safety of external radiotherapy combined with sorafenib in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Hepatol. 2022;27:100710.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chang WI, Kim BH, Kim YJ, Yoon JH, Jung YJ, Chie EK. Role of radiotherapy in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;37:387–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rim CH, Park S, Shin IS, Yoon WS. Is the concurrent use of Sorafenib and External Radiotherapy Feasible for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma? A Meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13:2912.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Chu SS, Kuo YH, Liu WS, Wang SC, Ho CH, Chen YC, et al. Effect of radiotherapy on survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib: a nationwide cancer-registry-based study. Sci Rep. 2021;11:1614.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Yu JI, Kang W, Yoo GS, Goh MJ, Sinn DH, Gwak GY, et al. Safety and Efficacy of Liver-Directed Radiotherapy in Combination with Lenvatinib for Hepatocelluar Carcinoma with macroscopic tumor thrombosis. Front Oncol. 2022;12:888755.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Kudo M, Matsui O, Izumi N, Iijima H, Kadoya M, Imai Y, et al. JSH Consensus-Based clinical practice guidelines for the management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: 2014 update by the Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan. Liver Cancer. 2014;3:458–68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Llovet JM, Lencioni R. mRECIST for HCC: performance and novel refinements. J Hepatol. 2020;72:288–306.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Austin PC. Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biom J. 2009;51:171–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Sturmer T. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:1149–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Huang A, Yang XR, Chung WY, Dennison AR, Zhou J. Targeted therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Signal Transduct Target Ther. 2020;5:146.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Geschwind JF, Kudo M, Marrero JA, Venook AP, Chen XP, Bronowicki JP, et al. TACE treatment in patients with Sorafenib-treated Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Clinical Practice: final analysis of GIDEON. Radiology. 2016;279:630–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Zhao Y, Zhang YN, Wang KT, Chen L. Lenvatinib for hepatocellular carcinoma: from preclinical mechanisms to anti-cancer therapy. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer. 2020;1874:188391.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kaibori M, Matsushima H, Ishizaki M, Kosaka H, Matsui K, Kariya S, et al. The impact of Sorafenib in Combination with Transarterial Chemoembolization on the Outcomes of Intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2021;22:1217–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang K, Xiang YJ, Yu HM, Cheng YQ, Liu ZH, Zhong JY, et al. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy combined with systemic atezolizumab and bevacizumab in treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with extrahepatic portal vein tumor thrombus: a preliminary multicenter single-arm prospective study. Front Immunol. 2023;14:1107542.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Choi Y, Kim JW, Cha H, Han KH, Seong J. Overall response of both intrahepatic tumor and portal vein tumor thrombosis is a good prognostic factor for hepatocellular carcinoma patients receiving concurrent chemoradiotherapy. J Radiat Res. 2014;55:113–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Huo YR, Eslick GD. Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization plus Radiotherapy compared with chemoembolization alone for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:756–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Yisheng Wang (the Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University) and Peizhen Zhao (Dermatology Hospital, Southern Medical University) for providing statistical advice.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82172043, 81873920), the Science and Technology Program of Guangzhou (202102010082, 202002030135, 202102020393), the Clinical Featured Technology Program of Guangzhou (0F04022), the Plan on Enhancing Scientific Research in GMU (2023.198), the Young Innovative Talents Program of Guangdong Institutions of Higher Learning (2020KQNCX057), the Wu Jieping Medical Foundation (320.6750.2022-09-2, 320.6750.2020-10-63), and the Chen Xiao-Ping Foundation for the Development of Science and Technology of Hubei Province (CXPJJH11900009-01, CXPJJH1200008-03).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yongjian Guo, Jingqiang Wu and Licong Liang contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Minimally Invasive Interventional Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

    Yongjian Guo, Jingqiang Wu, Licong Liang, Kangshun Zhu, Jingwen Zhou, Liteng Lin, Ye Chen, Bihui Cao, Mingji He, Hui Lian, Wensou Huang & Mingyue Cai

  2. Radiology Center, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

    Yongjian Guo, Jingqiang Wu, Licong Liang, Kangshun Zhu, Jingwen Zhou, Liteng Lin, Ye Chen, Bihui Cao, Mingji He, Hui Lian, Wensou Huang & Mingyue Cai

Authors
  1. Yongjian Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jingqiang Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Licong Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kangshun Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jingwen Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Liteng Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ye Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Bihui Cao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Mingji He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Hui Lian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Wensou Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Mingyue Cai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: YG, JW, WH and MC; methodology: YG, KZ, MH, HL, WH and MC; validation: KZ, WH and MC; formal analysis: YG, JW and MC; investigation: YG, JW, LLia, KZ, JZ, MH, HL and WH; resources: KZ, MH, HL and WH; data curation: YG, JW, LLia, JZ, LLin, YC and BC; writing—original draft preparation: JW, WH and MC; writing—review and editing: YG, WH and MC; visualization: YG, JW, LLia and MC; supervision: WH and MC; project administration: KZ and MC; funding acquisition: MC, KZ and LLin. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Wensou Huang or Mingyue Cai.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University (approval number, 2022-KY-ks-05). Informed consent was waived due to the retrospective design of the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guo, Y., Wu, J., Liang, L. et al. Tyrosine-kinase inhibitor combined with iodine-125 seed brachytherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma refractory to transarterial chemoembolization: a propensity-matched study. Cancer Imaging 23, 91 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-023-00604-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-023-00604-4

Keywords

Cancer Imaging

ISSN: 1470-7330

Contact us