Abstract:

Introduction: treatment of gastric cancer (GC) remains an urgent problem in oncology. One of the unsolved problems in treatment of gastric cancer remains the treatment of patients with liver metastases. With the development of interventional radiology, it became possible to treat gastric cancer patients with liver metastases.

Aim: was to improve results of treatment of gastric cancer patients with liver metastases by using of trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE).

Material and methods: we analyzed results of 60 patients for the period 2008-2020, who suffered for metastatic liver disease, previously they received combined treatment for stomach cancer at various times. The average age of patients was 58,1 ± 5,8 years. When planning TACE, all patients had a general condition above 80% according to Karnovsky, according to ECOG 1-2. All TACE patients with liver metastatic foci were treated with Lipiodol 6-8ml + Doxorubicin 25mg/m². The interval between TACE cycles was 1,5-2 months. Each patient received 5-6 TACE courses.

Results: immediate results showed the effectiveness of treatment after 2 courses of TACE in 49 (81,7%) patients: partial regression was noted in 36 (60%) patients, and significant regression of the process was noted in 13 (21,6%) patients, stabilization of the process was noted in 11(18,3%) patients. With dynamic follow-up 37 (61,7%) patients lived 6 months, 24 (40%) patients lived 12 months, 11 (18,3%) patients lived 18 months, 8 (13,3%) patients lived 24 months, only 3 (5,0%) patients lived 36 months. The median survival rate was 15,5 ± 1,2 months.

Conclusions: immediate and long-term results of the study, carrying out TACE in patients with metastases of gastric cancer to the liver was effective in 50% of patients. Currently, to improve the survival rate and quality of life of patients with metastases of gastric cancer, the technique of trans-arterial chemoembolization can be considered as an effective, low-toxic method of treatment and it can be the method of choice.

References

1.     Mastoraki A, Benetou C, Mastoraki S, et al. The role of surgery in the therapeutic approach of gastric cancer liver metastases. Indian J. Gastroenterol. 2016; 35(5): 331-336.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12664-016-0683-7

2.     Kaidarova DR. Indicators of the Oncological Service of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2019 (statistical and analytical materials), Almaty, 2020, -137 [In Russ].

3.     Kaprin AD, Starinskiy VV, Petrova GV. Malignant neoplasms in Russia in 2016 (morbidity and mortality). - M.: FGBU «MNIOI after named P.A. Herzen» of the Ministry of Health of Russia, 2018. - 250 [In Russ].

4.     Zhang K, Chen L. Chinese consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer with liver metastases. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2020; 12: 1758835920904803.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1758835920904803.

5.     Granov AM, et al. Interventional radiology in oncology (ways of development and technology) - SPb.: - Foliant. - 2007. - 88-97 [In Russ].

6.     Gantsev ShKh, Arybzhanov DT, Kulakeev OK. A method of chemotherapy for gastric cancer metastases in the liver. Patent of the Russian Federation No. 2364397 dated 20.08.2009. Bul. 23 [In Russ].

7.     Chen H, Gao S, Yang XZ, et al. Comparison of Safety and Efficacy of Different Models of Target Vessel Regional Chemotherapy for Gastric Cancer with Liver Metastases. Chemotherapy. 2016; 61(2): 99-107.

https://doi.org/10.1159/000440945

8.     Chen H, Zhang J, Cao G, et al. Target hepatic artery regional chemotherapy and bevacizumab perfusion in liver metastatic colorectal cancer after failure of first-line or second-line systemic chemotherapy. Anticancer Drugs. 2016; 27(2): 118-26.

https://doi.org/10.1097/CAD.0000000000000290

9.     Sawatsubashi T, Nakatsuka H, Nihei K, Takano T. A Case of Metachronous Multiple Liver Metastases of AFP and PIVKA-Producing Gastric Cancer, Responding to Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 2020; 47(2): 319-321.

10.   Liu SF, Lu CR, Cheng HD, et al. Comparison of Therapeutic Efficacy between Gastrectomy with Transarterial Chemoembolization Plus Systemic Chemotherapy and Systemic Chemotherapy Alone in Gastric Cancer with Synchronous Liver Metastasis. Chin Med J. 2015; 128(16): 2194-201.

https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.162497

11.   Xu H, Min X, Ren Y, et al. Comparative Study of Drug-eluting Beads versus Conventional Transarterial Chemoembolization for Treating Peculiar Anatomical Sites of Gastric Cancer Liver Metastasis. Med Sci Monit. 2020; 26: 922988.

https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.922988

Abstract:

Between May 2005 and March 2007, catheter-port systems were placed in 20 pts for continuous hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy in the treatment of unresectable colorectal liver metastases. Carboplatin (or oxaliplatin) plus 5-fluorouracil and systemic leucovorin were administered. No complications occurred during the implantation procedures. The mean number of intrahepatic chemotherapy cycles per patient was 10 (4-25). The mean follow-up period was 412 (100-853) days. During the follow-up period, complications occurred in 9 patients (45%), but surgical or interventional radiological correction was successful in all but one case. At present, 14 patients are alive within 4 and 41 months and continue to receive intraarterial chemotherapy, while 6 patients died in 5 to 21 months from tumor progression. The common 1 -year survival is 90% (18 patients). Percutaneous implantation is potentially effective treatment for patients with CLM.

Reference 

1.     Поликарпов А.А. Рентгеноэндоваскулярные вмешательства в лечении нерезектабельных злокачественных опухолей печени. Дис. д-ра мед. наук. С.-Пб. 2006; 161.

2.     Таразов П.Г. Роль методов интервенционной радиологии в лечении больных с метастазами колоректального рака в печень. Практ. онкол. 2005; 6 (2):119-126.

3.     Hashimoto M., Watanabe O., Takahashi S. et al. Efficacy and safety of hepatic artery infusion catheter placement without fixation in the right gastroepiploic artery.J. Vasc. Intervent. Radiol. 2005; 16 (4): 465-470.

4.     Habbe T., McCowan T., Goertzen T. et al. Complicationsand technical limitations of hepatic arterial infusioncatheter placement for chemotherapy.J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 1998; 9 (2): 233-239.

5.     Sullivan R. Continuous arterial infusion cancer chemotherapy. Surg. Clin. N.Amer. 1962; 42: 365-388.

6.     Watkins E., Khazei A., Nahra K. Surgical basis for arterial infusion chemotherapy of disseminated carcinoma of the liver. Surg. Gynecol. Obstet. 1970; 130 (4): 581-605.

7.     Балахнин П.В.,Таразов П.Г., Поликарпов А. А. и др.Варианты артериальной анатомии печени по данным 1511 ангиографий. Анналы хирургической гепатологии. 2004; 9 (2): 14-21.

8.     Curley S.A., Chase J.L., Pharm D. et al. Technical consideration and complications associated with the placement of 180 implantable hepatic arterial infusion devices. Surgery. 1993; 114 (5): 928-935.

9.     Hildebrandt B., Pech M., Nicolaou A. et al. Interventionally implanted port catheter systems for hepatic arterial infusion of chemotherapy in patients with colorectal livermetastases: A phase II-study and historical comparisonwith the surgical approach. BMC Cancer. 2007; 24 (7): 69.

10.   Allen P., Nissan A., Picon A. et al. Technical complications and durability of hepatic artery infusion pumpsfor unresectable colorectal liver metastases. An institutional experience of 544 consecutive cases. J. Am.Coll. Surg. 2005; 201 (1): 57-65.

11.   Zhu A., Liu L., Piao D. et al. Liver regional continuouschemotherapy: Use of femoral or subclavian artery for percutaneous implantation of catheter-port systems.World.J. Gastroenterol. 2004; 10 (11): 1659-1662.

12.   Tajima T., Yoshimitsu K., Kuroiwa T. et al. Percutaneous femoral catheter placement for long-term chemotherapy infusions: Preliminary technical results. Am. J.  Roentgenol. 2005; 184 (3): 906-914.IduchiT., Inaba Y., Arai Y. et al. Radiologic removal andreplacement of port-catheter system for hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2006;187 (6): 1579-1584.

13.   Yamagami T., Kato T., Iida S. et al. Interventional radiologic treatment for hepatic arterial occlusion afterrepeated hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy viaimplanted port-catheter system. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol.2004; 15 (6): 633-639.

14.   Herrmann K., Waggershauser T., Sittek H. et al. Liverintraarterial chemotherapy. Use of the femoral artery for percutaneous implantation of catheter-port systems.Radiology. 2000; 215 (1): 294-299.

15.   Grosso M., Zanon C., Mancini A. et al. Percutaneous implantation of a catheter with subcutaneous reservoir for intraarterial regional chemotherapy :Technique and preliminary results. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 2000; 23 (3): 202-210.

16.   Oi H., Kishimoto H., Matsushita M. et al. Percutaneous implantation of hepatic artery infusion reservoir by sonographically guided left subclavian artery puncture. Am.J. Roentgenol. 1996; 166 (4): 821-822.

17.   Chen Y., He X., Chen W. et al. Percutaneous implantation of a port-catheter system using the left subclavian artery. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 2000; 23 (1): 22-25.

18.   Proietti S., De BaereT., Bessoud B. et al. Intervetionalmenagement of gastroduodenal lesions complicating intra-arterial hepatic chemotherapy. Eur. Radiol. 2007;17 (8): 2160-2165.

Abstract:

Purpose. Was to evaluate possibilities of FDCTA as a method of colorectal liver metastases (CLM) detection and differentional diagnostics.

Materials and methods. FD-CT-A was performed to examine 41 patients. Patients with lobe CLM (n =15) were included into the 1-st group. Purpose was to exclude metastatic lesions of contralateral lobe before surgical treatment. Patients with bilobar metastatic spread (n = 26) were included into the 2-nd group. Purpose was to detect metastases before and during regional therapy. Scanning was performed on the hybryde angiographic system Innova-4100 «GЕ Нealthcare, USA» with 5 sec scanning time, fov 23 × 23 cm, delay from 10 to 22 sec during hepatic arteriography 15–40 ml Ultravist-370 «Bayer Schering Pharma, Germany» with rate 2–4 ml/sec.

Results. In the first group 40 CLM were detected. The number of metastases in each patient ranged from 1 to 12 (mean – 3). The size of metastases ranged from 9,1 mm to 150,0 mm (mean – 36,7 mm, median – 30,2 mm). 14 of all CLM (35%) were 20 mm and less. Right hemyhepatectomy was provided for 6 patients, left hemyhepatectomy – for one. In the second group 282 CLM were detected. The number of metastases in each patient ranged from 2 to 31 (mean – 11). The size of metastases ranged from 3,2 mm to 81,0 mm (mean – 17,4 mm, median – 12,7 mm). 209 of all CLM (74%) were equal or smaller then 20 mm in diameter.

Conclusion. FD-CT-A is the perspective method for detection and differentional diagnostics of CLM.
 

References 

1.    Гранов А.М., Таразов П.Г., Гранов Д.А. и др. Современные тенденции в комбинированном хирургическом лечении первичного и метастатического рака печени. Анн. хир.гепатол. 2002; 7 (2): 9–17.

2.    Paschos K., Bird N. Current diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for colorectal cancer liver metastasis. Hippokratia. 2008; 12 (3): 132–138.

3.    Kanematsu M. et al. Imaging liver metastases: review and update. Eur. J. Radiol. 2006; 58 (2): 217–228.

4.    Scaife C.L. et al. Accuracy of preoperative imaging of hepatic tumors with helical computed tomography. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2006; 13 (4): 542–546.

5.    Regge D. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of portalphase CT and MRI with mangafodipirtrisodium in detecting liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma. Clinical. Radiology. 2006; 61 (4): 338–347.

6.    Kim K.W. et al. Small (≤ 2 cm) hepatic lesions in colorectal cancer patients. Detection and characterization on mangafodipir trisodium-enhanced MRI. AJR. 2004; 182 (5): 1233–1240.

7.    Bartolozzi C. et al. Detection of colorectal liver metastases. A prospective multicenter trial comparing unenhanced MRI, MnDPDP-enhanced MRI, and spiral CT. Eur. Radiol. 2004; 14 (1): 14–20.

8.    Wiering B. et al. Comparison of multiphase CT, FDGPET and intraoperative ultrasound in patients with colorectal liver metastases selected for surgery. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2007; 14 (2): 818–826.

9.    Kalender W.A., Kyriakou Y. Flatdetector computed tomography (FDCT). Eur. Radiol. 2007;17 (11): 2767–2779.

10.  Buhk J. et al. Angiographic computed tomography is comparable to multislice computed tomography in lumbar myelographic imaging. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 2006; 30 (5):739–741.

11.  Housseini A.M. et al. Comparison of three dimensional rotational angiography and digital subtraction angiography for the evaluation of the liver transplants. Clinical. Imaging. 2009; 33 (2): 102–109.

12.  Rooij W.J. et al. 3D rotational angiography. The new gold standard in the detection of additional intracranial aneurysms. Am. J.Neuroradiol. 2008; 29 (5): 976–79.

13.  Meyer B.C. et al. Visualization of Hypervascular Liver Lesions During TACE. Comparison of Angiographic CArm CT and MDCT. AJR. 2008; 190 (4): 263–269.

14.  Orth R.C. et al. Carm conebeam CT: general principles and technical considerations for use in interventional radiology. J. Vasc. Interv.Radiol. 2008; 19 (6): 814–821.

15.  Irie K. et al. DynaCT softtissue visualization using an angiographic Carm system. Initial clinical experience in the operating room. Operative Neurosurg. 2008; 62 (3): 266–272.

16.  Meyer B.C. et al. Contrastenhanced abdominal angiographic CT for intraabdominal tumor embolization. A new tool for vessel and soft tissue visualization. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 2007; 30 (4): 743–749.

17.  Meyer B.C. et al. The value of combined soft tissue and vessel visualisation before transarterial chemoembolisation of the liver using Carm computed tomography. Eur.Radiol. 2009; 19 (9): 2302–2309.

18.  Hirota S. et al. Conebeam CT with flatpanel detector digital angiography system/ Early experience in abdominal interventional procedures. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 2006; 29 (6): 1034–1038.

19.  Wallace M.J. et al. Threedimensional Carm conebeam CT. Applications in the interventional suite. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2008;19 (6): 799–813.

20.  Raman S.S. et al. Improved characterization of focal liver lesions with liverspecific gadoxetic acid disodiumenhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a multicenter phase 3 clinical trial. J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 2010; 34 (2): 163–172.

21.  lrie T. et al. CT evaluation of hepatic tumors.Сomparison of CT with arterial portography, CT with infusion hepatic arteriography, and simultaneous use of both techniques. AJR. 1995; 164 (6): 1407–1412.

22.  Kanematsu M. et al. Detection and characterization of hepatic tumors: value of combined helical CT hepatic arteriography and CT during arterial portography. AJR. 1997; 168 (5): 1193–1198.

23.  Matsui O. et al. Liver metastases from colorectal cancers. Detection with CT during arterial portography. Radiology. 1987; 165 (1): 65–69.

24.  Soyer P. et al. Hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: detection and falsepositive findings with helical CT during arterial portography. Radiology. 1994; 193 (1): 71–74.

25.  Valls C. et al. Helical CT versus CT arterial portography in the detection of hepatic metastasis of colorectal carcinoma. AJR. 1998; 170 (5): 1341–347.

26.  Semelka R.C. et al. Liver metastases: comparison of current MR techniques and spiral CT during arterial portography for detection in 20 surgically staged cases. Radiology. 1999;213 (1): 86–91.

27.  Schwartz L. et al. Prospective, blinded comparison of helical CT and CT arterial portography in the assessment of hepatic metastasis from colorectal carcinoma. World. J. Surg.2006; 30 (10): 1892–1901.

Abstract:

Aim: was to estimate first own results of arterial radioembolization (RE) in patients with primary or metastatic liver malignancy.

Materials and methods: in 2009, RE of the right (n=3) or left (n=1) hepatic artery using Yttrium-90 glass microspheres (Therasphere) was performed in 4 patients: 3 with hepatocellular carcinoma on cirrhosis complicated by portal vein branch thrombosis (contraindication for chemoembolization), and 1 patient with colorectal liver metastases.

Results: all RE procedures were technically successful. The radiation dose to the tumor was 1 20-150 Gy The post embolization syndrome was minimal and uncomplicated. After RE, partial tumor response and stabilization were noted in 2 patients each. Patients survived from 14 to 32 months.

Conclusion: RE is well-tolerated and safe procedure causing significant local damage of liver tumor. According to our first experience, RE is a very promising method for treatment of hepatic malignancies. 

References

1.     Tarazov P.G. Arterial radioembolization of liver malignancies with ittrium-90 microspheres (review). Voprosy onkologii. 2013; 59(4): 428-434 [In Russ].

2.     Lewandowski R.J., Geschwind J.-F., Liapi E., Salem R. Transcatheter intraarterial therapies: Rationale and overview. Radiology. 2011; 259(3): 641-657.

3.     Powerski M.J., Scheurig-Muenkel C., Banzen J., Schnappauff D., Hamm B., Gebauer B. Clinical practice in radioembolization of hepatic malignancies: A survey among interventional centers in Europe. Eur. J. Radiol. 2012; 81(7): e804-e811.

4.     Seidensticker R., Seidensticker M., Damm R., Mohnike K., Schutte K., Malfwertheiner P., Van Buskirk M., Pech M., Amthauer H., Ricke J. Hepatic toxicity after radioembolization of the liver using 90Y-micro- spheres: Sequential lobar versus whole liver approach. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 2012; 35(5): 1109-1118.

5.     Garin E. Radioembolisation of hepatocellular carcinoma patients using 90Y-labelled microspheres: Towards a diffusion of the technique? Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2011; 38(12): 2114-2116.

6.     Atassi B., Bangash A.K., Lewandowski R.J., Ibrahim, Kulik L., Mulcahy M.F., Ryu R.K., Sato K.T., Miller F.H., Omary R.A., Salem R. Biliary sequelae following radioembolization with Yttrium-90 microspheres. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2008; 19(5): 691-697.

7.     Jakobs T.F., Saleem S., Atassi B., Reda E., Lewandowski R.J., Yaghmai V., Miller F., Ryu R.K., Ibrahim

5.,    Sato K.T., Kulik L.M., Mulcahy M.F., Omary R., Murthy R., Reiser M.F., Salem R. Fibrosis, portal hypertension, and hepatic volume changes induced by intra-arterial radiotherapy with 90Yttrium microspheres. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2008; 53(9): 2556-2563.

8.     Naymagon S., Warner R.R.P., Patel K., Harpaz N., Machac J., Weintraub J.L., Kim M.K. Gastroduodenal ulceration associated with radioembolization for the treatment of hepatic tumors: An institutional experience and review of the literature. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2010; 55(9): 24502458.

9.     Salem R., Lewandowski R.J., Mulcahy M.F., Riaz A., Ryu R.K., Ibrahim S., Atassi B., Baker T., Gates V., Miller F.H., Sato K.T., Wang E., Gupta R., Benson A.B., Newman S.B., Omary R.A., Abecassis M., Kulik L. Radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma using Yttrium-90 microspheres: A comprehensive report of long-term outcomes. Gastroenterology. 2010; 138(1): 52-64.

10.   Salem R., Gilbertsen M., Butt Z., Memon K., Vouche M., Hickey R., Baker T., Abecassis M.M., Atassi R., Riaz A., Cella D., Burns J.L., Ganger D., Benson A.B., Miulcahy M.F., Kulik L., Lewandowsi R. Increased quality of life among hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with radioembolization, compared with chemoembolization. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2013; 11(10): 1358-1365.

11.   Kim YH., Kim D.Y Yttrium-90 radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: What we know and what we need to know. Oncology. 2013; 84 (suppl.1): 34-39.

12.   Memon K., Kulik L., Lewandowski R.J., Mulcahy M.F., Benson A.B., Ganger D., Riaz A., Gupta R., Vouche M., Gates V.L., Miller F.H., Omary R.A., Salem R. Radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein thrombosis: Impact of liver function on systemic treatment options at disease progression. J. Hepatol. 2013; 58(1): 73-80.

13.   Moreno-Luna L.E., Yang J.D., Sanchez W., Paz- Fumagalli R., Harnois D.M., Mettler T.A., Gansen D.N., de Groen P.C., Lazaridis K.N., Menon K.W.N., LaRusso M.F., Alberts S.R., Gores G.J., Fleming C.J., Slettedahl S.W.. Harmsen W.S., Therneau T.M., Wiseman G.A., Andrews J.C., Roberts L.R. Efficacy and safety of transarterial radioembolization versus chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 2013; 36(3): 714-723.

14.   Tsai A.L., Burke C.T., Kennedy A.S., Moore D.T., Mauro M.A., Dixon R.D., Stavas J.M., Bernard S.A., Khandani A.H., O’Neil B.H. Use of yttrium-90 mocrospheres in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein thrombosis. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2010; 21(9): 1377-1384.

15.   Mazzaferro V., Sposito C., Bhoori S., Romito R., Chiesa C., Morosi C., Maccauro M., Marchiano A., Bongini M., Lanocita R., Civelli E., Bombardien E., Camerini T., Spreafico C. Yttrium-90 radioembolization for intermediate-advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A phase 2 study. Hepatology. 2013; 57(5): 1826-1837.

16.   Stubbs R.S., Wickremesekera S.K. Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT): A new modality for treating patients with colorectal liver metastases (review). HPB. 2004; 6(3): 133-139.

17.   Bester L., Meteling B., Pocock N., Pavlakis N., Chua T.C., Saxena A., Morris D.L. Radioembolization versus standard care of hepatic metastases: Comparative retrospective cohort study of survival outcomes and adverse events in salvage patients. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2012; 23(1): 96-105.

18.   Mahnken A.H., Spreafico C., Maleux G.,Helmberger T., Jacobs T.F. Standards of practice in transarterial radioembolization. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 2013; 36(3): 613-622.

19.   Brown R.E., Bower M.R., Metzger T.L., Scoggins C.R., McMaster K.M., Hall M.J., Tatum C., Martin R.C.G. Hepatectomy after hepatic arterial therapy with either yttrium-90 or drug-eluting bead chemotherapy: Is it safe? HPB. 2011; 13(2): 91-95.

20.   Ibrahim S.M., Kulik L., Baker T., Ryu R.K., Mulcahy M.F., Abecassis M., Salem R., Lewandowski R.J. Treating and downstaging hepatocellular carcinoma in the caudate lobe with yttrium-90 radioembolization. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 2012; 35(5): 1094-1101.

21.   Tohme S., Sukato D., Chen H.-W., Amesur N., Zajko A.B., Humar A., Geller D.A., Marsh J.W., Tsung A. Yttrium- 90 radioembolization as a bridge to liver transplantation: A single-institution experience. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2013; 24(11): 1632-1638.

22.   Hoffmann R.-T., Jakobs T.F., Kubisch C.H., Stemmler H.J., Trumm C., Tatsch K., Helmberger T.K., Reiser M.F. Radiofrequency ablation after selective internal radiation therapy with yttrium 90 microspheres in metastatic liver disease - is it feasible? Eur. J. Radiol. 2010; 74(1): 199-205.

23.   Wasan H., Kennedy A., Coldwell D., Sangro B., Salem R. Integrating radioembolization with chemotherapy in the treatment paradigm for unresectable colorectal liver metastases (review). Am. J. Clin. Oncol. 2012; 35(3): 293-301.

24.   Edeline J., Lenoir L., Boudjama K., Rolland Y, Boulic A., Le Du F., Pracht M., Raoul J.-L., Clement B., Garin E., Boucher E. Volumetric changes after 90Y radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: An option to portal vein embolization in a preoperative setting? Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2013; 20(8): 2518-2525.

25.   Vouche M., Lewandowski R.J., Atassi R., Memon K., Gates V.L., Ryu R.K., Gaba R.C., Mulcahy M.F., Baker T., Sato K., Hickey R., Ganger D., Riaz A., Fryer J., Caicedo J.C., Abecassis M., Kulik L., Salem R. Radiation lobectomy: Time-dependent analysis of future liver remnant volume in unresectable liver cancer as a bridge to resection. J. Hepatol. 2013; 59(5): 1029-1036.

26.   Lam M.G.E.H., Louie J.D., Iagaru A.H., Goris M.L., Sze D.Y Safety of repeated yrrium-90 radioembolization. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 2013; 36(5): 13201328.

27.   Fiore F., Cappelli A., Rodrigues M., Ettorre G.M., Saltarelli A., Geatti O., Ahmadzadehfar H., Haug A.R., Izzo F., Giampalma E., Sangro B., Pizzi G., Notarianni E., Vit A., Wilhelm K., Jacobs T.F., Lastoria S. Comparison of the survival and tolerability of radioembolization in elderly vs younger patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Hepatol. 2013; 59(4): 753-761.