Abstract
Interventional Oncology (IO) is nowadays one of the four pillars of the modern Oncology, together with Clinical Oncology, Surgical Oncology, and Radiation Therapy, thanks to the several minimally invasive therapies provided and available both for radical and palliative purposes. Within the field of Neuroendocrine Tumors, IO plays an important role in the management of patients with liver metastases, where intra-arterial therapies, such as embolization, chemoembolization, and radioembolization, as well as percutaneous interventions, such as radiofrequency ablation and microwave ablation, are the more common options included into the treatment strategies. Intra-arterial options, originally introduced for treating HCC in clinical practice, gained attention in liver metastatic NET because of the outstanding results in symptoms control and for prolonging survival, with no or few side effects. On the other hand, liver ablation, firstly introduced for percutaneous imaging-guided approach and more recently also applied in open and laparoscopic setting, can provide eradication of liver metastases with less invasiveness than traditional surgery. Moreover, due to the high rate of relapse after radical treatments, new liver metastases can be further eradicated with percutaneous ablation, with no cumulative toxicity such as with repeated resections. For those reasons, a modern management of patients affected by Neuroendocrine Tumors cannot avoid to include the Interventional Oncology options within the discussion of dedicated Multidisciplinary Tumor Board.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
- Interventional Oncology
- Liver-directed therapies
- Minimally invasive therapies
- Locoregional therapies
- Intra-arterial hepatic therapies
- Percutaneous ablation
- Radiofrequency ablation, RFA
- Microwave ablation, MWA
- Transarterial chemoembolization, TACE, cTACE, DEB-TACE
- Transarterial embolization, Blad embolization, TAE
- Transarterial radioembolization, TARE, SIRT
1 Introduction
Interventional Radiology, also called Interventional Oncology (IO) when applied to the field of oncology, provides several treatment options alternatives, or sometime complementary, to the traditional ones. IO can also provide unique therapies for complex clinical situations, where no or not efficient standard options, are available. Some of the techniques developed within the IO field are nowadays upgraded to standard options and included into the clinical guidelines. It is especially true for hepatic tumors where, both in primary and metastatic disease, locoregional therapies can provide outstanding clinical results with minimal invasiveness.
Also in the field of Neuroendocrine Tumors, IO plays a very important role, in the management of metastatic stages, thanks to the several locoregional treatments, available from its wide armamentarium, ranged from the percutaneous techniques to the intra-arterial ones. Several indications for locoregional therapies of metastatic liver disease, from NET, are reported from the literature, whereas radical tumor ablation, tumor debulking, and hormone release control are the most common, also because of the increasing response to the medical therapy [1].
30–50% of patients with PNETs syndromes and 98–100% of patients with carcinoid syndrome due to a malignant GI-NET (carcinoids) have liver metastases at presentation [2,3,4,5,6,7]. These patients are rarely cured surgically and thus are candidates for various forms of liver-directed therapies, particularly when the primary tumor is resected [8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. In those clinical settings, liver-directed therapies allow for tumor debulking and/or hormone release control. However, treatment strategy is usually based on a multifactorial evaluation, mainly related to the general clinical conditions, the therapeutic options available, and, most importantly, on the histopathological tumor characteristics. According to its complexity, treatment strategy in NET setting requires a dedicated multidisciplinary team and very often an individualized approach [15]. The range of effective treatment options for NET liver metastases includes surgery (only limited to a small percentage of patients), medical therapies, interventional radiology, and nuclear medicine treatments [16, 17]; however, there is still a lack of evidence-based recommendations, regarding the ideal sequence of those treatments in these patients.
Liver surgery is reported as the treatment of choice for liver metastatic disease, with 5-year survival rates >70% in patients amenable to resection [18,19,20], but resection is often impossible due to the extent of the disease.
Rationale for intra-arterial liver-directed therapies, such as arterial embolization (TAE), arterial chemoembolization (TACE), or arterial radioembolization (TARE), is based on the evidence that NET liver metastases are usually hypervascular and primarily supplied by branches of the hepatic artery, whereas normal liver parenchyma is fed by the portal vein. For that reason, the arterial route to the tumor is widely accepted for affecting liver metastatic deposits, by shutting down the blood flow to the tumor, alone (TAE) or with the coadministration of chemotherapeutic agents (TACE), or with radio-emitted beads (TARE) [9,10,11,12, 21, 22].
Mechanism of action for thermal ablation (TA) techniques is based on the sensitivity of any biological tissue to the high temperature. Cell death during exposure to heat is exponential and dependent on the temperature and length of exposure [23].
Different techniques are available for providing thermal damage to the cancer tissues, but Radiofrequency (RF) and Microwaves (MW) are the most common in clinical practice, for treating liver nodules, both primary and metastatic tumors.
Indications, results, and main technical aspects of IO liver-directed therapies, in liver metastatic NET, will be described within this chapter.
2 Intra-Arterial Therapies
More than 95% of liver metastases from NET are hyper-enhancing during the arterial phase on contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS), meanwhile on CT or MR, they could be hypointense or hypoattenuating during the same vascular phase, mostly because of a lower temporal resolution compared to CEUS [24]. However, the basic concept behind intra-arterial treatment strategy is that liver metastases from NET are mostly fed by the arterial system as any other liver tumor, whereas normal adjacent liver is mainly supplied by the portal venous system [25].
Embolization (TAE), chemoembolization (TACE), and radioembolization (TARE) have been shown to achieve objectives responses, tumor markers decrease, and control of tumor-related symptoms, in those patients with unresectable liver metastases and/or specific carcinoid symptoms, such as diarrhea, hypertension, abdominal pain, and flushing [26]. However, there is still no clear evidence, in terms of imaging response, symptomatic response, or impact on survival, about the superiority of one out of these three approaches [13, 17]. Liver-predominant disease and/or major uncontrolled symptoms in nonsurgical candidate patients are the two most common indications for hepatic intra-arterial therapies, meanwhile extrahepatic stable metastatic tumor and/or the presence of stable primary tumor are not considered absolute contraindications [4, 9].
2.1 Embolization/Chemoembolization
Transarterial Embolization (TAE), also called “bland embolization,” refers to the selective distal arterial embolization, with the aim of occluding small arteries, feeding the liver metastases and consequently tumor ischemia and necrosis [27]. During the last few years, more efficient embolic material has been developed, in order to achieve a better and more distal arterial embolization, with the specific goal to improve local results, meanwhile reducing the toxicity of surrounding healthy liver tissue. Small and round-shaped beads, with size ranged between 100 and 40 microns in diameter, could better reach a deeper level of tumor embolization, if compared with bigger and with irregular shaped embolics [28, 29]. The adoption of super-selective techniques, thanks to the more and more performing micro-catheters and the improved integrated imaging for guiding the intra-arterial procedures, may allow for really efficient selective embolization of liver tumors, mainly if hypervascular, such as HCC and metastatic NET (Fig. 10.1).
Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is based on the association of intra-arterial chemotherapy administration together with embolics. The rationale behind TACE is to increase the intra-tumor concentration of cytotoxic drugs, such as doxorubicin or epirubicin, with no or very few systemic side effects, if compared to the standard systemic chemotherapy, meanwhile concurrent or following embolization will reduce drug washout from the tumor, compared to drug infusion alone [30]. During conventional TACE (cTACE), the drug is emulsified with Lipiodol® (Guerbet) and selectively delivered into the tumor. In DEB-TACE, the drug is concentrated within small beads (DEB = Drug Eluting Beads), which will shut down the blood flow within the tumor and will elute the chemotherapeutic agent into the tumor microvasculature. The advantage of using eluting beads is mainly based on pharmacokinetic studies in HCC patients, which revealed that DEB-TACE resulted in a higher intra-tumor drug concentrations and a lower systemic exposure than TACE [31, 32].
Both TAE and TACE are usually performed for palliative treatment of liver-predominant disease, which is not surgically resectable, in order to reduce the hepatic tumor mass, and 25–85% of patients have an objective tumor response, with a mean response duration of 6–45 months. This approach has been particularly considered in patients with hepatic symptoms or refractory malignant F-NET syndromes [9,10,11,12, 21, 22]. In general, TACE/TAE result in a symptomatic response in 50–100% of patients, and numerous series as well as case reports have documented their control of symptoms in patients with both carcinoid syndrome and F-pNET syndromes [9,10,11,12, 21, 22, 33,34,35,36,37,38,39].
To date, no randomized study has sought to compare the efficacy of either embolization or chemoembolization in NET G3. CNCCN, NANETS, and ENETS guidelines include both TAE and TACE, within the list of local therapies for symptomatic and/or progressive NET liver metastases, on the basis of level IIB-3 evidence, but they offer no recommendation regarding the different techniques [13, 40,41,42,43]. No statistical difference in clinical efficacy of TAE versus TACE in the treatment of liver metastases from well-differentiated non-pNET in a prospective study has been reported [44]. According to this report, there are no data supporting the hypothesis of an additive clinical advantage of intra-arterial administration of chemotherapeutic agent compared to the arterial embolization alone. Meanwhile, some studies reported superior survival and/or outcomes of TAE compared to TACE [22, 45, 46]; two retrospective series have reported higher biliary complication rate after DEB-TACE [47, 48] compared to TAE, but there are still no definitive data regarding the superiority between cTACE and TAE.
2.2 Radioembolization
Radioembolization (TARE) delivers targeted radiation therapy to unresectable hepatic malignancies, by the injection of the β-emitting isotope Yttrium-90 (90Y) through micro-catheter, which is permanently bound to biocompatible, nonbiodegradable microspheres (glass or resin), into the arterial supply of the liver, in order to reach tumor microvasculature. It results in delivering doses of ionizing radiation, above 120 Gy, into the tumor compartment, with no intolerable toxicity to the healthy liver parenchyma [49, 50]. TARE demonstrated a close correlation between delivered dose to the tumor and local response [51]. The dose of the radioactive microspheres has also to be adapted to the lung shunting fraction, when present, and assessed before TARE by scintigraphy, obtained after intra-arterial infusion of 99Tc-macroaggregated albumin (highest tolerable dose of the lung <30Gy).
Several authors reported data on the efficacy of TARE in the biological control of the disease and in the reduction of symptoms [52,53,54,55]. Interesting results about its feasibility and impact on survival compared to other locoregional therapies showed its possible application in particular series of patients [56,57,58,59,60,61]. One of the critical approaches in this kind of treatment is the calculation of the optimal dose that on the contrary is a well known and investigated topic in HCC patients [62].
The most common side effects of TARE are abdominal pain, nausea, fever, and fatigue that last from 1 week to 1 month. Various complications have been described after or during the procedure of TARE. They are mainly caused by the delivery of radioactive beads to the normal liver parenchyma or to extrahepatic sites, such as the gastrointestinal system (e.g., gastroduodenal ulceration, radiation gastritis, cholecystitis, or pancreatitis), the abdominal wall (i.e., radiation dermatitis), and the lungs (i.e., radiation pneumonitis) [63]. Treatment toxicity is significantly related to the radiation activity delivered to the healthy liver, which is the main limiting factor making TARE less repeatable than TAE/TACE, because of the risk of irreversible damage of liver parenchyma. In 2008, Sangro et al. [64] described toxicity using the term “RadioEmbolization-Induced Liver Disease” (REILD), which is considered a form of sinusoidal obstructive syndrome (SOS) and includes ascites, weight gain, liver function impairment, and elevation of bilirubin levels. Furthermore, late changes in liver size and appearance, following TARE, have been described, with radiation injury potentially developing into sinusoidal congestion and portal hypertension [65, 66]. In a recent study, Yu-Kai et al. [67] evaluated the long-term (>2 years after treatment) hepatotoxicity of radioembolization in patients with mNETs, by reviewing imaging and laboratory findings and determining their correlation with clinical symptoms. They concluded that whole-liver 90Y TARE for patients with neuroendocrine tumors results in long-term imaging findings of cirrhosis-like morphology and portal hypertension in >50% of treated patients, with signs of hepatic decompensation that are more pronounced than those in patients treated with unilobar 90Y radioembolization. However, a majority of these patients will remain clinically asymptomatic. This evidence is crucial, as patients with mNETs have longer life expectancies than patients with other unresectable hepatic metastases [68]. Although this practice may result in an improved tumor response rate and overall survival, there may conceivably be manifestations of long-term hepatotoxicity from 90Y. In the setting of a slowly progressive disease that remains localized into the liver for a long period of time, TARE should be considered in a very well selected patients and should be carried out with super-selective technique only (Fig. 10.2), in order to reduce the risks of early and late complications (i.e., REILD and late hepatotoxicity). TAE/TACE and TARE should not be considered competing therapies, but complementary tools. Many patients, according to their individual tumor and healthy liver characteristics, could be candidates for either TAE/TACE or TARE.
3 Percutaneous Liver Ablation
Radical resection is considered as the only curative treatment for liver metastases from NET, allowing for survival improvement [19, 69] and also recommended for tumor debulking in hormone-active metastases, for palliative purposes [70,71,72]. The overall survival after hepatic resection is 46–86% at 5 years and 35–79% at 10 years [19, 73, 74], but complete resection is achieved in only 20–57% with a local recurrence rate of 94% at 5 years [75]. Due to that high metastatic recurrence rate, repeated local treatments during patient’s life might be required. Therefore, minimally invasive treatment, such as TA for liver metastatic disease, may play an important clinical role as an interesting tissue-sparing treatment, alternative to the conventional surgery, mainly for small tumor deposits. Repeatability and low invasiveness, together with a very high success rate, are the most relevant features of TA techniques for liver tumors.
TA refers to the application of high temperature to a tissue with the aim to effect tumor cell death. There are different methods and different energies for delivering the heat into the tumor, where percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwaves ablation (MWA) are the most common and used in clinical practice.
The area affected by the heat is called “ablation zone,” and its size and shape are dependent by many factors, some of them closely related to the tissue characteristics and some others to specific features of the different TA technologies. However, the size of the ablation zone should cover the whole tumor volume, including a peripheral safety margin (0.5–1 cm) of healthy liver [65]. For large lesions or for irregular shapes, multiple overlapping ablation zones might be necessary in order to achieve a complete tumor eradication [76,77,78].
TA can be performed percutaneously, laparoscopically, and during open surgery, where the imaging-guided percutaneous approach is the most common technique. Ultrasound and CT are the more common imaging modalities used, in clinical practice, for guiding percutaneous liver TA. The first modality has the unique feature to provide real-time imaging, which is essential for a safe needle penetration, from the skin surface to the target. The advantage of using CT is, first of all, the panoramic view and the higher spatial resolution. It is more and more emerging the need of both the two guidance modalities, during the same session, also integrated within the newer navigational tools [79], for a safer and more precise procedure. Contrast enhancement CT is also essential for providing data regarding the outcome of the ablation, when it is performed at the end of the procedure. Clinical indications for liver ablation in liver metastases from NET are still not well defined, and patients have to be always discussed within a dedicated MDTB, meanwhile technical indications are well established and are mainly related to the tumor size, shape, and site. Generally speaking, acceptable size criteria for ablation may differ, according to the different techniques and devices used, ranging from 3 to 5 cm of largest diameter. However, it is well known that local recurrence and treatment failure are higher with larger lesions due to incomplete ablation at the periphery [80]. Ablation margin is actually reported as an independent factor affecting the local recurrence after laparoscopic RFA of liver NET metastases [81]. Hence, the precise placement of the RFA needle, which is deeply affected by the imaging modality used for guidance and ablation monitoring, has to be considered critical for achieving as large margins as possible, in order to obtain local tumor control.
3.1 Radiofrequency Ablation
In RFA, an alternating current is flowing between the uninsulated probe tip and a dispersive skin electrode-pad (unipolar) or between the different electrodes within one or multiple probes (multipolar). The current is converted into tissue heating by friction of the ions adjacent to the uninsulated tip of the RFA electrode [76, 82, 83]. RFA is the most frequently used ablation technique performed in this clinical setting, often in combination with surgery, especially to remove isolated metastases too deeply located for a safe resection. Several criteria regarding the possible indication for liver RFA in NET have been proposed and are mainly based on the number of lesions, size, and proximity to vital structures. Besides the use of RFA as an antitumor treatment, a number of studies have reported enhanced symptomatic control of functional NETs after its use [4, 9,10,11, 13, 21, 83,84,85,86,88]. In a series of 129 patients undergoing 177 sessions of laparoscopic RFA, for a total number of 770 liver metastases from NET, authors reported a 5- and 10-year overall survivals of 76% and 59%, respectively, and a median OS of 125 months, at a median follow-up of 73 months. Limitations of the technique include the poor efficacy of ablation in large tumors, where tumor size remains an independent predictor of poor overall survival [89].
3.2 Microwave Ablation
MWA is based on an oscillating electromagnetic field (0.9–2.450 GHz), generated by an antenna/needle, which induces water dipoles to continuously realign with the magnetic field. This kinetic energy induces heat in the tissue adjacent to the antenna, exposed at the magnetic field [90].
Compared to RFA, MW ablation is usually faster and less sensitive to the heat-sink effect, but its use is less common because it is more recently introduced in the clinical practice than RFA. Percutaneous application of MWA is more common in clinical practice, than during laparoscopy or open surgery, but due to the faster efficacy than RFA in destroying the tumor tissue, its use during open surgery is increasing, allowing liver tumors eradication, whereas resection only is not feasible or too invasive (Fig. 10.3).
A recent retrospective study comparing MWA, resection, and resection plus MWA, in patients affected by liver metastases from NET, reported a mean overall recurrence-free survival of 21.2 months (0 to 189 months), with no statistically significant difference when comparing patients treated with MWA only versus those who underwent surgical resection with or without MWA [91]. Moreover, patients treated with MWA only had a similar overall survival of 57 months, as patients undergoing resection with or without MWA. After MWA, the length of hospital stay is also reported to be significantly shorter than after surgery, with number of complications and their severity significantly reduced if compared with resection.
References
Ito T, Lee L, Jensen RT. Treatment of symptomatic neuroendocrine tumor syndromes: recent advances and controversies. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2016;17(16):2191–205.
Jensen RT, Norton JA, Oberg K. Neuroendocrine tumors. In: Feldman M, Friedman LS, Brandt LJ, editors. Sleisenger and Fordtran’s gastrointestinal and liver diseases. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders. p. 501–41.
Falconi M, Eriksson B, Kaltsas G, et al. ENETS consensus guidelines update for the management of patients with functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Neuroendocrinology. 2016;103:153–71.
Pavel M, O’Toole D, Costa F, et al. ENETS consensus guidelines update for the management of distant metastatic disease of intestinal, pancreatic, bronchial neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) and NEN of unknown primary site. Neuroendocrinology. 2016;103:172–85.
Jensen RT, Niederle B, Mitry E, et al. Gastrinoma (duodenal and pancreatic). Neuroendocrinology. 2006;84:173–82.
Jensen RT, Cadiot G, Brandi ML, et al. ENETS consensus guidelines for the management of patients with digestive neuroendocrine neoplasms: functional pancreatic endocrine tumor syndromes. Neuroendocrinology. 2012;95:98–119.
Nieman LK. Cushing’s syndrome: update on signs, symptoms and biochemical screening. Eur J Endocrinol. 2015;173:M33–8.
Ito T, Igarashi H, Jensen RT. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: clinical features, diagnosis and medical treatment: advances. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;26:737–53.
De Baere T, Deschamps F, Tselikas L, et al. GEP-NETS update: interventional radiology: role in the treatment of liver metastases from GEP-NETs. Eur J Endocrinol. 2015;172:R151–66.
Gupta S. Intra-arterial liver-directed therapies for neuroendocrine hepatic metastases. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2013;30:28–38.
Kennedy AS. Hepatic-directed therapies in patients with neuroendocrine tumors. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2016;30:193–207.
Del Prete M, Fiore F, Modica R, et al. Hepatic arterial embolization in patients with neuroendocrine tumors. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2014;33:43.
Kennedy A, Bester L, Salem R, et al. Role of hepatic intra-arterial therapies in metastatic neuroendocrine tumours (NET): guidelines from the NET-Liver-Metastases Consensus Conference. HPB (Oxford). 2015;17:29–37.
Yang TX, Chua TC, Morris DL. Radioembolization and chemoembolization for unresectable neuroendocrine liver metastases - a systematic review. Surg Oncol. 2012;21:299–308.
Grozinsky-Glasberg S, Kaltsas G, Kaltsatou M, et al. Hepatic intra-arterial therapies in metastatic neuroendocrine tumors: lessons from clinical practice. Endocrine. 2018;60(3):499–509.
Chamberlain RS, Canes D, Brown KT, et al. Hepatic neuroendocrine metastases: does intervention alter outcomes? J Am Coll Surg. 2000;190:432–45.
Clift AK, Frilling A. Management of patients with hepatic metastases from neuroendocrine tumors. Ann Saudi Med. 2014;34:279–90.
Norton JA, Warren RS, Kelly MG, et al. Aggressive surgery for metastatic liver neuro- endocrine tumors. Surgery. 2003;134:1057–63.
Sarmiento JM, Heywood G, Rubin J, et al. Surgical treatment of neuroendocrine metastases to the liver: a plea for resection to increase survival. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;197:29–37.
Kianmanesh R, Sauvanet A, Hentic O, et al. Two-step surgery for synchronous bilobar liver metastases from digestive endocrine tumors: a safe approach for radical resection. Ann Surg. 2008;247:659–65.
Ito T, Igarashi H, Jensen RT. Therapy of metastatic pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs): recent insights and advances. J Gastroenterol. 2012;47:941–60.
Fiore F, Del Prete M, Franco R, et al. Transarterial embolization (TAE) is equally effective and slightly safer than transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) to manage liver metastases in neuroendocrine tumors. Endocrine. 2014;47:177–82.
Dewhirst MW, Viglianti BL, Lora-Michiels M, et al. Basic principles of thermal dosimetry and thermal thresholds for tissue damage from hyperthermia. Int J Hyperth. 2003;3:267–94.
Ronot M, Cuccioli F, Burgio MD, et al. Neuroendocrine liver metastases: vascular patterns on triple-phase MDCT are indicative of primary tumor location. Eur J Radiol. 2017;89:156–62.
Clouse ME, Perry L, Stuart K, et al. Hepatic arterial chemoembolization for metastatic neuroendocrine tumors. Digestion. 1994;55(Suppl. S3):92–7.
Frilling A, Clift AK. Therapeutic strategies for neuroendocrine liver metastases. Cancer. 2015;121:1172–86.
Fohlen A, Tasu JP, Kobeiter H, et al. Transarterial chemoembolization (tace) in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: results of a French national survey on current practices. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2018;99:527–35.
Lee KH, Liapi E, Vossen JA, et al. Distribution of iron oxide-containing Embosphere particles after transcatheter arterial embolization in an animal model of liver cancer: evaluation with MR imaging and implication for therapy. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008;19(10):1490–6.
Dreher MR, Sharma KV, Woods DL, et al. Radiopaque drug-eluting beads for transcatheter embolotherapy: experimental study of drug penetration and coverage in swine. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012;23(2):257–64.
Biolato M, Marrone G, Racco S, et al. Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for unresectable HCC: a new life begins? Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2010;14:356–62.
Zhang S, Huang C, Li Z, et al. Comparison of pharmacokinetics and drug release in tissues after transarterial chemoembolization with doxorubicin using diverse lipiodol emulsions and CalliSpheres Beads in rabbit livers. Drug Deliv. 2017;24(1):1011–7.
Varela M, Real MI, Burrel M, et al. Chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma with drug eluting beads: efficacy and doxorubicin pharmacokinetics. J Hepatol. 2007;46(3):474–81.
Bloomston M, Al-Saif O, Klemanski D, et al. Hepatic artery chemoembolization in 122 patients with metastatic carcinoid tumor: lessons learned. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007;11:264–71.
Kyriacou A, Mansoor W, Lawrance J, et al. Intractable hypoglycaemia in a patient with advanced carcinoid syndrome successfully treated with hepatic embolization. Hormones (Athens). 2015;15:118–21.
Maiza JC, Vezzosi D, Grunenwald S, et al. Treatment with somatostatin analogs and chemoembolization of liver metastases for severe hypoglycemia in malignant insulinomas. J Endocrinol Investig. 2011;34:e253–8.
Moscetti L, Saltarelli R, Giuliani R, et al. Intra-arterial liver chemotherapy and hormone therapy in malignant insulinoma: case report and review of the literature. Tumori. 2000;86:475–9.
Muro S, Nasu J, Harada R, et al. Prompt resolution of hypoglycemia by hepatic transarterial embolization for malignant insulinoma with multiple liver metastases. Acta Med Okayama. 2014;68:303–6.
Pericleous M, Caplin ME, Tsochatzis E, et al. Hepatic artery embolization in advanced neuroendocrine tumors: efficacy and long-term outcomes. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2016;12:61–9.
Yarmohammadi H, Erinjeri JP, Brown KT. Embolization of metastatic neuroendocrine tumor resulting in clinical manifestations of syndrome of inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;26:533–7.
Boudreaux JP, Klimstra DS, Hassan MM, et al. North American neuroendocrine tumor society (NANETS). The NANETS consensus guideline for the diagnosis and management of neuroendocrine tumors: well- differentiated neuroendocrine tumors of the jejunum, ileum, appendix, and cecum. Pancreas. 2010;39:753–66.
Kulke MH, Anthony LB, Bushnell DL, et al. NANETS treatment guidelines: well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors of the stomach and pancreas. Pancreas. 2010;39:735–52.
Kulke MH, Shah MH, Benson AB 3rd, et al. Neuroendocrine tumors, version 1.2015. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2015;13:78–108.
Pavel M, Baudin E, Couvelard A, et al. Barcelona Consensus Conference participants. ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the management of patients with liver and other distant metastases from neuroendocrine neoplasms of foregut, midgut, hindgut, and unknown primary. Neuroendocrinology. 2012;95:157–76.
Maire F, Lombard-Bohas C, O’Toole D, et al. Hepatic arterial embolization versus chemoembolization in the treatment of liver metastases from well-differentiated midgut endocrine tumors: a prospective randomized study. Neuroendocrinology. 2012;96:294–300.
Gupta S, Johnson MM, Murthy R, et al. Hepatic arterial embolization and chemoembolization for the treatment of patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumors: variables affecting response rates and survival. Cancer. 2005;104:1590–602.
Ruutiainen AT, Soulen MC, Tuite CM, et al. Chemoembolization and bland embolization of neuroendocrine tumor metastases to the liver. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2007;18:847–55.
Bhagat N, Reyes DK, Lin M, Kamel I, et al. Phase II study of chemoembolization with drug-eluting beads in patients with hepatic neuroendocrine metastases: high incidence of biliary injury. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2013;36:449–59.
Guiu B, Deschamps F, Aho S, et al. Liver/biliary injuries following chemoembolisation of endocrine tumours and hepatocellular carcinoma: lipiodol vs. drug-eluting beads. J Hepatol. 2012;56:609–17.
Kennedy A, Nutting C, Coldwell D, et al. Pathologic response and microdosimetry of 90Y-microspheres in man: review of four explanted whole livers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004;60:1552–63.
Campbell A, Bailey I, Burton M. Tumour dosimetry in human liver following hepatic 90Y-microsphere therapy. Phys Med Biol. 2001;46:487–98.
Lau WY, Leung WT, Ho S, et al. Treatment of inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma with intrahepatic arterial yttrium-90microspheres: a phase I and II study. Br J Cancer. 1994;70:994–9.
Frilling A, Clift AK, Braat AJAT, Alsafi A, Wasan HS, et al. Radioembolisation with 90y microspheres for neuroendocrine liver metastases: an institutional case series, systematic review and meta-analysis. HPB. 2019;21:773–83.
Paprottka PM, Hoffmann RT, Alexander H, Sommer WH, Raessler F, Trumm RG, et al. Radioembolization of symptomatic, unresectable neuroendocrine hepatic metastases using yttrium-90 microspheres. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012;35:334–42.
Cramer B, Xing M, Kimt HS. Prospective longitudinal quality of life assessment in patients with neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases treated with 90y radioembolization. Clin Nucl Med. 2016;41:e493–7.
Kalinowski M, Dressler M, König A, El-Sheik M, Rinke A, Höffken H, Gress TM, Arnold R, Klose KJ, Wagner HJ. Selective internal radiotherapy with Yttrium-90 microspheres for hepatic metastatic neuroendocrine tumors: a prospective single center study. Digestion. 2009;79(3):137–42.
Egger ME, Armstrong E, Martin RC 2nd, Scoggins CR, Philips P, Shah M, Konda B, Dillhoff M, Pawlik TM, Cloyd JM. Transarterial chemoembolization vs radioembolization for neuroendocrine liver metastases: a multi-institutional analysis. J Am Coll Surg. 2020;230(4):363–70.
Do Minh D, Chapiro J, Gorodetski B, Huang Q, Liu C, Smolka S, Savic LJ, Wainstejn D, Lin M, Schlachter T, Gebauer B, Geschwind JF. Intra-arterial therapy of neuroendocrine tumour liver metastases: comparing conventional TACE, drug-eluting beads TACE and yttrium-90 radioembolisation as treatment options using a propensity score analysis model. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(12):4995–5005.
Zuckerman DA, Kennard RF, Roy A, Parikh PJ, Weiner AA. Outcomes and toxicity following Yttrium-90 radioembolization for hepatic metastases from neuroendocrine tumors-a single-institution experience. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2019;10(1):118–27.
Memon K, Lewandowski RJ, Mulcahy MF, Riaz A, Ryu RK, Sato KT, Gupta R, et al. Radioembolization for neuroendocrine liver metastases: safety, imaging, and long-term outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012;83(3):887–94.
Braat A, Kappadath SC, Ahmadzadehfar H, Stothers CL, Frilling A, et al. Radioembolization with (90)y resin microspheres of neuroendocrine liver metastases: international multicenter study on efficacy and toxicity. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019;42:413–25.
Barbier C, Garske-Román U, Sandström M, Nyman R, Granberg D. Selective internal radiation therapy in patients with progressive neuroendocrine liver metastases. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2016;43:1425–31.
Chansanti O, Jahangiri Y, Matsui Y, Adachi A. Tumor dose response in yttrium-90 resin microsphere embolization for neuroendocrine liver metastases: a tumor-specific analysis with dose estimation using SPECT-CT. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017;28:1528–35.
Braat MNGJA, van Erpecumb KJ, Zonnenberga BA, et al. Radioembolization-induced liver disease: a systematic review. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;29:144–52.
Sangro B, Gil-Alzugaray B, Rodriguez J, et al. Liver disease induced by radioembolization of liver tumors: description and possible risk factors. Cancer. 2008;112:1538–46.
Memon K, Lewandowski RJ, Kulik L, et al. Radioembolization for primary and metastatic liver cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2011;21:294–302.
Seidensticker R, Seidensticker M, Damm R, et al. Hepatic toxicity after radioembolization of the liver using 90y-microspheres: sequential lobar versus whole liver approach. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012;35:1109–18.
Yu-Kai S, Mackey RV, Riaz A, et al. Long-term hepatotoxicity of yttrium-90 radioembolization as treatment of metastatic neuroendocrine tumor to the liver. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2017;28:1520–6.
Yao JC, Hassan M, Phan A, et al. One hundred years after “carcinoid”: epidemiology of and prognostic factors for neuroendocrine tumors in 35,825 cases in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3063–72.
Tan MC, Jarnagin WR. Surgical management of non-colorectal hepatic metastasis. J Surg Oncol. 2014;109:8–13.
Scott AT, Breheny PJ, Keck KJ, et al. Effective cytoreduction can be achieved in patients with numerous neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases (NETLMs). Surgery. 2019;165:166–75.
Osborne DA, Zervos EE, Strosberg J, et al. Improved outcome with cytoreduction versus embolization for symptomatic hepatic metastases of carcinoid and neuroendocrine tumors. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006;13:572–81.
Frilling A, Modlin IM, Kidd M, et al. Recommendations for management of patients with neuroendocrine liver metastases. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:e8–21.
Elias D, Lasser P, Ducreux M, et al. Liver resection (and associated extrahepatic resections) for metastatic well-differentiated endocrine tumors: a 15-year single center prospective study. Surgery. 2003;133:375–82.
Glazer ES, Tseng JF, Al-Refaie W, et al. Long-term survival after surgical management of neuroendocrine hepatic metastases. HPB (Oxford). 2010;12:427–33.
Mayo SC, de Jong MC, Pulitano C, et al. Surgical management of hepatic neuroendocrine tumor metastasis: results from an international multi-institutional analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:3129–36.
Chen MH, Wei Y, Yan K, et al. Treatment strategy to optimize radiofrequency ablation for liver malignancies. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006;17:671–83.
Lee JM, Han JK, Kim HC, et al. Multiple-electrode radiofrequency ablation of in vivo porcine liver: comparative studies of consecutive monopolar, switching monopolar versus multipolar modes. Investig Radiol. 2007;42:676–83.
Solbiati L, Livraghi T, Goldberg SN, et al. Percutaneous radio-frequency ablation of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer: long-term results in 117 patients. Radiology. 2001;221:159–66.
Sánchez Y, Anvari A, Samir AE, et al. Navigational guidance and ablation planning tools for interventional radiology. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2017;46(3):225–33.
Covey AM, Sofocleous CT. Radiofrequency ablation as a treatment strategy for liver metastases from breast cancer. Semin Intervent Radiol. 2008;25(4):406–12.
Takahashi H, Akyuz M, Aksoy E, et al. Local recurrence after laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation of malignant liver tumors: results of a contemporary series. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115(7):830–4.
Goldberg SN, Hahn PF, Tanabe KK, et al. Percutaneous radiofrequency tissue ablation: does perfusion-mediated tissue cooling limit coagulation necrosis? J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1998;9:101–11.
Dupuy DE, Goldberg SN. Image-guided radiofrequency tumor ablation: challenges and opportunities–part II. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001;12:1135–48.
Harring TR, Nguyen NT, Goss JA, et al. Treatment of liver metastases in patients with neuroendocrine tumors: a comprehensive review. Int J Hepatol. 2011;2011:1–11.
Eriksson J, Stalberg P, Nilsson A, et al. Surgery and radiofrequency ablation for treatment of liver metastases from midgut and foregut carcinoids and endocrine pancreatic tumors. World J Surg. 2008;32:930–8.
Mazzaglia PJ, Berber E, Milas M, et al. Laparoscopic radiofrequency ablation of neuroendocrine liver metastases: a 10-year experience evaluating predictors of survival. Surgery. 2007;142:10–9.
Karabulut K, Akyildiz HY, Lance C, et al. Multimodality treatment of neuroendocrine liver metastases. Surgery. 2011;150:316–25.
Gillams A, Cassoni A, Conway G, et al. Radiofrequency ablation of neuroendocrine liver metastases: the Middlesex experience. Abdom Imaging. 2005;30:435–41.
Kose E, Kahramangil B, Aydin H, et al. Outcomes of laparoscopic tumor ablation for neuroendocrine liver metastases: a 20-year experience. Surg Endosc. 2020;34(1):249–56.
Lubner MG, Brace CL, Hinshaw JL, et al. Microwave tumor ablation: mechanism of action, clinical results, and devices. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21:S192–203.
Perrodin SF, Renzulli MM, Maurer MH, et al. Can microwave ablation be an alternative to resection for the treatment of neuroendocrine liver metastases? Endocr Pract. 2020;26(4):378–87.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Orsi, F., Bonomo, G. (2021). Locoregional Therapies of NEN. In: Beretta, G., Berruti, A., Bombardieri, E., Fazio, N., Goletti, O. (eds) Neuroendocrine Neoplasia Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72830-4_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72830-4_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-72829-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-72830-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)