Liver-directed Therapies for Malignancy Debashish Bose, MD PhD No - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Liver-directed Therapies for Malignancy

Debashish Bose, MD PhD

No disclosures

Hepatocellular Carcinoma Metasta2c Neuroendocrine Later: Metasta2c Colorectal Surgical resec2on Abla2ve techniques Mul2disciplinary issues

GEOGRAPHIC RISK FACTORS AGE-ADJUSTED INCIDENCE RATE (%) Area Male/Female Hepa22s C Virus Hepa22s B Virus Alcohol Other Europe 60-70 10-15 20 10 Western Europe 5.8/1.6 Southern 9.8/3.4 Northern 2.6/1.3 North America 50-60 20 20 — Northern 4.1/1.6 Southern 4.8/3.6 Asia and Africa 20 70 10 Aflatoxin Japan 70 10-20 10 10 Eastern Asia 35.4/12.6 Southeast Asia 18.3/5.7 Middle Africa 24.2/12.9 World 14.9/5.5

Table 80.1 Incidence of Hepatocellular Carcinoma According to Geographic Area and Distribution of Risk Factors

Surgery for liver tumors

So who gets surgery? Who gets transplant?

“Bridge” to transplanta2on op2ons: TACE/bland emboliza2on abla2on surgery SBRT Y90?

Abstract Number: 223 Cita2on: J Clin Oncol 35, 2017 (suppl 4S; abstract 223) Author(s): Francis W. Nugent, Amir Qamar, Keith E. Stuart, Kari Galuski, Sebas2an Flacke, Chris Molgaard, Frederick Gordon, Shams Iqbal, Klaudia Urbaniak Hunter, Erin Hartnem, Krishna Gunturu; Lahey Hospital and Medcl Ctr, Burlington, MA; Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, MA; Lahey Clinic Medcl Ctr, Burlington, MA; Lahey Clinic Medical Center, Tuns University School of Medicine, Burlington, MA; Univ of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

A randomized phase II study of individualized stereotac>c body radia>on therapy (SBRT) versus transarterial chemoemboliza>on (TACE) with DEBDOX beads as a bridge to transplant in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Variable SBRT (N = 13) TACE (N = 16)

C-P Score 5.91 5.73 Cancer Stage 1 83.3% 93.3% Side Effect (Any Grade) (comple2on of SBRT) (following TACE #1) Fa>gue 72.7% 93.3% Pain 72.7% 86.7% nausea 36.36% 46.7% anorexia 0% 33.3% Hospital Days 1 100.0% 13.3% 2 0 % 86.7%

As a bridge to transplant, could SBRT be bemer tolerated…

• B. TIME TO RETREATMENT

Variable SBRT TACE # randomized 13 16 # w/ fu info (n = 4 ac>ve excluded) 11 14 # pts retreated 4 Kaplan-Meier est. of % re-tx …..at 3 mo 0.0% 8.3% …..at 6mo 0.0% 18.5% …..at 9 mo 0.0% 38.9% …..at 12mo 0.0% 38.9% Median # months to retreat not es2matable not es2matable

…and more effec2ve?

Alterna2ve Liver-Directed Therapy Op2ons

RFA SBRT HAI SIRT

Single arm RFA studies

Author/year # pts (tumors) Approach local rec survival Solbiati/01 117 (179) perc 39% 3y 36% Gillams/05 73 (174) perc NR 5y 25% Jakobs/06 68 (183) perc 18% 3y 68% Amersi/06 74 (213) perc, lap, open 24% 5y 30% Abitabile/07 47 (174) perc, open 9% 5y 21% Siperstein/07 234 (665) lap 18% 5y 18% Sorensen/07 100 (332) perc, open 11% 4y 26% Veltri/08 122 (199) perc, open 26% 5y 22% Gillams/08 40 (40) perc 42% 5y 40% Sofocleous/11 56 (71) perc 51% 3y 41% Courtesy of Michael D’Angelica, MD

Limita>ons of RFA

Courtesy of Michael D’Angelica, MD

Irreversible Electropora2on (Nanoknife)

Electric fields open holes, PORES, in cell membranes

Neuroendocrine Tumors: Resec2on of Liver Mets and Laparoscopy

Overview of liver directed strategy Chemoemboliza2on Radioemboliza2on Surgery Liver surgery Anatomic vs debulking Timing and indica2ons Periopera2ve issues Minimally invasive strategies Robo2c/laparoscopic resec2on Periopera2ve issues Evidence and Guidelines Outcomes for metastasectomy with cura2ve intent Outcomes for debulking Future strategies

Liver Surgery for NET Mets

Glazer et al., 2010

Primary Resec2on and Liver Resec2on

Gajoux et al., 2012

Midgut NETs, Size, and Metastasis

Strosberg, 2012

Transplant

Surgery

Remove primary (segmental resec2on) with associated mesentery or grossly involved nodes Extended resec2on (anatomic) with lymphadenectomy Lymph node mapping? Synchronous resec2on/debulking of (liver) metasta2c disease

The F Future o

• f L

Liver-Di

• Direct

cted T Therapy y

Tumor-d

• direct

cted tr treatm tment t Molecu cular t targeting Nanoparticl cles Augmented r reality y surgery y