Post on 30-Dec-2016
transcript
CLINICAL STUDY
Metaanalysis of Survival, Complications, andImaging Response following Chemotherapy-based
Transarterial Therapy in Patients with UnresectableIntrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
Charles E. Ray, Jr, MD, PhD, Anthony Edwards, MD, Mitchell T. Smith, MD, MS,Stephen Leong, MD, Kimi Kondo, DO, Matthew Gipson, MD,
Paul J. Rochon, MD, Rajan Gupta, MD, Wells Messersmith, MD,Tom Purcell, MD, MBA, and Janette Durham, MD, MBA
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma represents a devastating illness with poor outcomes when treated with
standard systemic therapies. Several smaller nonrandomized outcomes studies have been reported for such patients undergoing
transarterial therapies. A metaanalysis was performed to assess primary clinical and imaging outcomes, as well as complication rates,
following transarterial interventions in this patient population.
Materials and Methods: By using standard search techniques and metaanalysis methodology, published reports (published in 2012
and before) evaluating survival, complications, and imaging response following transarterial treatments for patients with unresectable
intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma were identified and evaluated.
Results: A total of 16 articles (N ¼ 542 subjects) met the inclusion criteria and are included. Overall survival times were
15.7 months � 5.8 and 13.4 months � 6.7 from the time of diagnosis and time of first treatment, respectively. The overall weighted
1-year survival rate was 58.0% � 14.5. More than three fourths of all subjects (76.8%) exhibited a response or stable disease on
postprocedure imaging; 18.9% of all subjects experienced severe toxicities (National Cancer Institute/World Health Organization
grade Z 3), and most experienced some form of postembolization syndrome. Overall 30-day mortality rate was 0.7%.
Conclusions: As demonstrated by this metaanalysis, transarterial chemotherapy-based treatments for cholangiocarcinoma appears to
confer a survival benefit of 2–7 months compared with systemic therapies, demonstrate a favorable response by imaging criteria, and
have an acceptable postprocedural complication profile. Such therapies should be strongly considered in the treatment of patients with
this devastating illness.
ABBREVIATIONS
HCC = hepatocellular carcinoma, RECIST = Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors
& SIR, 2013
J Vasc Interv Radiol 2013; 24:1218–1226
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2013.03.019
From the SIR 2012 Annual Meeting.
C.E.R. is a paid consultant for Nordion (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada). None of the
other authors have identified a conflict of interest.
From the Departments of Radiology (C.E.R., A.E., M.T.S., K.K., M.G., P.J.R.,
R.G., J.D.) and Medical Oncology (S.L., W.M., T.P.), University of Colorado
School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Mail Stop C276, Leprino
Office Building, 12401 E. 17th Ave., no. 526, Aurora, CO 80045. Received
February 1, 2013; final revision received and accepted March 15, 2013.
Address correspondence to C.E.R.; E-mail: charles.ray@ucdenver.edu
Patients diagnosed with unresectable cholangiocarcinoma
have a poor prognosis, with 5-year survival rates of
approximately 5% and typical survivals times of 5–13
months (1,2). Locoregional therapies, similar to those that
have been shown to prolong survival in other unresectable
hepatic malignancies, including hepatocellular carcinoma
(HCC) (3–5), have also been evaluated in the treatment of
cholangiocarcinoma. Historically, it was difficult to differ-
entiate HCC from cholangiocarcinoma, particularly in the
absence of advanced imaging techniques or biopsy. Many
early studies evaluating outcomes of treatments offered for
primary liver cancer likely inadvertently combined data for
patients with HCC and cholangiocarcinoma. Now under-
stood to be distinct entities, HCC and cholangiocarcinoma
Volume 24 ’ Number 8 ’ August ’ 2013 1219
have been shown to respond differently to systemic
chemotherapy and radiation therapy, and indeed have
different molecular pathways believed to be responsible
for their genesis and progression (6). Cholangiocarcinoma
is a much less common malignancy, with consequently less
robust evidence on the efficacy of chemotherapy-based
transarterial therapies, but several smaller nonrandomized
studies have been published demonstrating variable effi-
cacy of such treatments (7–22).
To resolve questions regarding the survival, response per
Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST),
and toxicity profile following chemotherapy-based trans-
arterial therapy in patients with unresectable cholangiocar-
cinoma, a metaanalysis of the literature published during or
before 2012 was performed. The hypothesis to be tested
was that transarterial therapies may confer improved tumor
response and survival benefit with acceptable toxicities
compared with standard chemotherapies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Literature searches were performed in PubMed and
Embase in August 2011. Two search criteria were used:
one for disease state, and the other for intervention, linked
with the Boolean operator ‘‘AND’’; within those two
Figure 1. Results of literature search.
categories, each term was linked with ‘‘OR.’’ No limitation
terms were placed on the searches; in particular, no study
design or dates of publication limitations were used. A
medical librarian performed parallel searches. The search
was repeated in March 2012, July 2012, and January 2013,
just before abstract and manuscript submission, to ensure
that the most recent literature citations were being used in
the analysis. In addition, a separate search of the Cochrane
Library reviews was performed with the single search term
‘‘cholangiocarcinoma.’’
Initial exclusion criteria included abstracts that were a
case report or letter, did not involve treatment, did not
involve subjects with cholangiocarcinoma, or could not be
translated into English. All abstracts that passed this initial
screening process were reviewed. Publications were
included in the final analysis if they met all the following
criteria (ie, final inclusion criteria): primary data (ie, not a
review) presented from a prospective or retrospective study
or published abstract, outcomes or complications reported,
treatment involved locoregional chemotherapy-based trans-
arterial therapy (ie, transarterial chemotherapeutic infusion
or transarterial chemoembolization), data reported specif-
ically reported for subjects with cholangiocarcinoma if the
study involved additional subjects; and subjects had
unresectable cholangiocarcinoma.
Table 1 . Compilation of Articles Included in Metaanalysis (7–22)
Study, Year
No. of
Pts. Chemotherapeutic Dose per Treatment Embolization Agent
Procedures per
Patient*Median Survival (mo) 1-y Survival
(%)
Severe
Toxicities†From
Diagnosis
From
Procedure
Kuhlmann et al (7), 2012 36 Irinotecan 200 mg; mitomycin C 15 mg DEBs; Gelfoam 1.5 NA �10 41.6 11
Vogl et al (8), 2012 115 Mitomycin C 8 mg/m2, gemcitabine
1,000 mg/m2,
cisplatin 35 mg/m2
DEBs 7.1 NA 13 52 0
Park et al (9), 2011 72 Cisplatin 2 mg/kg Gelfoam 2.5 12.2 NA 51 34
Schiffman et al (10), 2011 24 Irinotecan 75 mg, doxorubicin 150 mg
(median doses)
DEBs 1.8 17.5 NA �68 4
Andrasina et al (11), 2010 17 Cisplatin 45 mg/m2, 5-FU 450 mg/m2 None 1 25.2 NA 88.24 NA
Chaiteerakij et al (12), 2010‡ 32 NA Yes; NS NA 10.66 NA 46.9 NA
Kiefer et al (13), 2010 62 Mitomycin C 10 mg, doxorubicin 50 mg,
cisplatin 100 mg
PVA 2.7 20 15 75 5
Harder et al (14), 2009‡ 13 Irinotecan 200 mg DEBs 1.6 NA NA NA 4
Poggi et al (15), 2009 9 Oxaliplatin 50 mg DEBs 3.3 NA 30 �70 11
Aliberti et al (16), 2008 11 Doxorubicin 75–100 mg DEBs 2.6 NA 13 �76 0
Gusani et al (17), 2008 42 Gemcitabine 1,250–2,250 mg/m2, cisplatin
100–125 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 85–100 mg/m2
Embosphere 3.5 NA 9.1 NA 7
Kim et al (18), 2008 49 Cisplatin 2 mg/kg Gelfoam 3 12 10 46 NA
Shitara et al (19), 2008 20 Mitomycin C 2–8 mg Degradable starch
microspheres
8 NA 14.1 �60 5
Herber et al (20), 2007 15 Mitomycin C 10 mg None 3.9 16.3y 16.3y 54.5 2
Burger et al (21), 2005 17 Cisplatin 100 mg, doxorubicin 50 mg,
mitomycin C 10 mg
PVA or Embosphere NA 23 NA NA 1
Kirchhoff et al (22), 2005 8 Cisplatin 50 mg/m2, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2 Degradable starch
microspheres
2 12y 12y NA 0
DEB ¼ drug-eluting bead, 5-FU ¼ 5-fluorouracil, NA ¼ not applicable, NCI ¼ National Cancer Institute, NS ¼ not specified, PVA ¼ polyvinyl alcohol, WHO ¼ World HealthOrganization.nMedian or mean.†Total NCI/WHO grade 4 3 toxicities from any cause.‡Study published only in abstract form.yDoes not specifically state if survival from time of diagnosis or time of procedure.
Ray
et
al’
JV
IR1220
’M
eta
an
aly
sis:T
ran
sarte
rial
Th
era
py
for
Ch
ola
ng
ioca
rcino
ma
Volume 24 ’ Number 8 ’ August ’ 2013 1221
The following data were recorded from each included
study: subject demographic data, study design, median
survival from the time of diagnosis and time of therapy,
Kaplan–Meier 1-year survival data, response categorized
per RECIST, length of time between therapy and postther-
apy imaging evaluation, number and type of toxicities of
treatment, and type of locoregional therapy, including dose,
embolization agent, and number of treatments per subject.
By using standard metaanalysis methodology, data were
pooled and analyzed. Because of a lack of comparative
arms in the published reports, tests for heterogeneity (I2 or
Cochran Q) were not performed.
Based on the nature of the present study, institutional
review board review was not sought.
RESULTS
The search criteria resulted in an initial 369 citations; 16 of
these studies, which included 542 subjects, fulfilled the
inclusion/exclusion criteria and are included in the meta-
analysis (Fig 1, Table 1) (7–22).
Direct comparisons between studies were limited by
differences in reporting survival (from time of diagnosis vs
from time of procedure) and differences in chemothera-
peutic and embolization agents used. Across the 16 studies,
subjects had similar Child–Pugh disease class (0% with
class C disease) and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
performance status (4 95% with performance status o 2).
For studies presenting such data, the weighted cumulative
median overall survival from the date of diagnosis was 15.7
months � 5.8 (Fig 2) (9–13,18,21); from the dates of
initiation of transarterial therapy, the weighted median overall
survival was 13.4 months � 6.7 (Fig 3) (7–13,15,16,18–20).
The overall weighted average for Kaplan–Meier-calculated
1-year survival was 58.0% � 14.5 (Fig 4). There was not
a substantial difference in survival between studies report-
ing these data. The single exception to this was the study by
Poggi et al (15), in which the median overall survival from
the time of the first procedure was 30 months (Fig 3).
Although this median far exceeds the remainder of the
reported survival times from the other studies used in this
analysis, the small number of subjects in this report (N ¼ 9)
had little influence on the overall average weighted survival
rate; the adjusted weighted median after excluding this report
only decreased from 13.4 months to 12.2 months.
The reported length of time between transarterial chemo-
embolization treatment and the postprocedure imaging eval-
uation was relatively consistent. Of the 10 studies that
reported such data, nine described initial imaging 1–3 months
following therapy (four studies reporting imaging at 3 mo,
three studies reporting imaging at 1–2 months, and two
studies providing a range of 1–3 months) (7,9,10,13,15,16,
18,19,21). The single remaining study (14) described initial
imaging performed 2–4 months after transarterial chemoembo-
lization. The vast majority of studies reported patients being
evaluated with computed tomography (CT) (9,10,15,18–20)
or with CT or magnetic resonance imaging (7,13,14,16). Only
one study (22) mentioned the use of ultrasound (in addition to
CT) to evaluate response.
Nearly one fourth of the reported subjects (22.8%) had a
complete or partial response on imaging based on RECIST,
whereas more than half (53.9%) had stable disease based on
the same criteria (Fig 5). The cumulative responses on
imaging follow-up per RECIST were complete response in
1.6%, partial response in 21.2%, stable disease in 53.9%, and
progressive disease in 23.2% (Fig 5). It is important to note
that the imaging response criteria used was largely RECIST,
not modified RECIST. The former criteria, which were used
in 10 of the 12 studies that reported imaging response
(modified RECIST was used in one (12), and a nonvalidated
scoring system was used in one [22]), reports response as a
change in diameter of the lesion, not the degree of residual
contrast enhancement. However, of the eight total patients
who exhibited a complete response, five were patients from
the one study that used modified RECIST (12). Extracting
these patients from the data set, and using only studies in
which RECIST were used, would provide a complete
response rate of only 0.8% (three of 399 patients).
In determining complication rates, 84 severe toxicities
(National Cancer Institute/World Health Organization gra-
de Z 3) were reported (18.9% of all subjects in those
studies that reported complications; Table 2). There
appeared to be a relatively even distribution of compli-
cation types, including hematologic and nonhematologic
complications. Interestingly, there were higher reported
serious complication rates in the more recent reports
(published in 2010 or later) compared with the earlier
reports (2009 or earlier; 17.1% vs 12.3%; P ¼ .16, w2
analysis). One observation that bears evaluation was the
relatively high severe complication rate when irinotecan was
used as the chemotherapy agent during transarterial
chemoembolization; two of the three studies in which
irinotecan was used (7,14) showed higher severe complica-
tion rates (30.8% and 30.6%) than the 18.8% average.
However, when all three studies in which irinotecan was
used (7,10,14) were pooled, there was no significant increase
in overall severe complication rate compared with studies in
which irinotecan was not used (20.9% vs 18.2%, respec-
tively; P = .673, w2 analysis).
There were four deaths within 30 days of transarterial
chemoembolization, corresponding to a reported mortality
rate of 0.7%. Many subjects experienced postembolization
syndrome; however, because of diverse reporting practices
by the various authors, a specific rate could not be
calculated. When reported, the incidences of postemboli-
zation syndrome ranged from 16% to 100%, but the
majority of studies subjectively described postembolization
syndrome occurring in ‘‘most’’ of their subjects.
For the studies that presented such data, there were a
total of 1,453 procedures performed cumulatively, averag-
ing 4.1 treatments per subject. However, this mean is
skewed by the presence of one very large study (N = 115)
(8) in which the average number of procedures performed
Figure 3. Forest plot of overall survival from the time of first treatment.
Figure 2. Forest plot of overall survival from the time of diagnosis. **Published only in abstract form.
Ray et al ’ JVIR1222 ’ Metaanalysis: Transarterial Therapy for Cholangiocarcinoma
was more than seven per subject. If this single study is
excluded, the mean number of procedures decreases to 2.7
per subject.
Only two studies did not use an embolization agent but
rather performed transarterial chemotherapeutic infusion
therapy (11,20). Indwelling port systems and intermittent
arterial access were used in these studies.
In all 16 studies, chemotherapy agents varied widely, and
included irinotecan, mitomycin C, gemcitabine, cisplatin,
doxorubicin, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin. Embolic agents
Figure 5. Cumulative weighted response per RECIST. RECIST = Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors.
Figure 4. Forest plot of 1-year overall survival by Kaplan–Meier method. **Published only in abstract form.
Volume 24 ’ Number 8 ’ August ’ 2013 1223
were also diverse, and included Gelfoam (Upjohn, Kala-
mazoo, Michigan), polyvinyl alcohol particles, Embosphere
particles (Biosphere, Rockland, Massachusetts), drug-elut-
ing beads, degradable starch microspheres, and Lipiodol
(Guerbet, Roissy, France; Table 1). In a separate analysis,
overall survival rates from the time of first treatment with
drug-eluting beads (with irinotecan and/or doxorubicin)
(7,10,14,16) was compared versus those in studies in which
drug-eluting beads were not used. There was no significant
difference in overall survival between those subjects treated
with drug-eluting beads (16.5 mo) and those not treated
with this technique (12.0 mo; P ¼ .41, Student t test).
Reported overall 1-year survival for the patients treated
with drug-eluting beads was also not significantly different
Table 2 . Toxicities following Intraarterial Therapies in Published Reports (7–22)
Study, Year Chemotherapeutic AgentsToxicities*
PES Complications
Severe Minor
Kuhlmann et al (7), 2012 Irinotecan, mitomycin 11 53 ‘‘Almost all’’ PES; 2 deaths from biliary sepsis
Vogl et al (8), 2012 Multiple groups (mitomycin C, gemcitabine,
and both, with/without cisplatin)
0 NA NA –
Park et al (9), 2011 Cisplatin 34 NA NA All severe: anemia (n ¼ 3), thrombocytopenia (n ¼ 6),
neutropenia (n ¼ 1), increased INR (n ¼ 1);
nonhematologic: increased AST (n ¼ 2,
increased ALT (n ¼ 1), increased ALP (n ¼ 1),
increased bilirubin (n ¼ 1), decreased albumin (n ¼ 1),
pain (n ¼ 3), nausea (n ¼ 1)
Schiffman et al (10), 2011 DEBIRI (n ¼ 35), DEBDOX (n ¼ 7) 4 7/42 4 (16.7) Atrial fibrillation (grade 2; n ¼ 2), hepatic insufficiency
(grade 3; n ¼ 2), and sepsis (grade 4; n ¼ 1), fatal HRS
(n ¼ 1), pneumonia (grade 2; n ¼ 1)
Andrasina et al (11), 2010 Cisplatin and 5-FU NA NA 13 (80) NA
Chaiteerakij et al (12), 2010† NA NA NA NA NA
Kiefer et al (13), 2010 Mitomycin C, doxorubicin, cisplatin 5 NA 107 (65) Pulmonary infarct (grade 2; n ¼ 1), pulmonary edema
(grade 4; n ¼ 1), elevated cardiac enzymes (n ¼ 1), ARF
(n ¼ 1), severe PES (n ¼ 1), hyperglycemia (n ¼ 1)
Harder et al (14), 2010† Irinotecan 4 NA 4 (31) RUQ pain (grade 3; n ¼ 4), RUQ pain (grade 1/2; n ¼ 6)
Poggi et al (15), 2009 Oxaliplatin 11 NA NA Abdominal pain (grade 3; n ¼ 9), hypertensive crisis
(grade 3; n ¼ 1), cholangitis (grade 3; n ¼ 1)
Aliberti et al (16), 2008 Doxorubicin 0 85 29 (100) Hepatic abscess (n ¼ 1), 95% grade 2 nausea/vomiting
(n ¼ 27), 100% neoplastic fever
Gusani et al (17), 2008 Gemcitabine (100%), cisplatin, oxaliplatin‡ 7 NA ‘‘Most’’ MI (grade 4; n ¼ 1), hepatic abscess (grade 4; n ¼ 1),
thrombocytopenia (n ¼ 1), sepsis (n ¼ 1)
Kim et al (18), 2008 Cisplatin NA NA ‘‘Most’’ Hepatic abscess (n ¼ 1), ‘‘most’’ patients with fever, nausea,
or vomiting (low grade)
Shitara et al (19), 2008 Mitomycin C 5 62/20 NA Duodenal ulcer (grade 3; n ¼ 3), RUQ pain (grade 3; n ¼ 2),
nausea (grade 3; n ¼ 1), anorexia (grade 3; n ¼ 1)
Herber et al (20), 2007 Mitomycin C 2 12/58 6 (40) Anaphylactic shock (grade 4; n ¼ 1), gastric ulceration (grade 4;
n ¼ 1), grade 1/2 nausea/vomiting (n ¼ 4), RUQ pain (n ¼ 6),
hepatic artery spasm (n ¼ 2)
Burger et al (21), 2005 Cisplatin, doxorubicin, mitomycin C 1 2/17 NA Fatal massive UGI bleeding (n ¼ 1)
Kirchhoff et al (22), 2005 Cisplatin, doxorubicin 0 NA NA Common nausea and fever
Values in parentheses are percentages where appropriate.ALP ¼ alkaline phosphatase, ALT ¼ alanine transaminase, ARF ¼ acute renal failure, AST ¼ aspartate transaminase, DEBDOX ¼ drug-eluting beads with doxorubicin, DEBIRI ¼drug-eluting beads with irinotecan, 5-FU ¼ 5-fluorouracil, HRS ¼ hepatorenal syndrome, INR ¼ International Normalized Ratio, MI ¼ myocardial infarction, NA ¼ not reported,NCI ¼ National Cancer Institute, PES ¼ postembolization syndrome, RUQ ¼ right upper quadrant, UGI ¼ upper gastrointestinal, WHO ¼ World Health Organization.nToxicities from any cause, events/subjects or procedure. Severe toxicities are NCI/WHO grade 4 3; minor are NCI/WHO grade o 3.†Study published only in abstract form.‡Gemcitabine was administered in all patients: with/without cisplatin (n ¼ 2) or with/without oxaliplatin (n ¼ 4), or gemcitabine with/without cisplatin in combination (n ¼ 14) orgemcitabine and cisplatin followed by oxaliplatin (n ¼ 4).
Ray
et
al’
JV
IR1224
’M
eta
an
aly
sis:T
ran
sarte
rial
Th
era
py
for
Ch
ola
ng
ioca
rcino
ma
Volume 24 ’ Number 8 ’ August ’ 2013 1225
than in those patients treated with standard transarterial
chemoembolization therapy (61.8% vs 59.7%, respectively;
P ¼ .339, Student t test).
DISCUSSION
In the present metaanalysis of 16 studies examining out-
comes following transarterial therapies in unresectable
cholangiocarcinoma, heterogeneity and small sample sizes
across studies made some comparisons difficult. However,
some important conclusions may be drawn.
The median survival from the time of diagnosis of
15.7 months (13.4 mo from time of treatment) following
transarterial therapies is generally higher than rates
reported with the use of only systemic treatments. Histor-
ically, most studies of single-agent chemotherapy regimens
report overall survival rates ranging from 5 to 8 months
(1,23–26). As always, however, one must be mindful of
selection bias when comparing specific disease interven-
tions with historical controls, as many of the subjects
represented in the historical studies may have been
excluded from transarterial therapies for various reasons.
Two recent studies (27,28) have reported improved sur-
vival rates for subjects undergoing combination systemic
chemotherapy (gemcitabine and cisplatin) in this popula-
tion. Although somewhat confusing because of how the
data were reported, by combining the results following
treatment of various forms of cholangiocarcinoma (eg,
intrahepatic, extrahepatic, and gallbladder carcinoma), both
these studies (27,28) demonstrated mean survival times
(11.7 mo and 13.0 mo) for intrahepatic and/or nongall-
bladder cholangiocarcinoma that are more favorable than
historical survival rates for the same disease processes.
Regarding tumor response per RECIST, more than three
fourths of all subjects showed a response or stable disease;
however, the majority of these subjects (53.9% of all
patients) exhibited stable disease by imaging criteria. It
is important to note that, with one exception (N ¼ 32), all
the studies included in this analysis used RECIST to eval-
uate response (12). With the increasing use of newer
imaging response criteria (eg, modified RECIST, European
Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer), in
which enhancement patterns rather than overall size of the
lesion are measured, it is expected that imaging responses
will increase as a result of the use of these less stringent
criteria. Therefore, care should be taken when comparing
studies that use different imaging response criteria.
Complication rates were relatively high, with severe
complications (ie, National Cancer Institute/World Health
Organization grade 4 3) seen in a total of 18.9% of
patients. In addition, most studies reported minor toxicities
in the majority of subjects. These minor toxicities were
largely those associated with postembolization syndrome
(minor pain, fever, nausea/vomiting, fatigue), whereas the
major toxicities were highly variable but tended to be
nonhematologic. Finally, there was a very low overall 30-
day mortality rate (0.7%).
The limitations of the present study include insufficient
data to allow comparative conclusions to be drawn in terms
of efficacy based on type of chemotherapeutic agent(s)
used for transarterial therapies. In addition, many other
technical factors—such as the type of embolic agent
used and how selective the embolization procedures
were—potentially confound the results of this analysis as
a result of the substantial heterogeneity and lack of power
in the reported cases. Many of the studies did not report
whether their patients were treatment-naive or had received
chemotherapy previously. Of those studies that did report
on previous treatment (7,9–11,13,15,16,18–22), previous
exposure to therapy was highly variable (0%–100%), and
the data were typically not presented in such a way to
allow stratification of the groups. The fact that the included
studies were published over a relatively long period of time
(8 y) also adds to the potential for selection bias and
technical heterogeneity. Two of the studies (N ¼ 32 and
N ¼ 13) included in the final analysis (12,14) were
published in abstract form only, raising concerns that these
publications did not undergo a robust peer-review process.
The subjects included in the final analysis were from
manuscripts published around the world, including Asia,
Europe, and North America; this raises the concern that the
underlying disease process, techniques used in treatment,
indication for repeat treatment, and selection bias for
patients undergoing transarterial therapy may skew the
results, or perhaps make the overall results less general-
izable to any specific patient population. The lack of
standardization of reporting findings poses notable limi-
tations when evaluating the entire dataset. Finally, although
care was taken to identify all pertinent published articles, it
is possible that some published data were missed in the
initial and follow-up searches.
Although not included in the present metaanalysis, there
have been several recent studies evaluating selective internal
radiation therapy with yttrium-90 (90Y) in the treatment of
cholangiocarcinoma (29–31). These early data are promis-
ing, and demonstrate median survival rates from the time of
first 90Y treatment ranging from 9.3 to 22.0 months. As is
common with early studies, 90Y therapy was often used as
salvage therapy in these publications, with many subjects (as
many as 79%) having received previous systemic chemo-
therapy or presenting with extrahepatic disease (as many as
48%) (29,30). Further studies are needed to more fully
elucidate the role of selective internal radiation therapy in
the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma.
As demonstrated by the present metaanalysis, trans-
arterial chemotherapy–based treatments for cholangiocar-
cinoma appears to confer a survival benefit compared with
systemic therapies. This survival benefit appears to be most
substantial when compared versus single-agent systemic
chemotherapy, although the data are less compelling
for combination chemotherapy for intrahepatic cholangio-
carcinoma and nongallbladder cholangiocarcinoma. As
Ray et al ’ JVIR1226 ’ Metaanalysis: Transarterial Therapy for Cholangiocarcinoma
demonstrated by this metaanalysis, transarterial chemotherapy–
based treatments for cholangiocarcinoma demonstrated a
favorable response by imaging criteria, and has an accept-
able postprocedural complication profile. Such therapies
should be strongly considered in the treatment of patients
with this devastating illness.
REFERENCES
1. Khan SA, Thomas HC, Davidson BR, Taylor-Robinson SD Cholangiocar-
cinoma. Lancet 2005; 366:1303–1314. Erratum in: Lancet 2006;
367:1656.
2. Zechlinski JJ, Rilling WS. Transarterial therapies for the treatment of
intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Semin Intervent Radiol 2013; 30:21–27.
3. Lo CM, Ngan H, Tso WK, et al. Randomized controlled trial of trans-
arterial lipiodol chemoembolization for unresectable hepatocellular carci-
noma. Hepatology 2002; 35:1164–1171.
4. Llovet JM, Real MI, Montana X, et al. Arterial embolization or chemo-
embolization versus symptomatic treatment in patients with unresect-
able hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2002;
359:1734–1739.
5. Marelli L, Stigliano R, Triantos C, et al. Transarterial therapy for
hepatocellular carcinoma: which technique is more effective? A system-
atic review of cohort and randomized studies. Cardiovasc Intervent
Radiol 2007; 30:6–25.
6. Patt YZ, Hassan MM, Aguayo A, et al. Oral capecitabine for the
treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, and gallblad-
der carcinoma. Cancer 2004; 101:578–586.
7. Kuhlmann JB, Euringer W, Spangenberg HC, et al. Treatment of unre-
sectable cholangiocarcinoma: conventional transarterial chemoembolization
compared with drug eluting bead-transarterial chemoembolization and
systemic chemotherapy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 24:437–443.
8. Vogl TJ, Naguid NNN, Nour-Eldin NEA, et al. Transarterial chemo-
embolization in the treatment of patients with unresectable cholangio-
carcinoma: results and prognostic factors governing treatment success.
Int J Cancer 2011; 131:733–740.
9. Park SY, Kim JH, Yoon HJ, Lee IS, Yoon HK, Kim KP. Transarterial
chemoembolization versus supportive therapy in the palliative treatment
of unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Clin Radiol 2011; 66:
322–328.
10. Schiffman SC, Metzger T, Dubel G, et al. Precision hepatic arterial
irinotecan therapy in the treatment of unresectable intrahepatic chol-
angiocellular carcinoma: optimal tolerance and prolonged overall survival.
Ann Surg Oncol 2011; 18:431–438.
11. Andrasina T, Valek V, Panek J, et al. Multimodal oncological therapy
comprising stents, brachytherapy, and regional chemotherapy for chol-
angiocarcinoma. Gut Liver 2012; 4(suppl):S82–S88.
12. Chaiteerakij R, Schmit G, Mettler TA, Andrews J, Roberts LR. Trans-
arterial chemoembolization (TACE) improved survival in unresectable
intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. 61st Annual Meeting of the American
Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (abstr.). Hepatology 2010;
52(suppl):1137A.
13. Kiefer MV, Albert M, McNally M, et al. Chemoembolization of intra-
hepatic cholangiocarcinoma with cisplatinum, doxorubicin, mitomycin C,
Ethiodol, and polyvinyl alcohol: a 2-center study. Cancer 2011; 117:
1498–1505.
14. Harder J, Euringer W, Langer M, Thimme R, Blum HE,
Spangenberg HC. Transarterial chemoembolization of intrahepatic
cholangiocarcinomas with irinotecan-eluting beads: preliminary results.
60th Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver
Diseases (abstr.). Hepatology 2009; 50(suppl 4):1116A.
15. Poggi G, Amatu A, Montagna B, et al. OEM-TACE: a new therapeutic
approach in unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Cardiovasc
Intervent Radiol 2009; 32:1187–1192.
16. Aliberti C, Benea G, Massimo T, Giorentini G. Chemoembolization
(TACE) of unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with slow-
release doxorubicin-eluting beads: preliminary results. Cardiovasc Inter-
vent Radiol 2008; 31:883–888.
17. Gusani NJ, Balaa FK, Steel AL, et al. Treatment of unresectable
cholangiocarcinoma with gemcitabine-based transcatheter arterial che-
moembolization (TACE): a single institution experience. J Gastrointest
Surg 2008; 12:129–137.
18. Kim JH, Yoon HK, Sung KB, et al. Transcatheter arterial chemoembo-
lization or chemoinfusion for unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarci-
noma: clinical efficacy and factors influencing outcomes. Cancer 2008;
113:1614–1622.
19. Shitara K, Ikami I, Munakata M, Muto O, Sakata Y. Hepatic arterial
infusion of mitomycin C with degradable starch microspheres for unre-
sectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Clin Oncol 2008; 20:241–246.
20. Herber S, Otto G, Schnieder J, et al. Transarterial chemoembolization
(TACE) for inoperable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Cardiovasc Inter-
vent Radiol 2007; 30:1156–1165.
21. Burger I, Hong K, Schulick R, et al. Transcatheter arterial chemo-
embolization in unresectable cholangiocarcinoma: initial experience in a
single institution. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005; 16:353–361.
22. Kirchhoff T, Zender L, Merkesdal S, et al. Initial experience from a
combination of systemic and regional chemotherapy in the treatment of
patients with nonresectable cholangiocellular carcinoma in the liver.
World J Gastroenterol 2005; 11:1091–1095.
23. Alberts SR, Gores GJ, Kim GP, et al. Treatment options for hepatobili-
ary and pancreatic cancer. Mayo Clin Proc 2007; 82:628–637.
24. Mazhar D, Stebbing J, Bower M. Chemotherapy for advanced chol-
angiocarcinoma: what is standard treatment? Future Oncol 2006; 2:
509–514.
25. Okusaka T, Ishii H, Funakoshi A, et al. Phase II study of single-agent
gemcitabine in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. Cancer
Chemother Pharmacol 2006; 57:647–653.
26. Dingle BH, Rumble RB, Brouwers MC. The role of gemcitabine in the
treatment of cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder cancer: a systematic
review. Can J Gastroenterol 2005; 19:711–716.
27. Valle JW, Wasan H, Johnson P, et al. Gemcitabine alone or in combina-
tion with cisplatin in patients with advanced or metastatic cholangiocarci-
nomas or other biliary tract tumours: a multicentre randomised phase II
study – the UK ABC-01 Study. Br J Cancer 2009; 101:621–627.
28. Okusaka T, Nakachi K, Fukutomi A, et al. Gemcitabine alone or in
combination with cisplatin in patients with biliary tract cancer: a com-
parative multicentre study in Japan. Br J Cancer 2010; 103:469–474.
29. Hoffmann RT, Paprottka PM, Schon A, et al. Transarterial hepatic
yttrium-90 radioembolization in patients with unresectable intrahepatic
cholangiocarcinoma: factors associated with prolonged survival. Cardio-
vasc Intervent Radiol 2012; 35:105–116.
30. Saxena A, Bester L, Chua TC, Chu FC, Morris DL. Yttrium-90 radio-
therapy for unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a preliminary
assessment of this novel treatment option. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17:
484–491.
31. Ibrahim SM, Mulcahy MF, Lewandowski RJ, et al. Treatment of
unresectable cholangiocarcinoma using yttrium-90 microspheres: results
from a pilot study. Cancer 2008; 113:2119–2128.