Published online Jan 30, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.0496
Comparison of Radioembolization and Sorafenib for the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Portal Vein Tumor Thrombosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Safety and Efficacy
Abstract
Objective
To compare the safety and efficacy of radioembolization with that of sorafenib for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT).
Materials and Methods
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes in patients with HCC and PVTT treated with radioembolization or sorafenib. Meta-analyses of cumulative overall survival (OS) and Kaplan-Meier survival rates according to the time to progression (TTP) and incidence of adverse events (AEs) were performed. Subgroup analyses were conducted on 1-year OS data.
Results
Seventeen studies were identified (four involving radioembolization, 10 involving sorafenib, and three comparing both). Pooled OS rates were higher in the radioembolization group, notably at 6 months {76% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64–85%) vs. 54% (95% CI, 45–62%)} and 1 year (47% [95% CI, 38–57%] vs. 24% [95% CI, 18–30%]); TTP was also longer with radioembolization. In patients undergoing radioembolization, the proportion of patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status 0 (p < 0.0001), Child-Pugh A (p < 0.0001), extrahepatic metastasis (p = 0.0012), and a history of cancer treatment (p = 0.0048) was identified as a significant source of heterogeneity for the 1-year OS. Radioembolization was associated with a lower incidence of grade 3/4 AEs than sorafenib (9% [95% CI, 3–27%] vs. 28% [95% CI, 17–43%]).
Conclusion
Compared with sorafenib, radioembolization is a safer and more effective treatment for HCC with PVTT and is associated with prolonged survival, delayed tumor progression, and fewer grade 3/4 AEs.
INTRODUCTION
Primary liver cancer is the fourth most common cause of cancer-related death worldwide (1), with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) accounting for 90% of primary liver cancers (2). Portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) is a major concern in patients with HCC, developing in > 30% of patients during the disease course and presenting as an initial manifestation in 10–40% of the patients (3). PVTT is a strong negative prognostic factor and is associated with a median survival of only 2–4 months if left untreated (3, 4, 5). Therefore, the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) guidelines classify HCC with PVTT as advanced-stage disease (BCLC stage C) (2).
Sorafenib is currently the only evidence-based therapeutic option for patients with HCC and PVTT, and is recommended by the BCLC, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, and European guidelines (2, 6, 7). However, studies of sorafenib for the treatment of HCC with PVTT have shown a median overall survival (OS) period of only 3.1–6.0 months (8, 9, 10, 11). Sorafenib therapy is also associated with poor tolerability and discontinuation, and dose reduction is often required due to adverse events (AEs) such as diarrhea, fatigue, and hand-foot skin reaction (12, 13, 14, 15). Therefore, ongoing research aims to identify alternative treatments that may improve OS and maintain good compliance.
Radioembolization with yttrium-90 (90Y), also referred to as selective internal radiation therapy, is a promising therapeutic option for primary and metastatic liver cancer (16, 17). 90Y-loaded microspheres are delivered to the blood vessels supplying the tumor via the hepatic artery, allowing localized high-dose radiation to be delivered to the hepatic tumors. The small microspheres deliver radiation with a short depth of penetration (approximately 2.5 mm), thereby effectively inducing tumor necrosis while sparing the surrounding normal liver parenchyma. There is growing evidence to support the use of radioembolization, particularly in the treatment of HCC with PVTT (18, 19, 20, 21). Three retrospective studies have compared treatment with radioembolization and sorafenib in this patient group (22, 23, 24), and two of these demonstrated favorable OS with radioembolization (22, 23). In addition, severe AEs were less frequent in patients undergoing radioembolization (3–18% vs. 16–45% in the sorafenib groups) (22, 24).
However, the lack of large prospective studies or randomized controlled trials means that there is currently insufficient evidence to support the widespread use of radioembolization for the treatment of HCC with PVTT. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available studies to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of radioembolization and sorafenib for the treatment of patients with HCC and PVTT.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (25).
Search Strategy and Eligibility Criteria
A search of the MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify original studies of the safety and efficacy of radioembolization or sorafenib for the treatment of HCC with PVTT, using pertinent MESH terms and common keywords (Supplementary Table 1 in the online-only Data Supplement). All publications until 14 September 2018 were included in this initial search. Bibliographies of relevant articles were also searched as well as Google and Google Scholar. The search was restricted to English language articles.
After eliminating duplicates, articles were screened on the basis of the title and abstract; case reports, reviews, letters, and conference abstracts were excluded. Full-text articles were then thoroughly assessed according to the following eligibility criteria: 1) population: patients diagnosed with HCC with PVTT; 2) intervention/exposure: treatment with radioembolization and follow-up after treatment; 3) comparison: treatment with sorafenib and follow-up after treatment; 4) outcome: cumulative OS rates or sufficient details to enable indirect estimation of OS rates. Publications were excluded if they met any of the following criteria: 1) articles investigating issues not directly relevant to this study; 2) studies that included patients with and without PVTT where data from the two groups could not be separated; 3) studies that included patients who had previously undergone counterpart therapy (radioembolization or sorafenib), where data could not be separated; 4) insufficient data to obtain cumulative survival rates; 5) sample size < 20 patients; 6) data included in subsequent articles or duplicate reports.
The literature search and application of criteria were conducted independently by two authors; any discrepancy was resolved through discussion and consensus with a third author.
Data Extraction and Study Endpoints
The following variables were extracted from the eligible studies: 1) study characteristics (first author, publication year, study design, study location, and period); 2) demographic and patient characteristics (sample size, patient age and sex, etiology of HCC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status, Child-Pugh class, history of previous treatment); 3) tumor characteristics (alpha-fetoprotein [aFP] level, tumor size, tumor burden, main portal vein involvement, extrahepatic metastasis); and 4) types of intra-arterial vectors used for radioembolization (glass or resin-based). Data extraction was independently conducted by the two authors, and any discrepancy was arbitrated by a third. Any additional patient data were requested from the study authors when necessary.
The primary study outcome was OS at 3 and 6 months, and 1, 2, and 3 years. The secondary study outcomes were the Kaplan-Meier (KM) rates according to time to progression (TTP) analysis and AEs. Engauge Digitizer (Version 10.7; http://markummitchell.github.io/engauge-
Quality Assessment
The quality of the eligible studies was independently evaluated using the US National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment of Case Series Studies tool (26). Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality, with all discrepancies being resolved at a consensus meeting in the presence of a third reviewer.
Data Synthesis and Statistical Analysis
Meta-analyses were based on the inverse variance method for calculating weights. Pooled OS, KM rates according to TTP analysis, and incidence rates of AEs (including 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were determined using the restricted maximum-likelihood estimation of the random-effects model. Heterogeneity across studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Q-test and the I2 statistic. A p value < 0.10 in the Q-test was considered to indicate substantial heterogeneity. I2 was interpreted as suggested in the literature: 0–25%, might not be important; 25–50%, low heterogeneity; 50–75%, moderate heterogeneity; and 75–100%, high heterogeneity (27). Publication bias was evaluated using the funnel plot and Egger's test, with p < 0.1 indicating significant publication bias (28).
Meta-regression analyses were performed to examine the source of heterogeneity for the 1-year OS rate, stratified by treatment arms. All statistical analyses were performed using R software (version 3.1.2; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) with the “metafor” package, and line graphs were drawn with the “ggplot2” package.
RESULTS
Literature Selection
A total of 288 non-duplicated studies were identified, 285 from the databases, and 3 from the Google search (Fig. 1). Of these, 234 articles were excluded on the basis of their titles and abstract and 54 potentially eligible full-text articles were assessed according to the eligibility criteria. Seventeen studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis (8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34).
Fig. 1
Flowchart of publication selection process.
PVTT = portal vein tumor thrombosis
Study Characteristics
The detailed study characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Four studies reported radioembolization data (19, 20, 21, 33), ten reported sorafenib data (8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34), and three compared both treatments using a retrospective approach (22, 23, 24). Among the studies investigating radioembolization, four used glass-based intra-arterial vectors (19, 20, 22, 33), two used resin-based vectors (23, 24), and one used both (21). Six studies were prospective (13, 19, 29, 32, 33, 34), and eleven were retrospective (8, 9, 10, 11, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 30, 31). Sample size ranged from 22 to 269 patients, and the mean patient age ranged from 48 years to 72 years. The proportion of patients with ECOG 0 was 0–96%; Child-Pugh class A, 47–100%; aFP ≥ 400 ng/mL, 35–67%; tumor burden ≥ 50% of the liver, 0–55%; extrahepatic metastasis, 0–63%; main portal vein involvement, 0–100%; and no history of previous cancer treatment, 50–100%. The mean/median maximum tumor size was 6.0–11.2 cm.
Table 1
Study Characteristics
Previous cancer treatments included transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) or transcatheter arterial chemotherapy infusion, radiofrequency ablation, external beam radiotherapy, or liver transplantation.
Study Quality
The quality of the studies included in this analysis was assessed to be good (n = 14) or fair (n = 3). Therefore, no publications were excluded from the analysis on the basis of quality. Further details of study quality are shown in Supplementary Table 2 in the online-only Data Supplement.
OS: Meta-Analysis
Seven studies were analyzed for the pooled OS analysis of patients treated with radioembolization (19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 33). The meta-analysis showed that the 3-month, 6-month, and 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates were 93% (95% CI, 86–98%; I2 = 82.4%), 76% (95% CI, 64–85%; I2 = 83.7%), 47% (95% CI, 38–57%; I2 = 70.3%), 27% (95% CI, 17–38%; I2 = 82.5%), and 16% (95% CI, 7–27%; I2 = 84.8%), respectively (Fig. 2). Moderate to high study heterogeneity was observed at all points. No significant publication bias was detected with the exception of the 3-year OS (p = 0.062) (Supplementary Fig. 1 in the online-only Data Supplement).
Fig. 2
Forest plots of OS for (A) RE and (B) SOR.
CI = confidence interval, OS = overall survival, RE = radioembolization, SOR = sorafenib
Thirteen studies were analyzed for the pooled OS analysis of patients treated with sorafenib (8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34). The meta-analysis yielded 3-month, 6-month, and 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates of 82% (95% CI, 76–87%; I2 = 74.5%), 54% (95% CI, 45–62%; I2 = 82.5%), 24% (95% CI, 18–30%; I2 = 71.3%), 11% (95% CI, 7–17%; I2 = 67.4%), and 7% (95% CI, 2–13%; I2 = 75.1%), respectively (Fig. 2). Although no significant publication bias was detected (Supplementary Fig. 1 in the online-only Data Supplement), moderate to high study heterogeneity was observed at all points.
Comparison of the two treatment arms showed that OS was higher in patients undergoing radioembolization than in those treated with sorafenib at all points, with this difference being significant at the 6-month and 1-year timepoints (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3
Meta-analysis estimates of (A) OS and (B) KM rates according to TTP analysis across follow-up period.
Error bars represent 95% CI. KM = Kaplan-Meier, TTP = time to progression
TTP: Meta-Analysis
Two studies were included in the pooled analysis of KM rates according to TTP in patients treated with radioembolization (19, 24). Meta-analysis showed that the 3-month, 6-month, and 1- and 2-year KM survival rates were 32% (95% CI, 15–51%; I2 = 60.2%), 46% (95% CI, 34–58%; I2 = 0%), 63% (95% CI, 49–77%; I2 = 27.7%), and 63% (95% CI, 49–77%; I2 = 27.7%), respectively (Fig. 4). Pooling of the 3-year data was not possible because data were available from only a single study at that timepoint (24). No substantial study heterogeneity was observed, with the exception of the 3-month timepoint. No significant publication bias was detected (Supplementary Fig. 2 in the online-only Data Supplement).
Fig. 4
Forest plots of KM rates according to TTP analysis for (A) RE and (B) SOR.
Six studies were included in the analysis of pooled KM rates according to TTP in patients treated with sorafenib (9, 10, 11, 24, 30, 34). Meta-analysis showed that the 3-month, 6-month, and 1-, 2-, and 3-year KM survival rates were 62% (95% CI, 55–69%; I2 = 39.4%), 87% (95% CI, 76–95%; I2 = 84.1%), 94% (95% CI, 84–99%; I2 = 78.2%), 93% (95% CI, 77–100%; I2 = 82.8%), and 93% (95% CI, 77–100%; I2 = 82.8%), respectively (Fig. 4). While no significant publication bias was detected (Supplementary Fig. 2 in the online-only Data Supplement), moderate to high study heterogeneity was observed at all except the 3-month timepoint.
When comparing the two treatment arms, the KM rate was lower in the radioembolization versus the sorafenib group at all timepoints, with significant differences seen at the 3-month, 6-month, and 1-year timepoints (Fig. 3).
Meta-Regression Analysis for 1-Year OS
Meta-regression analysis including whole studies regardless of treatment arms revealed that the 1-year OS rate was significantly higher in the radioembolization group, compared with the sorafenib group (p < 0.0001).
Among patients undergoing radioembolization, the proportions of patients in the study population with ECOG 0 (p < 0.0001), Child-Pugh A (p < 0.0001), extrahepatic metastasis (p = 0.0012), and a previous history of HCC treatment (p = 0.0048) were identified as a significant source of heterogeneity. Indeed, there was a 0.33%, 0.53%, and 1.04% increase in the 1-year OS for every 1% increase in the proportion of patients with ECOG 1, Child-Pugh A, and a previous history of HCC treatment, and a 1.12% decrease in the 1-year OS was seen for every 1% increase in the proportion of patients with extrahepatic metastasis.
In patients receiving sorafenib, publication year (p = 0.0127) was identified as significant sources of heterogeneity. Indeed, there was a 4.43% increase in 1-year OS for every 1-year increase in the publication year. Detailed results of the meta-regression analyses are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Summary of Meta-Regression Analyses of 1-Year Overall Survival Data
AEs
The pooled incidence of grade 3/4 AEs in patients undergoing radioembolization was 9% (95% CI, 3–27%; I2 = 37.1%) (Table 3). The pooled estimate showed low study heterogeneity with no significant publication bias (p > 0.999). Pooling of grade 1/2 AEs was not possible because data were only available from a single study (24).
Table 3
Summary of Adverse Events Following RE
The pooled incidence of grade 1/2 and grade 3/4 AEs in patients receiving sorafenib was 49% (95% CI, 34–64%; I2 = 83.9%) and 28% (95% CI, 17–43%; I2 = 88.7%), respectively (Table 4). While publication bias was not observed in either estimate (p = 1.000 and 0.180, respectively), a high degree of study heterogeneity was noted in both.
Table 4
Summary of Adverse Events Associated with SOR Treatment
When comparing the two treatment arms, radioembolization showed a lower rate of grade 3/4 AEs than sorafenib, but without statistical significance (9% vs. 28%; p = 0.129).
DISCUSSION
This meta-analysis showed that radioembolization may be an effective therapeutic option for the treatment of patients with HCC and PVTT, showing higher OS and longer TTP versus sorafenib. In addition, radioembolization was associated with a lower incidence of grade 3/4 AEs versus sorafenib.
The observed improvement in treatment outcomes associated with radioembolization could be explained by the fact that the main cause of death in patients with advanced HCC is intrahepatic progression, rather than the complications related to metastasis (24). One prospective study (35) showed that among 61 patients with HCC and PVTT who experienced cancer progression, 64% had intrahepatic progression while only 24% experienced extrahepatic metastasis prior to death. This indicates that a locoregional treatment, rather than systemic therapy, may play an important role in the management of HCC with PVTT. Indeed, responses to sorafenib therapy were seen to be poor in two studies, the Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma Assessment Randomized Protocol (36) and the Asia-Pacific trial (15), which demonstrated no complete responses and only 0.7–3.3% partial response. Therefore, TACE has been widely performed in patients with HCC and macrovascular invasion in Asian countries (37, 38). Radioembolization is an alternative locoregional treatment that induces tumor necrosis by delivering localized radiation via intra-arterial injection of 90Y, thereby targeting the tumor with minimal risk of liver ischemia (39). The use of radioembolization can be supported by the results of two retrospective studies comparing radioembolization and sorafenib in patients with HCC and PVTT, with a higher OS observed in those undergoing radioembolization (22, 23). Although the “SorAfenib versus Radioembolization in Advanced Hepatocellular carcinoma” (SARAH) (14) and “Selective Internal Radiation Therapy Versus Sorafenib” (SIRveNIB) trials (40) failed to demonstrate the superiority of radioembolization versus sorafenib in terms of OS, these two studies were not restricted to HCC patients with PVTT. Therefore, although the results are still exploratory, radioembolization has considerable promise as a valuable therapeutic option for patients with HCC and PVTT.
In the present meta-regression analysis, a higher proportion of patients with ECOG 0, Child-Pugh class A, a previous history of HCC treatment, and a lower proportion of extrahepatic metastasis in the radioembolization group was associated with higher 1-year OS. In other words, patients with a better general condition and liver function without extrahepatic metastasis, or those who had previously undergone HCC treatment, may show better outcomes following radioembolization. Regarding extrahepatic metastasis, in the SARAH trial, patients undergoing radioembolization showed a significantly lower cumulative incidence of intrahepatic progression and significantly higher cumulative incidence of extrahepatic progression than those treated with sorafenib (14). This indicates the better local efficacy related to radioembolization. Therefore, radioembolization can be expected to be associated with improved efficacy in patients with HCC and PVTT confined to the liver. Considering these results, patients in a good general condition, with preserved liver function and no extrahepatic metastasis, may be considered to be good candidates for radioembolization. Further investigations using individual patient data are required for more detailed analyses of the indications for radioembolization.
In this meta-analysis, radioembolization showed a trend towards a lower incidence rate of grade 3/4 AEs than sorafenib (9% vs. 28%; p = 0.129). Although comparison of the incidence rates of grade 1/2 AEs was limited, the rate reported in one study using radioembolization (24) was slightly lower than the pooled incidence rate of sorafenib (40.6% vs. 49%; 95% CI, 34–64%). This suggests a better safety profile for radioembolization than sorafenib, which is in agreement with previous reports (14, 22, 24, 40). Two randomized controlled trials (SARAH and SIRveNIB) both demonstrated a lower incidence of any grade AEs with radioembolization versus sorafenib (77% vs. 93% and 60% vs. 85%, respectively); similar results were seen with respect to grade 3/4 AEs (41% vs. 63% and 28% vs. 51%, respectively). In addition, better quality of life was seen in the radioembolization group versus the sorafenib group (14, 40). In the SARAH trial, the rate of discontinuation of sorafenib due to drug-related toxicity reached 64%, and 78% of these patients discontinued the drug permanently. Two retrospective studies of populations restricted to HCC with PVTT also demonstrated a lower incidence of severe AEs in patients undergoing radioembolization versus sorafenib (3–18% vs. 16–45%) (22, 24). The safety profile associated with radioembolization is likely to result from its unique mode of action. Compared with TACE, it can produce anti-tumor effects without arterial obstruction, thereby minimizing the risk of liver ischemia regardless of PVTT. Moreover, the average depth of penetration of local radiation emitted from 90Y is only 2.5 mm, which means that the adjacent liver parenchyma is spared from damage (39). However, it should be noted that radioembolization can cause several radiation-induced complications in the liver, gallbladder, and lungs (16). Therefore, while radioembolization may be associated with a better safety profile than sorafenib, comprehensive pretreatment evaluation should be conducted to reduce the risk of radiation-induced complications.
The current analysis has several limitations. First, the majority of the eligible studies (11 of 17, 65%) were retrospective, therefore introducing the risk of selection bias. Secondly, there were limitations in extracting the exact survival data from the study regarding censored subjects and how these might affect the results. Thirdly, only two studies were used for calculating pooled estimates of TTP in the radioembolization group, thereby reducing the robustness of the results. Further investigations seem mandatory to verify our results. Finally, substantial heterogeneity was observed regarding OS and TTP. Although this could affect the meta-analysis, the reasons for the study heterogeneity were explored thoroughly using meta-regression analysis.
In conclusion, radioembolization is an effective therapeutic option with a good safety profile that may be preferable to sorafenib in the treatment of HCC and PVTT. Patients in good general condition, with preserved liver function and no extrahepatic metastasis, may be good candidates for radioembolization. Further investigation will be required to clarify the best therapeutic strategy for patients with HCC and PVTT.
Supplementary Materials
The online-only Data Supplement is available with this article at https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.0496.
Supplementary Table 1
MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Search Strategy
Click here to view.(32K, pdf)
Supplementary Table 2
Quality Assessment of Included Studies
Click here to view.(33K, pdf)
Supplementary Fig. 1
Funnel plots of OS for (A) radioembolization and (B) sorafenib.
Click here to view.(380K, pdf)
Supplementary Fig. 2
Funnel plots of KM rates according to TTP analysis for (A) radioembolization and (B) sorafenib.
Click here to view.(352K, pdf)Conflicts of Interest:The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. Yuan-Hung Kuo (Division of Hepatogastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine) for providing raw patient data.
References
-
European Association For The Study Of The Liver; European Organisation For Research And Treatment Of Cancer. EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2012;56:908–943.
-
-
Schöniger-Hekele M, Müller C, Kutilek M, Oesterreicher C, Ferenci P, Gangl A. Hepatocellular carcinoma in Central Europe: prognostic features and survival. Gut 2001;48:103–109.
-
-
Vilgrain V, Pereira H, Assenat E, Guiu B, Ilonca AD, Pageaux GP, et al. SARAH Trial Group. Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1624–1636.
-
-
Iñarrairaegui M, Thurston KG, Bilbao JI, D'Avola D, Rodriguez M, Arbizu J, et al. Radioembolization with use of yttrium-90 resin microspheres in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein thrombosis. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2010;21:1205–1212.
-
-
Quality assessment tool for case series studies. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Web site. [Accessed June 14, 2018].https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-
topics/study- .quality- assessment- tools
-
-
Giorgio A, Merola MG, Montesarchio L, Merola F, Santoro B, Coppola C, et al. Sorafenib combined with radio-frequency ablation compared with sorafenib alone in treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma invading portal vein: a western randomized controlled trial. Anticancer Res 2016;36:6179–6183.
-
-
Ye SL, Chen X, Yang J, Bie P, Zhang S, Liu F, et al. Evaluation of sorafenib in Chinese unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients with prior surgery and portal vein tumor thrombosis: a subset analysis of GIDEON study data. Tumour Biol 2017;39:1010428317695030
-
-
Choi JH, Chung WJ, Bae SH, Song DS, Song MJ, Kim YS, et al. Randomized, prospective, comparative study on the effects and safety of sorafenib vs. hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2018;82:469–478.
-