**Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma**

Xin-yu Huang, Qi Zheng and Zhou Yuan

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56289

### **1. Introduction**

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a primary fatal malignancy of the liver, is the sixth most common cancer and the third most common cause of cancer death worldwide [1]. The estimat‐ ed incidence of HCC is about 500,000–1000, 000 per year worldwide, causing 600,000 deaths globallyperyear[2].Itvarieswidelyaccordingtogeographiclocation,withthehighestincidence in sub-Saharan Africa and China, where chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection remains the leading cause [3]. In the United States and Europe, the incidence of HCC is on the rise and is expected to increase over the next two decades because the number of patients with chronic hepatitisCvirus (HCV)infectiongraduallyincreasedinthepasttwodecades [4].Liver cirrhosis, especially after chronic infection with hepatitis B or C virus, remains the main risk factor that predisposes to the development of HCC, although rarely can HCC develop in a patient without cirrhotic liver.Despiteofmajorprogress indiagnosis andtherapeuticoptionsofHCCinthepast two decades, the prognosis of HCC is still dismal and 5-year survival rate is less than 5%.

Of the therapies aiming at cure, surgical resection or liver transplantation are the optimal treatments with better outcomes in well-selected patients HCC. Unfortunately, more than 50% of all HCCs are diagnosed at locally advanced tumor stage or extrahepatic metastasis and therefore not eligible for potentially curative therapy such as surgical resection and liver transplantation [5]. In addition, some patients with early HCC are not eligible for curative hepatic resection because of poor liver function. Thus, only 10%-30% of patients with early HCC at diagnosis are amenable to curative surgical treatment and the rest of patients with have to receive non-curative treatment. Furthermore, after curative resection, tumor recur‐ rence rates can be as high as 25% per year and 50-90% of postoperative death is due to recurrent disease. Therefore, despite curative treatment options for patients with early stage HCC, survival rate after curative treatment has been as low as 50% at 3 years and 20-30% at 5 years

© 2013 Huang et al.; licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

[6-8]. Tumor recurrence is the main drawback of resection and intra-hepatic recurrence is frequently the only site of recurrence. HCC commonly arises from chronic hepatitis viral or alcoholic liver diseases, which are likely to harbor multiple and independent clones of premalignant cells. When these clones are further exposed to continuous carcinogenic insults, multicentric carcinogenesis follow. Thus, intra-hepatic recurrence may represent either "de novo" tumor formation in a cirrhotic liver, or intra-hepatic metastasis from a clonally identical neoplasm. In other word, recurrent HCC can result from intrahepatic dissemination of the primary tumor (true recurrence) or by new "de novo" carcinogenesis. No matter how the recurrence happens, it is generally believed that recurrences arise not because of inadequate resection but because of pre-existing microscopic tumor foci that are undetected by imaging modalities, or because malignant cells have been disseminated during surgical manipula‐ tion[9-10]. Therefore, neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy could potentially delay or decrease the incidence of intrahepatic recurrence, which could improve patients' prognosis after hepatic resection.

However, neoadjuvant therapy has the disadvantage of delaying the surgery. This can be detrimental if the tumor fails to respond to the therapy and continues to grow and becomes inoperable.Moreover,neoadjuvanttherapyalsohas thepotentialtoadverselyaffectingtheliver function, with an increased risk of liver failure after partial hepatectomy [13-14]. In recent decades, more light has been shed on the role of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy for HCC.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56289

83

Surgicalresectionoffers theonlyhopefor cureandis thepreferredoptionforpatientswithHCC. For those noncirrhotic HCC patients, surgical resection is the optimal curative treatment. They are likely to tolerate extended hepatic resection without liver failure. Moreover, the noncirrhot‐ ic residual liver is less likely to develop de-novo HCC. Unfortunately, the majority of patient develops HCC in the context of cirrhosis, so the selection criteria of liver resection depend not only on tumor-related parameters (tumor size, numbers, location and vascular invasion) but alsoonpreservedliverfunction.Meanwhile,the long-termsurvivalremainspoorowingtohigh incidenceofrecurrenceandmetastasisafterhepatectomy.Recurrences,inparticular,intrahepat‐ ic recurrences are the most common and are found in up to 68-96% of patients undergoing resection [15-16]. Therefore, neoadjuvant HCC therapy, which can decrease or delay the

Large HCC, tumor with a diameter of 5 cm or more, are relatively common, especially when HCC screening is not a routine practice in patients at risk. Generally speaking, patients with large HCC are not eligible for liver transplantation or ablation. Hepatic resection thus remains the only surgical treatment option for these patients. Despite improvements in preoperative assessment and intraoperative techniques in liver resection over the past 10 years, major liver resection in diseased liver is still considered a risky procedure [17-18], because of the potential risk of developing liver dysfunction after hemihepatectomy or hepatic trisegmentectomy. Thus, portal vein embolization (PVE) is used prior to extended hepatectomy to increase future

The primary goal of neoadjuvant HCC therapy is to eradicate residual microscopic HCC foci and to reduce the incidence of a second HCC from developing within the live remnant after partial hepatectomy and thus to reduce death from recurrent HCC. Recently published reviews concluded that there are little or no evidence to show that neoadjuvant therapy added benefit after curative hepatectomy for HCC so far. However, neoadjuvant therapy is continuously evolving and gaining importance in the treatment of HCCs. At present, the most popular techniques include transarterial chemo-embolization(TACE), portal vein embolization (PVE), and target therapy. Herein, we review the rationale behind each strategy and the studies on

Since transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) was introduced during the late 1970s as a palliative treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), it has been

**2. Neoadjuvant therapy for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma**

incidence of intra-hepatic recurrence, may improve the results of liver resection.

remnant liver volume and to prevent postoperative liver dysfunction.

neo-adjuvant treatments for HCC before partial hepatectomy.

**2.1. TACE**

Liver transplantation is an optimal treatment to manage end-stage liver disease with HCC, because this procedure cures not only the tumor but also the underlying cirrhosis. Liver transplantation achieves excellent results in selected patients with HCC. Patients with solitary HCC of less than 5 cm or with up to three nodules of less than 3 cm with no macroscopic vascular invasion (the Milan criteria) have a 5-year survival of 70% after liver transplantation, with recurrence in less than 10% [11]. Compared with surgical resection, liver transplantation is associated with better overall and disease-free survival in well-selected patients [12].Un‐ fortunately, the majority of HCC patients are diagnosed at a late stage and therefore not eligible for liver transplantation. Furthermore, patients drop off the transplant list owing to tumor progression during the long waiting time, resulting from shortage of liver donor worldwide. Thus, it is pivotal to decrease the rate of dropout by using neoadjuvant therapy for those patients during the waiting time. In addition, neoadjuvant therapy for HCC beyond the Milan criteria may downstage HCC tumors within the Milan criteria to expand liver transplantation candidates.

Neoadjuvanttherapyisusedpreoperativelywiththe aimtoreduce tumorrecurrence inthepast twodecades.Theaimsofneoadjuvanttherapyaretoreducethetumormassthusmakingcurative surgery more feasible and to reduce postoperative recurrence. Thus, the administration of neoadjuvantchemotherapymayofferseveraltheoreticaladvantages.First,neoadjuvanttherapy can reduce the tumor burden and shrink the tumor so patients are amenable to curative and negative-margin resection. Second, it can potentially eliminate "circulating cancer cells" or "disseminated cancer cells", which is regarded as the source of tumor recurrence. Third, neoadjuvant chemotherapy potentially reduces intraoperative tumor cells spread. Fourth, the delivery of treatment agents before surgical manipulation may provide better tissue oxygena‐ tion, facilitating the distribution of chemotherapy agents into the tumor, and increasing normal tissue tolerance. Fifth, the administration of chemotherapy before surgery allows an in-vivo assessment of tumor chemo-sensitivity through analyzing resected tissue samples. Finally, neoadjuvant chemotherapymay also leadtomoredefinitive surgicalresections by reducing the risk of tumoral infiltration of lymph nodes and of resection margins in the surgical specimen.

However, neoadjuvant therapy has the disadvantage of delaying the surgery. This can be detrimental if the tumor fails to respond to the therapy and continues to grow and becomes inoperable.Moreover,neoadjuvanttherapyalsohas thepotentialtoadverselyaffectingtheliver function, with an increased risk of liver failure after partial hepatectomy [13-14]. In recent decades, more light has been shed on the role of neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy for HCC.

### **2. Neoadjuvant therapy for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma**

Surgicalresectionoffers theonlyhopefor cureandis thepreferredoptionforpatientswithHCC. For those noncirrhotic HCC patients, surgical resection is the optimal curative treatment. They are likely to tolerate extended hepatic resection without liver failure. Moreover, the noncirrhot‐ ic residual liver is less likely to develop de-novo HCC. Unfortunately, the majority of patient develops HCC in the context of cirrhosis, so the selection criteria of liver resection depend not only on tumor-related parameters (tumor size, numbers, location and vascular invasion) but alsoonpreservedliverfunction.Meanwhile,the long-termsurvivalremainspoorowingtohigh incidenceofrecurrenceandmetastasisafterhepatectomy.Recurrences,inparticular,intrahepat‐ ic recurrences are the most common and are found in up to 68-96% of patients undergoing resection [15-16]. Therefore, neoadjuvant HCC therapy, which can decrease or delay the incidence of intra-hepatic recurrence, may improve the results of liver resection.

Large HCC, tumor with a diameter of 5 cm or more, are relatively common, especially when HCC screening is not a routine practice in patients at risk. Generally speaking, patients with large HCC are not eligible for liver transplantation or ablation. Hepatic resection thus remains the only surgical treatment option for these patients. Despite improvements in preoperative assessment and intraoperative techniques in liver resection over the past 10 years, major liver resection in diseased liver is still considered a risky procedure [17-18], because of the potential risk of developing liver dysfunction after hemihepatectomy or hepatic trisegmentectomy. Thus, portal vein embolization (PVE) is used prior to extended hepatectomy to increase future remnant liver volume and to prevent postoperative liver dysfunction.

The primary goal of neoadjuvant HCC therapy is to eradicate residual microscopic HCC foci and to reduce the incidence of a second HCC from developing within the live remnant after partial hepatectomy and thus to reduce death from recurrent HCC. Recently published reviews concluded that there are little or no evidence to show that neoadjuvant therapy added benefit after curative hepatectomy for HCC so far. However, neoadjuvant therapy is continuously evolving and gaining importance in the treatment of HCCs. At present, the most popular techniques include transarterial chemo-embolization(TACE), portal vein embolization (PVE), and target therapy. Herein, we review the rationale behind each strategy and the studies on neo-adjuvant treatments for HCC before partial hepatectomy.

#### **2.1. TACE**

[6-8]. Tumor recurrence is the main drawback of resection and intra-hepatic recurrence is frequently the only site of recurrence. HCC commonly arises from chronic hepatitis viral or alcoholic liver diseases, which are likely to harbor multiple and independent clones of premalignant cells. When these clones are further exposed to continuous carcinogenic insults, multicentric carcinogenesis follow. Thus, intra-hepatic recurrence may represent either "de novo" tumor formation in a cirrhotic liver, or intra-hepatic metastasis from a clonally identical neoplasm. In other word, recurrent HCC can result from intrahepatic dissemination of the primary tumor (true recurrence) or by new "de novo" carcinogenesis. No matter how the recurrence happens, it is generally believed that recurrences arise not because of inadequate resection but because of pre-existing microscopic tumor foci that are undetected by imaging modalities, or because malignant cells have been disseminated during surgical manipula‐ tion[9-10]. Therefore, neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy could potentially delay or decrease the incidence of intrahepatic recurrence, which could improve patients' prognosis after hepatic

Liver transplantation is an optimal treatment to manage end-stage liver disease with HCC, because this procedure cures not only the tumor but also the underlying cirrhosis. Liver transplantation achieves excellent results in selected patients with HCC. Patients with solitary HCC of less than 5 cm or with up to three nodules of less than 3 cm with no macroscopic vascular invasion (the Milan criteria) have a 5-year survival of 70% after liver transplantation, with recurrence in less than 10% [11]. Compared with surgical resection, liver transplantation is associated with better overall and disease-free survival in well-selected patients [12].Un‐ fortunately, the majority of HCC patients are diagnosed at a late stage and therefore not eligible for liver transplantation. Furthermore, patients drop off the transplant list owing to tumor progression during the long waiting time, resulting from shortage of liver donor worldwide. Thus, it is pivotal to decrease the rate of dropout by using neoadjuvant therapy for those patients during the waiting time. In addition, neoadjuvant therapy for HCC beyond the Milan criteria may downstage HCC tumors within the Milan criteria to expand liver transplantation

Neoadjuvanttherapyisusedpreoperativelywiththe aimtoreduce tumorrecurrence inthepast twodecades.Theaimsofneoadjuvanttherapyaretoreducethetumormassthusmakingcurative surgery more feasible and to reduce postoperative recurrence. Thus, the administration of neoadjuvantchemotherapymayofferseveraltheoreticaladvantages.First,neoadjuvanttherapy can reduce the tumor burden and shrink the tumor so patients are amenable to curative and negative-margin resection. Second, it can potentially eliminate "circulating cancer cells" or "disseminated cancer cells", which is regarded as the source of tumor recurrence. Third, neoadjuvant chemotherapy potentially reduces intraoperative tumor cells spread. Fourth, the delivery of treatment agents before surgical manipulation may provide better tissue oxygena‐ tion, facilitating the distribution of chemotherapy agents into the tumor, and increasing normal tissue tolerance. Fifth, the administration of chemotherapy before surgery allows an in-vivo assessment of tumor chemo-sensitivity through analyzing resected tissue samples. Finally, neoadjuvant chemotherapymay also leadtomoredefinitive surgicalresections by reducing the risk of tumoral infiltration of lymph nodes and of resection margins in the surgical specimen.

resection.

82 Hepatocellular Carcinoma - Future Outlook

candidates.

Since transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) was introduced during the late 1970s as a palliative treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), it has been

appliedmorefrequentlyinpatientswithunresectableHCC.Incontrasttothenormalliverwhich has dual blood supply, mainly from the portal venous system, hepatocellular carcinoma tumor is supplied almost exclusively by arterial supply. By direct infusion of the lipiodol and chemo‐ therapythroughthehepaticartery,itallowsahighdoseofchemotherapytobedelivereddirectly to the tumor. This provides the rationale for therapeutic local chemotherapy and hepatic artery selectiveobstructionofHCCviaTACE.The embolizationofthehepaticarteryreduces theblood flow of tumor, creates ischemia and increases the contact time between the chemotherapeutic agent and the tumor cells, resulting in synergetic effect and complete tumor necrosis.

questions is very important to evaluate the role of neoadjuvant TACE. In conclusion, current evidence indicates that there appears to be no DFS advantage despite its safety and feasibility. In future, a well-designed prospective multi-institutional randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with a clearly defined protocol for concealed allocation, eligibility criteria, TACE intervention

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56289

85

Hepatic resection is considered to be the only curative treatment for patients with large HCC and preserved liver functions, because these patients are not amenable to liver transplantation or ablative therapy. For these patients, major hepatic resection is feasible in theory and technique to achieve complete resection and provide the possibility of cure, but, most of them will develop postoperative liver failure, a fatal complication, owing to no enough remnant liver volume. In addition, most patients with hepatitis B or C virus–associated liver cirrhosis

Preoperative portal vein embolization (PVE), first reported by Makuuchi, is a technique to induce atrophy of the embolized lobe to be removed with compensatory hypertrophy of the nonembolized future liver remnant (FLR). This technique was first applied to patients with hilar bile duct tumors (Klatskin tumors) [32], then has been introduced in major hepatic resection. The aim of PVE is to preserve enough remnant liver volume and to prevent posthepatectomy liver failure, which is the predominant cause of death in cirrhotic patients. However, the major limitation of PVE is a compensatory increase in the hepatic arterial flow to the embolized segments, thus resulting in insufficient nonembolized liver hypertrophy or rapid tumor growth because most HCCs are hypervascular tumors fed mainly by arterial blood flow [33]. To overcome the shortcoming of PVE, sequential preoperative TACE combined with PVE has been evolved. The new technique has recently shown promising results for increasing the rate of hypertrophy in HCC patients with chronic liver disease, as it decreases arterial flow and thus increases parenchymal damage in the embolized liver and suppresses arterioportal shunts [34]. In addition, it may have a strong anticancer effect by obstructing tumor feeding vessels and suppressing intrahepatic spread by portal vein invasion from HCC and arterio‐ portal shunts in HCC patients. Thus, preoperative TACE+PVE may increase the probability of resectability for major hepatectomy and may decrease the risk of postoperative hepatic failure. However, sequential TACE and PVE may have the theoretical drawback of increased risk of liver damage caused by double occlusion of the blood supply. The data from Yoo shows that incidence of hepatic failure is higher in the PVE-only group than in the TACE + PVE group (P = 0.185) after operation and overall (P = 0.028) and recurrence free (P = 0.001) survival rates are significantly higher in the TACE + PVE group than in the PVE-only group[35]. Other studies also show that preoperative sequential TACE and PVE is a safe and feasible technique and the

Sorafenib is an oral multi-kinase inhibitor, which simultaneously inhibits molecular compo‐ nents of the Raf–MEK–ERK signaling pathway, abrogating tumor growth and VEGFR-1,

regimen and endpoints will be potentially meaningful.

increase the risk of postoperative live failure.

short and long-term survival outcomes are satisfactory [36-37].

**2.2. PVE+TACE**

**2.3. Sorafenib**

A meta-analysis including seven randomized clinical trials was undertaken in the late 1990s to investigate the usefulness of TACE for treating unresectable HCC, which demonstrated an improvement in 2-year survival (P = 0.017) compared with control patients who were treated conservatively or received suboptimal management [19]. According to the guidelines pub‐ lished by the American Association for Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) [20] and the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) [21], TACE is recommended as first-line noncurative therapy for non-surgical patients with large/multifocal HCC who do not have vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread (level I). Given the promising results in its palliative role, TACE has been evaluated as a neoadjuvant therapy with the hope of reducing tumor size, inducing tumor necrosis, and preventing tumor dissemination. Preoperative TACE is not only intended to prevent recurrence by controlling intrahepatic spread via the portal system, but also to facilitate surgery by reducing tumor bulk. The use of TACE as a neoadjuvant treatment for HCC was first described in the early 1990s, where its use was proposed in a variety of settings; palliatively for unresectable recurrent HCC, to increase the rate of resectability of unresectable HCC, and to downstage the primary tumor for liver transplantation [22].

Whether preoperative TACE is beneficial for survival of patients with resectable HCC remains a controversy owing to the numerous conflicting reports. A few studies suggested that preoperative TACE may be beneficial for overall survival and/or disease-free survival in patients with resectable HCC [23-24]. In contrast, several studies have shown that neoadjuvant TACE had no significant influence on postoperative survival [25-26]. A randomized controlled trial from China indicated that preoperative TACE did not improve surgical outcome and five patients lost the chance of undergoing a curative liver resection owing to disease progression and hepatic failure [27]. Furthermore, several studies have found that preoperative TACE negatively affected survival of patients postoperatively [28-29]. A meta-analysis including three randomized clinical trials is undertaken to evaluate the definitive effect of preoperative TACE on both disease-free survival rate and overall survival rate following curative resection in resectable HCC patients, which demonstrated no significant benefits for 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival[30]. However, the number of patients was small in these trials, which limited the ability to draw frim conclusions. Another systemic analysis indicates that there appears to be no DFS advantage by using TACE as a neoadjuvant therapy for resectable HCC, although it is a safe procedure [31].

Can we predict which kind of HCC will develop necrosis after neoadjuvant TACE owing to its heterogeneity or does it benefit the subgroup of patients according to tumor size, tumor stage, frequency of TACE, the interval between TACE and operation, etc.? The answer to these questions is very important to evaluate the role of neoadjuvant TACE. In conclusion, current evidence indicates that there appears to be no DFS advantage despite its safety and feasibility. In future, a well-designed prospective multi-institutional randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with a clearly defined protocol for concealed allocation, eligibility criteria, TACE intervention regimen and endpoints will be potentially meaningful.

#### **2.2. PVE+TACE**

appliedmorefrequentlyinpatientswithunresectableHCC.Incontrasttothenormalliverwhich has dual blood supply, mainly from the portal venous system, hepatocellular carcinoma tumor is supplied almost exclusively by arterial supply. By direct infusion of the lipiodol and chemo‐ therapythroughthehepaticartery,itallowsahighdoseofchemotherapytobedelivereddirectly to the tumor. This provides the rationale for therapeutic local chemotherapy and hepatic artery selectiveobstructionofHCCviaTACE.The embolizationofthehepaticarteryreduces theblood flow of tumor, creates ischemia and increases the contact time between the chemotherapeutic

A meta-analysis including seven randomized clinical trials was undertaken in the late 1990s to investigate the usefulness of TACE for treating unresectable HCC, which demonstrated an improvement in 2-year survival (P = 0.017) compared with control patients who were treated conservatively or received suboptimal management [19]. According to the guidelines pub‐ lished by the American Association for Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) [20] and the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) [21], TACE is recommended as first-line noncurative therapy for non-surgical patients with large/multifocal HCC who do not have vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread (level I). Given the promising results in its palliative role, TACE has been evaluated as a neoadjuvant therapy with the hope of reducing tumor size, inducing tumor necrosis, and preventing tumor dissemination. Preoperative TACE is not only intended to prevent recurrence by controlling intrahepatic spread via the portal system, but also to facilitate surgery by reducing tumor bulk. The use of TACE as a neoadjuvant treatment for HCC was first described in the early 1990s, where its use was proposed in a variety of settings; palliatively for unresectable recurrent HCC, to increase the rate of resectability of unresectable HCC, and to downstage the primary tumor for liver transplantation [22].

Whether preoperative TACE is beneficial for survival of patients with resectable HCC remains a controversy owing to the numerous conflicting reports. A few studies suggested that preoperative TACE may be beneficial for overall survival and/or disease-free survival in patients with resectable HCC [23-24]. In contrast, several studies have shown that neoadjuvant TACE had no significant influence on postoperative survival [25-26]. A randomized controlled trial from China indicated that preoperative TACE did not improve surgical outcome and five patients lost the chance of undergoing a curative liver resection owing to disease progression and hepatic failure [27]. Furthermore, several studies have found that preoperative TACE negatively affected survival of patients postoperatively [28-29]. A meta-analysis including three randomized clinical trials is undertaken to evaluate the definitive effect of preoperative TACE on both disease-free survival rate and overall survival rate following curative resection in resectable HCC patients, which demonstrated no significant benefits for 5-year overall survival and disease-free survival[30]. However, the number of patients was small in these trials, which limited the ability to draw frim conclusions. Another systemic analysis indicates that there appears to be no DFS advantage by using TACE as a neoadjuvant therapy for

Can we predict which kind of HCC will develop necrosis after neoadjuvant TACE owing to its heterogeneity or does it benefit the subgroup of patients according to tumor size, tumor stage, frequency of TACE, the interval between TACE and operation, etc.? The answer to these

resectable HCC, although it is a safe procedure [31].

agent and the tumor cells, resulting in synergetic effect and complete tumor necrosis.

84 Hepatocellular Carcinoma - Future Outlook

Hepatic resection is considered to be the only curative treatment for patients with large HCC and preserved liver functions, because these patients are not amenable to liver transplantation or ablative therapy. For these patients, major hepatic resection is feasible in theory and technique to achieve complete resection and provide the possibility of cure, but, most of them will develop postoperative liver failure, a fatal complication, owing to no enough remnant liver volume. In addition, most patients with hepatitis B or C virus–associated liver cirrhosis increase the risk of postoperative live failure.

Preoperative portal vein embolization (PVE), first reported by Makuuchi, is a technique to induce atrophy of the embolized lobe to be removed with compensatory hypertrophy of the nonembolized future liver remnant (FLR). This technique was first applied to patients with hilar bile duct tumors (Klatskin tumors) [32], then has been introduced in major hepatic resection. The aim of PVE is to preserve enough remnant liver volume and to prevent posthepatectomy liver failure, which is the predominant cause of death in cirrhotic patients. However, the major limitation of PVE is a compensatory increase in the hepatic arterial flow to the embolized segments, thus resulting in insufficient nonembolized liver hypertrophy or rapid tumor growth because most HCCs are hypervascular tumors fed mainly by arterial blood flow [33]. To overcome the shortcoming of PVE, sequential preoperative TACE combined with PVE has been evolved. The new technique has recently shown promising results for increasing the rate of hypertrophy in HCC patients with chronic liver disease, as it decreases arterial flow and thus increases parenchymal damage in the embolized liver and suppresses arterioportal shunts [34]. In addition, it may have a strong anticancer effect by obstructing tumor feeding vessels and suppressing intrahepatic spread by portal vein invasion from HCC and arterio‐ portal shunts in HCC patients. Thus, preoperative TACE+PVE may increase the probability of resectability for major hepatectomy and may decrease the risk of postoperative hepatic failure. However, sequential TACE and PVE may have the theoretical drawback of increased risk of liver damage caused by double occlusion of the blood supply. The data from Yoo shows that incidence of hepatic failure is higher in the PVE-only group than in the TACE + PVE group (P = 0.185) after operation and overall (P = 0.028) and recurrence free (P = 0.001) survival rates are significantly higher in the TACE + PVE group than in the PVE-only group[35]. Other studies also show that preoperative sequential TACE and PVE is a safe and feasible technique and the short and long-term survival outcomes are satisfactory [36-37].

#### **2.3. Sorafenib**

Sorafenib is an oral multi-kinase inhibitor, which simultaneously inhibits molecular compo‐ nents of the Raf–MEK–ERK signaling pathway, abrogating tumor growth and VEGFR-1, VEGFR-2, VEGFR-3, and PDGFR-β, thus inhibiting neoangiogenesis [38]. By targeting two key pathways that are reported to play an important role in the pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma, sorafenib is likely to delay disease progression [39]. Furthermore, sorafenib exhibited growth-inhibitory effects, induction of apoptosis, and down-regulation of the antiapoptotic proteins in a wide range of tumor models.

Milan criteria, there was a drive to identify expanded criteria and to increase the number of eligible candidates for liver transplantation. Among the many proposals, only the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) criteria (one tumor ≤6 5 cm, three nodules at most with the largest ≤4 5 cm, and total tumor diameter ≤8 cm) have been prospectively validated with longterm survival comparable to patients with Milan criteria [44]. At present, the Milan criteria have been adopted as the guideline of liver transplantation for HCC worldwide. Unfortu‐ nately, the majority of HCC patients are diagnosed in a late stage and therefore not eligible for liver transplantation. Meanwhile, shortage of available graft is still a very stringent problem worldwide so that many patients will drop off the transplant list owing to tumor progression during the long waiting time. Historical data suggest that the median doubling time in HCC is about 3 to 6 months, but the waiting time for live transplantation continues to increase and is up to 24 months in the United States [45]. So, many eligible patients with HCC will drop out if they are not given some effective therapy to stop tumor progression during the waiting time. Thus, neoadjuvant therapy has been proposed as a strategy to treat HCC before liver trans‐

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56289

87

Neoadjuvant therapy for HCC beyond the Milan criteria has been performed with the purpose of downstaging HCC to parameters within the Milan criteria. This enables substantially the expansion of liver transplantation candidates with potential good outcomes after transplan‐ tation. It is defined as 'downstaging therapy'. Another aim of neoadjuvant therapy is to delay tumor progression and decrease dropout for those patients within Milan criteria HCC. It is defined as 'bridging therapy'. The last aim of neoadjuvant therapy can decrease or even eliminate circulating cancer cells, which are the mainstay source of recurrence and metastasis. Although associated with good results, around 10% of within Milan criteria HCC patients will exhibit post-transplant recurrence. Recurrence is either due to the growth of occult metastases or to the engraftment of circulating tumor cells. Thus, pre-transplant neoadjuvant therapy may serve a pivotal role in improving survival following liver transplantation. At present, neoad‐ juvant therapy is gradually evolving and gaining importance in the treatment of HCC patients

Locoreginal therapy, such as TACE, transarterial radio-embolization (TARE) and radiofre‐ quency ablation (RFA), and systemic chemotherapy are most common used as neoadjuvant therapy for patients with HCC before liver transplantation. Herein, we evaluate the rationale

The rationale for using TACE as a neoadjuvant therapy prior to liver transplantation is to control tumor growth while the patient awaits an organ and to cause significant tumor necrosis, which may reduce tumor dissemination during surgery. In addition, TACE can be used to downstage tumor and make them eligible for transplantation[46]. In a case-control study, researchers showed that the high rate of tumor necrosis observed in the pretransplant TACE group was not associated with difference in overall survival [47]. In the French multicenter case-control study, the patients in the TACE group in which more than 80% of the tumor was necrotic at the time of transplantation and their matched controls had 5-year survival rate

plantation.

**3.1. TACE**

undergoing liver transplant.

of each strategy for HCC before liver transplantation.

Recently, Sorafenib was approved and regarded as the first and so far the only drug which shows an increase in overall survival in patients with advanced, unresectable HCC. In the large randomized phase III study (SHARP), median overall survival (OS) increased from 7.9 months in the placebo group to 10.7 months in the sorafenib group. Sorafenib showed a significant benefit also in terms of time to progression (TTP), with a median of 5.5 months in the sorafenib group and 2.8 months in the placebo group. On the basis of these findings, FDA has approved sorafenib for advanced HCC treatment [40]. Thus, for patients with unresectable HCC, sorafenib is the first systemic therapy to significantly prolong survival and is now considered standard of care for patients with Child A cirrhosis and good performance status. Could sorafenib downstage HCC and thus represent a bridge to surgery, as a neoadjuvant therapy for advance HCC? The phase III SHARP study reported a partial response of only 2% with complete remission given the cytostatic nature of sorafenib effect. However, Irtan et al reported two cases of locally advanced HCC with portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) who complete regression by sorafenib treatment allowed curative resection with good long-term outcome [41]. Another study also reports two cases with large HCC in the right liver with venous neoplastic thrombi undergo curative resection after sorafenib treatment [42]. However, no large clinical experiences have been reported in neoadjuvant therapy with the use of sorafenib. Thus, large scale RCT clinical trials should be undertake to investigate the role of sorafenib as a neoadjuvant treatment in advanced HCC, preferably in combination with local therapy modalities to increase the chances of down-sizing.

In summary, further randomized controlled studies need to be carried out. Currently, there is no consensus on a standard neoadjuvant therapy in partial hepatectomy for HCC.

### **3. Neoadjuvant therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma before liver transplantation**

Liver transplantation is a potentially curative treatment for HCC for those patients with early HCC in the setting of cirrhosis. It has two principle advantages to remove the tumor as well as the underlying liver cirrhosis, restoring both liver function and decreasing the risk of de novo HCC. Compared with surgical resection, liver transplantation is associated with better overall and disease-free survival in well-selected patients (5 year-DFS >75% vs. 50%) [43]. Patients with solitary HCC of less than 5 cm or with up to three nodules of less than 3 cm, with no macroscopic vascular invasion (the Milan criteria) have a 5-year survival of 70% after liver transplantation, with recurrence in less than 10% [11]. In addition, the survival matches posttransplant survival of most other indications for liver transplantation, such as end-stage liver cirrhosis disease. As evidence accumulated of good outcomes in some patients outside the Milan criteria, there was a drive to identify expanded criteria and to increase the number of eligible candidates for liver transplantation. Among the many proposals, only the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) criteria (one tumor ≤6 5 cm, three nodules at most with the largest ≤4 5 cm, and total tumor diameter ≤8 cm) have been prospectively validated with longterm survival comparable to patients with Milan criteria [44]. At present, the Milan criteria have been adopted as the guideline of liver transplantation for HCC worldwide. Unfortu‐ nately, the majority of HCC patients are diagnosed in a late stage and therefore not eligible for liver transplantation. Meanwhile, shortage of available graft is still a very stringent problem worldwide so that many patients will drop off the transplant list owing to tumor progression during the long waiting time. Historical data suggest that the median doubling time in HCC is about 3 to 6 months, but the waiting time for live transplantation continues to increase and is up to 24 months in the United States [45]. So, many eligible patients with HCC will drop out if they are not given some effective therapy to stop tumor progression during the waiting time. Thus, neoadjuvant therapy has been proposed as a strategy to treat HCC before liver trans‐ plantation.

Neoadjuvant therapy for HCC beyond the Milan criteria has been performed with the purpose of downstaging HCC to parameters within the Milan criteria. This enables substantially the expansion of liver transplantation candidates with potential good outcomes after transplan‐ tation. It is defined as 'downstaging therapy'. Another aim of neoadjuvant therapy is to delay tumor progression and decrease dropout for those patients within Milan criteria HCC. It is defined as 'bridging therapy'. The last aim of neoadjuvant therapy can decrease or even eliminate circulating cancer cells, which are the mainstay source of recurrence and metastasis. Although associated with good results, around 10% of within Milan criteria HCC patients will exhibit post-transplant recurrence. Recurrence is either due to the growth of occult metastases or to the engraftment of circulating tumor cells. Thus, pre-transplant neoadjuvant therapy may serve a pivotal role in improving survival following liver transplantation. At present, neoad‐ juvant therapy is gradually evolving and gaining importance in the treatment of HCC patients undergoing liver transplant.

Locoreginal therapy, such as TACE, transarterial radio-embolization (TARE) and radiofre‐ quency ablation (RFA), and systemic chemotherapy are most common used as neoadjuvant therapy for patients with HCC before liver transplantation. Herein, we evaluate the rationale of each strategy for HCC before liver transplantation.

#### **3.1. TACE**

VEGFR-2, VEGFR-3, and PDGFR-β, thus inhibiting neoangiogenesis [38]. By targeting two key pathways that are reported to play an important role in the pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma, sorafenib is likely to delay disease progression [39]. Furthermore, sorafenib exhibited growth-inhibitory effects, induction of apoptosis, and down-regulation of the anti-

Recently, Sorafenib was approved and regarded as the first and so far the only drug which shows an increase in overall survival in patients with advanced, unresectable HCC. In the large randomized phase III study (SHARP), median overall survival (OS) increased from 7.9 months in the placebo group to 10.7 months in the sorafenib group. Sorafenib showed a significant benefit also in terms of time to progression (TTP), with a median of 5.5 months in the sorafenib group and 2.8 months in the placebo group. On the basis of these findings, FDA has approved sorafenib for advanced HCC treatment [40]. Thus, for patients with unresectable HCC, sorafenib is the first systemic therapy to significantly prolong survival and is now considered standard of care for patients with Child A cirrhosis and good performance status. Could sorafenib downstage HCC and thus represent a bridge to surgery, as a neoadjuvant therapy for advance HCC? The phase III SHARP study reported a partial response of only 2% with complete remission given the cytostatic nature of sorafenib effect. However, Irtan et al reported two cases of locally advanced HCC with portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) who complete regression by sorafenib treatment allowed curative resection with good long-term outcome [41]. Another study also reports two cases with large HCC in the right liver with venous neoplastic thrombi undergo curative resection after sorafenib treatment [42]. However, no large clinical experiences have been reported in neoadjuvant therapy with the use of sorafenib. Thus, large scale RCT clinical trials should be undertake to investigate the role of sorafenib as a neoadjuvant treatment in advanced HCC, preferably in combination with local therapy

In summary, further randomized controlled studies need to be carried out. Currently, there is

Liver transplantation is a potentially curative treatment for HCC for those patients with early HCC in the setting of cirrhosis. It has two principle advantages to remove the tumor as well as the underlying liver cirrhosis, restoring both liver function and decreasing the risk of de novo HCC. Compared with surgical resection, liver transplantation is associated with better overall and disease-free survival in well-selected patients (5 year-DFS >75% vs. 50%) [43]. Patients with solitary HCC of less than 5 cm or with up to three nodules of less than 3 cm, with no macroscopic vascular invasion (the Milan criteria) have a 5-year survival of 70% after liver transplantation, with recurrence in less than 10% [11]. In addition, the survival matches posttransplant survival of most other indications for liver transplantation, such as end-stage liver cirrhosis disease. As evidence accumulated of good outcomes in some patients outside the

no consensus on a standard neoadjuvant therapy in partial hepatectomy for HCC.

**3. Neoadjuvant therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma before liver**

apoptotic proteins in a wide range of tumor models.

86 Hepatocellular Carcinoma - Future Outlook

modalities to increase the chances of down-sizing.

**transplantation**

The rationale for using TACE as a neoadjuvant therapy prior to liver transplantation is to control tumor growth while the patient awaits an organ and to cause significant tumor necrosis, which may reduce tumor dissemination during surgery. In addition, TACE can be used to downstage tumor and make them eligible for transplantation[46]. In a case-control study, researchers showed that the high rate of tumor necrosis observed in the pretransplant TACE group was not associated with difference in overall survival [47]. In the French multicenter case-control study, the patients in the TACE group in which more than 80% of the tumor was necrotic at the time of transplantation and their matched controls had 5-year survival rate of 63% and 54%, respectively (p = 0.9) [48]. Thus, although preoperative TACE can lead to tumor necrosis in about one third of cases and reduces tumor size in half of the patients, there was no sufficient evidence to support the concept that it can improve long-term survival for patients with within Milan criteria HCC after transplantation.

TARE-90 group demonstrated a trend toward higher partial response and higher percentage of downstaging from T3 to T2 (58 vs. 31%, P <.028), thus falling within the Milan criteria [52].

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56289

89

HCC is highly refractory to traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy, with no evidence to date of a survival benefit from its use. Sorafenib, a small molecule multi-kinase inhibitor acting via inhibition of tumor-cell proliferation and tumor angiogenesis, has been widely used in most solid tumor. Recently, Sorafenib is regarded as the first and so far the only drug which shows an increase in overall survival in patients with advanced, unresectable HCC. Can sorafenib be used as a tool to bridge or downstage HCC for patients before transplantation? At present, there are no reported randomized clinical trials in this setting. However, a few case reports show a promise of HCC tumor response to neoadjuvant sorafenib therapy, with effective

Patient-individualized treatment strategy should be based on the performance status, hepatic reserve, tumor burden and tumor vascularity pattern. Generally speaking, for single HCC <3 cm, RFA may be appropriate. For larger or multifocal HCC, TACE would be indicated. In cases of thrombosis of the main or large branches of the portal vein, TARE appears to be better tolerated because of its less embolic nature. Moreover, these therapies might be implemented alone or via a combined approach. In addition, the benefit of the thoughtful concept of combining locoregional therapy with systemic therapies such as sorafenib has to be proven. In addition, the combination of locoreginal therapy strategy, such as TACE+RFA and TACE +sorafenib, has been used in some transplantation communities and the outcome is promising. However, due to the lack of prospective data, the most appropriate treatment protocol has not

In summary, more light has been shed on the role of neoadjuvant therapy for HCC in recent decades, although the benefits of the therapy remain marginal so far. One of the possible reasons is tumor heterogeneity. Who will benefit from neoadjuvant therapy? The outcome after neoadjuvant therapy will be better if we can predict who will respond to the neoadjuvant

The term circulating tumor cells (CTC) defines specifically the tumor cells spontaneously disseminating from primary or metastatic sites and invading into peripheral blood or lym‐ phatic vessels. They are also called disseminated tumor cells (DTCs). CTC may remain silent, in a dormant state, for variable periods of time, or grow into clinically detectable metastases. The presence of CTC reflects the aggressiveness characteristic feature of a solid tumor. The major difficulty in the CTC studies is that an extremely small number of CTCs exists in the bloodstream [54] and common serological, imaging and pathological approaches are not

downstaging to allow for liver transplant listing [53].

**4. Role of circulating tumor cells in recurrence**

**3.5. How to select neoadjuvant therapy?**

**3.4. Sorafenib**

yet been defined.

therapy before the treatment.

Success in downstaging has been reported in many studies, although most of these are uncontrolled observational studies. As a downstaging tool in his study, Graziadei et al. included 15 advanced HCC patients not eligible for transplantation received TACE (range, 2– 12). 11 patients had a partial response with >50% necrosis and 1 < 50%. 10 patients underwent OLT and and found to have 30% HCC recurrence rate. Thus, despite successful downstaging before OLT, patients with primarily advanced HCC had a significantly less favorable outcome in the intent-to-treat analysis as well as in the post-transplantation survival compared with patients with early-stage HCC (31% vs. 94% at 5 years, p < 0.001 and 41% vs. 94% at 5 years, p < 0.001) [49]. Downstaging of HCC by TACE is possible in most of candidates; however, these patients tend to have higher dropout rates, higher recurrence rates, and unfavorable outcomes compared with early stage patients. Therefore, there is currently no sufficient evidence that pretransplant TACE may delineate the possibility of expanding current selection criteria for liver transplantation in patients with HCC.

#### **3.2. RFA**

Radiofrequency ablation appears to be equivalent to surgical resection inducing total tumor necrosis in tumor < 3 cm [50]. Subsequently, RFA is used as the second most popular neoad‐ juvant therapy before liver transplantation after TACE. In transplant candidates, RFA has been used mainly as a bridge therapy rather than for downstaging before transplantation owing to its limited efficacy for large tumors. However, RFA can have sever side effect, including tumor dissemination in subcapsular HCC. Pretransplant RFA for HCC as a strategy to reduce dropout has been addressed in some studies [51]. More than 80% of patients were in the Milano criteria treated by FRA with approximately 1 year on the waiting list. The dropout rate ranged from 0 to 14%. However, the effect of preoperative RFA should be carefully evaluated by more randomized clinical trials

In summary, the lack of controlled clinical trials, some uncontrolled studies support the use of RFA as a safe and effective bridge therapy in patients who meet the Milan criteria.

#### **3.3. Transarterial Radio-Embolization (TARE)**

Radioembolization involves the transarterial administration of embolic microspheres labeled with Yttrium-90 (Y90). TARE has been used as a primary therapy for unresectable HCC. For patients with unresectable HCC, retrospective studies found similar efficacy and toxicity between radio embolization and TACE. For patients with main portal vein thrombosis, radioembolization may be considered advantageous over TACE, owing to its relatively decreased embolic effect. Radioembolization has also demonstrated favorable outcomes for downstaging tumors to meet the Milan criteria. Lewandowski et al retrospectively compared transarterialradioembolizationwithY90 (TARE-90)withTACEinpatientswithT3disease.The TARE-90 group demonstrated a trend toward higher partial response and higher percentage of downstaging from T3 to T2 (58 vs. 31%, P <.028), thus falling within the Milan criteria [52].

#### **3.4. Sorafenib**

of 63% and 54%, respectively (p = 0.9) [48]. Thus, although preoperative TACE can lead to tumor necrosis in about one third of cases and reduces tumor size in half of the patients, there was no sufficient evidence to support the concept that it can improve long-term survival for

Success in downstaging has been reported in many studies, although most of these are uncontrolled observational studies. As a downstaging tool in his study, Graziadei et al. included 15 advanced HCC patients not eligible for transplantation received TACE (range, 2– 12). 11 patients had a partial response with >50% necrosis and 1 < 50%. 10 patients underwent OLT and and found to have 30% HCC recurrence rate. Thus, despite successful downstaging before OLT, patients with primarily advanced HCC had a significantly less favorable outcome in the intent-to-treat analysis as well as in the post-transplantation survival compared with patients with early-stage HCC (31% vs. 94% at 5 years, p < 0.001 and 41% vs. 94% at 5 years, p < 0.001) [49]. Downstaging of HCC by TACE is possible in most of candidates; however, these patients tend to have higher dropout rates, higher recurrence rates, and unfavorable outcomes compared with early stage patients. Therefore, there is currently no sufficient evidence that pretransplant TACE may delineate the possibility of expanding current selection criteria for

Radiofrequency ablation appears to be equivalent to surgical resection inducing total tumor necrosis in tumor < 3 cm [50]. Subsequently, RFA is used as the second most popular neoad‐ juvant therapy before liver transplantation after TACE. In transplant candidates, RFA has been used mainly as a bridge therapy rather than for downstaging before transplantation owing to its limited efficacy for large tumors. However, RFA can have sever side effect, including tumor dissemination in subcapsular HCC. Pretransplant RFA for HCC as a strategy to reduce dropout has been addressed in some studies [51]. More than 80% of patients were in the Milano criteria treated by FRA with approximately 1 year on the waiting list. The dropout rate ranged from 0 to 14%. However, the effect of preoperative RFA should be carefully evaluated by more

In summary, the lack of controlled clinical trials, some uncontrolled studies support the use

Radioembolization involves the transarterial administration of embolic microspheres labeled with Yttrium-90 (Y90). TARE has been used as a primary therapy for unresectable HCC. For patients with unresectable HCC, retrospective studies found similar efficacy and toxicity between radio embolization and TACE. For patients with main portal vein thrombosis, radioembolization may be considered advantageous over TACE, owing to its relatively decreased embolic effect. Radioembolization has also demonstrated favorable outcomes for downstaging tumors to meet the Milan criteria. Lewandowski et al retrospectively compared transarterialradioembolizationwithY90 (TARE-90)withTACEinpatientswithT3disease.The

of RFA as a safe and effective bridge therapy in patients who meet the Milan criteria.

patients with within Milan criteria HCC after transplantation.

liver transplantation in patients with HCC.

88 Hepatocellular Carcinoma - Future Outlook

**3.3. Transarterial Radio-Embolization (TARE)**

**3.2. RFA**

randomized clinical trials

HCC is highly refractory to traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy, with no evidence to date of a survival benefit from its use. Sorafenib, a small molecule multi-kinase inhibitor acting via inhibition of tumor-cell proliferation and tumor angiogenesis, has been widely used in most solid tumor. Recently, Sorafenib is regarded as the first and so far the only drug which shows an increase in overall survival in patients with advanced, unresectable HCC. Can sorafenib be used as a tool to bridge or downstage HCC for patients before transplantation? At present, there are no reported randomized clinical trials in this setting. However, a few case reports show a promise of HCC tumor response to neoadjuvant sorafenib therapy, with effective downstaging to allow for liver transplant listing [53].

#### **3.5. How to select neoadjuvant therapy?**

Patient-individualized treatment strategy should be based on the performance status, hepatic reserve, tumor burden and tumor vascularity pattern. Generally speaking, for single HCC <3 cm, RFA may be appropriate. For larger or multifocal HCC, TACE would be indicated. In cases of thrombosis of the main or large branches of the portal vein, TARE appears to be better tolerated because of its less embolic nature. Moreover, these therapies might be implemented alone or via a combined approach. In addition, the benefit of the thoughtful concept of combining locoregional therapy with systemic therapies such as sorafenib has to be proven. In addition, the combination of locoreginal therapy strategy, such as TACE+RFA and TACE +sorafenib, has been used in some transplantation communities and the outcome is promising. However, due to the lack of prospective data, the most appropriate treatment protocol has not yet been defined.

In summary, more light has been shed on the role of neoadjuvant therapy for HCC in recent decades, although the benefits of the therapy remain marginal so far. One of the possible reasons is tumor heterogeneity. Who will benefit from neoadjuvant therapy? The outcome after neoadjuvant therapy will be better if we can predict who will respond to the neoadjuvant therapy before the treatment.

### **4. Role of circulating tumor cells in recurrence**

The term circulating tumor cells (CTC) defines specifically the tumor cells spontaneously disseminating from primary or metastatic sites and invading into peripheral blood or lym‐ phatic vessels. They are also called disseminated tumor cells (DTCs). CTC may remain silent, in a dormant state, for variable periods of time, or grow into clinically detectable metastases. The presence of CTC reflects the aggressiveness characteristic feature of a solid tumor. The major difficulty in the CTC studies is that an extremely small number of CTCs exists in the bloodstream [54] and common serological, imaging and pathological approaches are not sensitive enough to effectively capture CTC. Approximately less than 10 CTCs may be found among one billion blood cells in early stage cancers; therefore highly sensitive methods are required to detect and isolate these cells from the bloodstream. Although CTC detection has been applied and well documented in different types of cancer, especially in breast cancer [55], CTC detection is not routinely performed in HCC and remains in the experimental field. The clinical results suggest CTC detection and identification can be used to evaluate prognosis and may serve as an early marker to assess antitumor activity of treatment [56]. In addition, CTC detection might bring new interesting information of metastatic process and might be used as diagnostic tool of early recurrence after HCC resection or transplant, and may allow a better patient selection.

**References**

Clin (2005). , 55, 74-108.

(2004). , 127, 1372-1380.

stone, (1997). , 1997, 511-29.

376-381.

693-9.

[1] Parkin, D. M, Bray, F, Ferlay, J, & Pisani, P. Global cancer statistics, 2002. CA Cancer J

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56289

91

[2] El-Serag, H. B, & Rudolph, K. L. Hepatocellular carcinoma: epidemiology and molec‐

[3] Munoz, N, & Bosch, X. Epidemiology of hepatocellular carcinoma, in Okuda K, Ishak

[4] Davila, J. A, Morgan, R. O, Shaib, Y, et al. Hepatitis C infection and the increasing incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma: A population-based study. Gastroenterology

[5] Bosch, F. Global epidemiology of hepatocellular carcinoma. In: Okuda K, Tabor E, (Eds). Liver cancer. New York: Churchill Livingstone, (1997). , 1997, 13-28.

[6] Lai, E. C, Fan, S. T, Lo, C. M, et al. Hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: an

[7] Bismuth, H, Chiche, L, Adam, R, et al. Liver resection versus transplantation for hep‐

[8] Bathe, O, Scudamore, C, Caron, N. R, & Buczkowski, A. Resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. In: Okuda K, Tabor E, (Eds). Liver cancer. New York: Churchill Living‐

[9] Shi, M, Zhang, C. Q, Zhang, Y. Q, Liang, X. M, & Li, J. Q. Micrometastases of solitary hepatocellular carcinoma and appropriate resection margin. World J Surg (2004). , 28,

[10] Wong, I. H, Lau, W. Y, Leung, T, Yeo, W, & Johnson, P. J. Hematogenous dissemina‐ tion of hepatocytes and tumor cells after surgical resection of hepatocellular carcino‐

[11] Mazzaferro, V, Regalia, E, Doci, R, et al. Liver transplantation for the treatment of small hepatocellular carcinomas in patients with cirrhosis. N Engl J Med (1996). , 334,

[12] Bismuth, H, Chiche, L, Adam, R, et al. Liver resection versus transplantation for hep‐

[13] Lau, W. Y, Lai, E. C, & Lau, S. H. The current role of neoadjuvant/adjuvant/chemo‐ prevention therapy in partial hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic

[14] Rein, M. Neoadjuvant treatment for resectable pancreatic cancer: time for phase III

atocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients. Ann Surg (1993). , 218, 145-51.

review. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. (2009). Apr; , 8(2), 124-33.

testing? WJG (2010). Oct 21; , 16(39), 4883-7.

ma: a quantitative analysis. Clin Cancer Res (1999). , 5, 4021-4027.

atocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients.Ann Surg (1993). , 218, 145-51.

ular carcinogenesis. Gastroenterology (2007). , 132, 2557-2576.

KG (eds). Neoplasm of the Liver: Tokyo, Springer, (1989).

audit of 343 patients. Ann Surg (1995). , 221, 291-98.

A major factor in tumor recurrence after a potentially curative treatment for HCC is CTC. Although tumor recurrence in the liver after tumor resection or transplantation may be explained by either intrahepatic tumor cell spreading or de novo tumor development, intrahepatic tumor recurrence after liver transplantation can be explained only by the homing of systemically disseminated and circulating tumor cells. CTC have the potential to migrate and engraft in multiple organs, including the newly implanted liver, where significant recurrences are observed. The tumor response to preoperative treatment might be predictable prior to surgery by a drop in CTC count and this allows improved choice of the best timing of surgery. After surgery, CTCs can be examined in terms of pharmacodynamic biomarkers to choose the most sensitive chemotherapy agents and assist in deciding the duration of adjuvant therapy.

There are so many questions to answer in future. Is CTC a transient or recurrent phenomenon? Does locoreginal therapy in HCC affect the number of CTC? Can the number of CTC be used as criteria of liver transplantion? Which pharmacological and/or surgical protocols might be successful in eliminating or restricting tumor-cell circulation and spread? Thus, the detailed analysis and characterization of CTC in HCC patients may give us new insights into their biology and may lead to new therapeutic strategies for their elimination.

### **Author details**

Xin-yu Huang, Qi Zheng and Zhou Yuan\*

\*Address all correspondence to: zhouyuan851@163.com

Department of General Surgery, The Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China

#### **References**

sensitive enough to effectively capture CTC. Approximately less than 10 CTCs may be found among one billion blood cells in early stage cancers; therefore highly sensitive methods are required to detect and isolate these cells from the bloodstream. Although CTC detection has been applied and well documented in different types of cancer, especially in breast cancer [55], CTC detection is not routinely performed in HCC and remains in the experimental field. The clinical results suggest CTC detection and identification can be used to evaluate prognosis and may serve as an early marker to assess antitumor activity of treatment [56]. In addition, CTC detection might bring new interesting information of metastatic process and might be used as diagnostic tool of early recurrence after HCC resection or transplant, and may allow a better

A major factor in tumor recurrence after a potentially curative treatment for HCC is CTC. Although tumor recurrence in the liver after tumor resection or transplantation may be explained by either intrahepatic tumor cell spreading or de novo tumor development, intrahepatic tumor recurrence after liver transplantation can be explained only by the homing of systemically disseminated and circulating tumor cells. CTC have the potential to migrate and engraft in multiple organs, including the newly implanted liver, where significant recurrences are observed. The tumor response to preoperative treatment might be predictable prior to surgery by a drop in CTC count and this allows improved choice of the best timing of surgery. After surgery, CTCs can be examined in terms of pharmacodynamic biomarkers to choose the most sensitive chemotherapy agents and assist in deciding the duration of adjuvant

There are so many questions to answer in future. Is CTC a transient or recurrent phenomenon? Does locoreginal therapy in HCC affect the number of CTC? Can the number of CTC be used as criteria of liver transplantion? Which pharmacological and/or surgical protocols might be successful in eliminating or restricting tumor-cell circulation and spread? Thus, the detailed analysis and characterization of CTC in HCC patients may give us new insights into their

Department of General Surgery, The Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao

biology and may lead to new therapeutic strategies for their elimination.

patient selection.

90 Hepatocellular Carcinoma - Future Outlook

therapy.

**Author details**

Xin-yu Huang, Qi Zheng and Zhou Yuan\*

Tong University, Shanghai, China

\*Address all correspondence to: zhouyuan851@163.com


[15] Lau, W. Y. Primary hepatocellular carcinoma. In Blumgart LH & Fong Y. (2nd eds.) Surgery of The Liver and Biliary Tract Volume II, W.B. Saunders, London; (2000). , 2000, 1423-1450.

[28] Sasaki, A, Iwashita, Y, Shibata, K, Ohta, M, & Kitano, S. Mori M: Preoperative trans‐ catheter arterial chemoembolization reduces long-term survival rate after hepatic re‐ section for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol (2006). , 32, 773-779.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56289

93

[29] Kim, I. S, Lim, Y. S, Lee, H. C, Suh, D. J, & Lee, Y. J. Lee SG: Pre-operative transarteri‐ al chemoembolization for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma adversely affects post-

[30] Wang, X, Li, J, Peng, Y, Dai, Y, & Xu, W. Influence of preoperative transarterial che‐ moembolization on the prognosis for patients with resectable hepatocellular carcino‐ ma: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Hepatogastroenterology. (2011). May-Jun;

[31] Chua, T. C, Liauw, W, Saxena, A, Chu, F, Glenn, D, Chai, A, & Morris, D. L. System‐ atic review of neoadjuvant transarterial chemoembolization for resectable hepatocel‐

[32] Makuuchi, M, Takayasu, K, Takuma, T, et al. Preoperative transcatheter emboliza‐ tion of the portal venous branch for patients receiving extended lobectomy due to the

[33] Gruttadauria, S, Luca, A, Mandala, L, Miraglia, R, & Gridelli, B. Sequential preopera‐ tive ipsilateral portal and arterial embolization in patients with colorectal liver meta‐

[34] Gruttadauria, S, Luca, A, Mandala, L, Miraglia, R, & Gridelli, B. Sequential preopera‐ tive ipsilateral portal and arterial embolization in patients with colorectal liver meta‐

[35] Yoo, H, Kim, J. H, Ko, G. Y, Kim, K. W, Gwon, D. I, Lee, S. G, & Hwang, S. Sequential transcatheter arterial chemoembolization and portal vein embolization versus portal vein embolization only before major hepatectomy for patients with hepatocellular

[36] Ogata, S, Belghiti, J, Farges, O, Varma, D, Sibert, A, & Vilgrain, V. Sequential arterial and portal vein embolizations before right hepatectomy in patients with cirrhosis

[37] Aoki, T, Imamura, H, Hasegawa, K, et al. Sequential preoperative arterial and portal venous embolizations in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Arch Surg (2004). ,

[38] Wilhelm, S. M, Carter, C, & Tang, L. BAY 43-9006 exhibits broad spectrum oral anti‐ tumor activity and targets the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway and receptor tyrosine kinases involved in tumor progression and angiogenesis. Cancer Res (2004). , 64, 7099-109.

[39] Ito, Y, Sasaki, Y, Horimoto, M, et al. Activation of mitogen-activated protein kinases/ extracellular signal-regulated kinases in human hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatolo‐

operative patient outcome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther (2008). , 27, 338-345.

58(107-108):869-74.

139, 766-774.

gy (1998). , 27, 951-8.

lular carcinoma. Liver Int (2009). , 30, 166-74.

stases. World J Surg. (2006). , 30, 576-8.

stases. World J Surg. (2006). , 30, 576-8.

bile duct carcinoma. J Jpn Soc Clin Surg. (1984). , 45, 14-20.

carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. (2011). May; , 18(5), 1251-7.

and hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Surg. (2006). , 93, 1091-8.


[28] Sasaki, A, Iwashita, Y, Shibata, K, Ohta, M, & Kitano, S. Mori M: Preoperative trans‐ catheter arterial chemoembolization reduces long-term survival rate after hepatic re‐ section for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol (2006). , 32, 773-779.

[15] Lau, W. Y. Primary hepatocellular carcinoma. In Blumgart LH & Fong Y. (2nd eds.) Surgery of The Liver and Biliary Tract Volume II, W.B. Saunders, London; (2000). ,

[16] Llovet, J. M, Burroughs, A, & Bruix, J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet (2003). , 362,

[17] Fan, ST, Lo, CM, Liu, CL, Lam, CM, & Yuen, . . Hepatectomy for hepatocellular carci‐

[18] Imamura, H, Seyama, Y, Kokudo, N, Maema, A, Sugawara, Y, & Sano, K. One thou‐ sand fifty-six hepatectomies without mortality in 8 years. Arch Surg (2003). , 138,

[19] Llovet, J. M, & Bruix, J. Systematic review of randomized trials for unresectable hepa‐ tocellular carcinoma: chemoembolization improves survival. Hepatology (2003). , 37,

[20] Bruix, J, & Sherman, M. Practice Guidelines Committee, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology

[21] Bruix, J, Sherman, M, Llovet, J. M, et al. EASL Panel of Experts on HCC. Clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL conference. European Association for the Study of the Liver. J Hepatol (2001). , 35(3),

[22] Morino, M, Miglietta, C, Grosso, M, De Giuli, M, & Bismuth, H. Preoperativ chemo‐ embolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Surg Oncol (1993). Suppl.): , 91-3.

[23] Gerunda, G. E, Neri, D, Merenda, R, Barbazza, F, Zangrandi, F, Meduri, F, Bisello, M, Valmasoni, M, & Gangemi, A. Faccioli AM: Role of transarterial chemoembolization

[24] Lise, M, & Bacchetti, S. Da Pian P, Nitti D, Pilati PL, Pigato P: Prognostic factors af‐ fecting long term outcome after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma: results

[25] Choi, G. H, Kim, D. H, Kang, C. M, Kim, K. S, Choi, J. S, & Lee, W. J. Kim BR: Is pre‐ operative transarterial chemoembolization needed for a resectable hepatocellular car‐

[26] Lu, C. D, Peng, S. Y, Jiang, X. C, & Chiba, Y. Tanigawa N: Preoperative transcatheter arterial chemoembolization and prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcino‐

[27] Zhou, W. P, Lai, E. C, Li, A. J, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of preoperative transarterial chemoembolization for resectable large hepatocellular car‐

mas: retrospective analysis of 120 cases. World J Surg (1999). , 23, 293-300.

before liver resection for hepatocarcinoma. Liver Transpl (2000). , 6, 619-626.

in a series of 100 Italian patients. Cancer (1998). , 82, 1028-1036.

cinoma? World J Surg (2007). , 31, 2370-2377.

cinoma. Ann Surg (2009). , 249, 195-202.

noma: toward zero hospital deaths. Ann Surg 1999; 229: 322-330.

2000, 1423-1450.

92 Hepatocellular Carcinoma - Future Outlook

1907-1917.

1198-1206.

429-42.

421-30.

(2005). , 42(5), 1208-36.


[40] Llovet, J. M, Ricci, S, Mazzaferro, V, Hilgard, P, Gane, E, Blanc, J. F, De Oliveira, A. C, Santoro, A, Raoul, J. L, Forner, A, Schwartz, M, Porta, C, Zeuzem, S, Bolondi, L, Gret‐ en, T. F, & Galle, P. R. SHARP Investigators Study Group. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. (2008). , 359, 378-390.

[52] Lewandowski, R. J, Kulik, L. M, Riaz, A, et al. A comparative analysis of transarterial downstaging for hepatocellular carcinoma: chemoembolization versus radioemboli‐

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56289

95

[53] Vagefi, P. A, & Hirose, R. Downstaging of hepatocellular carcinoma prior to liver transplant: is there a role for adjuvant sorafenib in locoregional therapy? J Gastroint‐

[54] Guo, J, Yao, F, Lou, Y, Xu, C, Xiao, B, Zhou, W, Chen, J, Hu, Y, & Liu, Z. Detecting carcinoma cells in peripheral blood of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma by im‐ munomagnetic beads and RT-PCR, J. Clin. Gastroenterol. (2007). , 41(2007), 783-788.

[55] Stathopoulou, A, Vlachonikolis, I, & Mavroudis, D. Molecular detection of cytokera‐ tin-19-positive cells in the peripheral blood of patients with operable breast cancer:

[56] Pantel, K, Brakenhoff, R. H, & Brandt, B. Detection clinical relevance and specific bio‐ logical properties of disseminating tumour cells. Nat Rev Cancer. (2008). May; , 8(5),

evaluation of their prognostic significance. J.Oncol. (2002). , 2002, 20-3404.

zation. Am J Transplant (2009). , 9, 1920-8.

est Cancer. (2010). , 2010(41), 4-217.

329-40.


[52] Lewandowski, R. J, Kulik, L. M, Riaz, A, et al. A comparative analysis of transarterial downstaging for hepatocellular carcinoma: chemoembolization versus radioemboli‐ zation. Am J Transplant (2009). , 9, 1920-8.

[40] Llovet, J. M, Ricci, S, Mazzaferro, V, Hilgard, P, Gane, E, Blanc, J. F, De Oliveira, A. C, Santoro, A, Raoul, J. L, Forner, A, Schwartz, M, Porta, C, Zeuzem, S, Bolondi, L, Gret‐ en, T. F, & Galle, P. R. SHARP Investigators Study Group. Sorafenib in advanced

[41] Irtan, S, Chopin-laly, X, Ronot, M, Faivre, S, Paradis, V, & Belghiti, J. Complete re‐ gression of locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma induced by sorafenib allowing

[42] Barbier, L, & Muscari, F. Le Guellec S, Pariente A, Otal P, Suc B. Liver resection after downstaging hepatocellular carcinoma with sorafenib. Int J Hepatol. (2011).

[43] Onaca, N, Davis, G. L, Goldstein, R. M, et al. Expanded criteria for liver transplanta‐ tion in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a report from the international regis‐

[44] Yao, F. Y, Ferrell, L, Bass, N. M, Watson, J. J, Bacchetti, P, Venook, A, et al. Liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: expansion of the tumor size limits does

[45] Sheu, J. C, Sung, J. L, Chen, D. S, Yang, P. M, Lai, M. Y, Lee, C. S, et al. Growth rate of asymptomatic hepatocellular carcinoma and its clinical implications. Gastroenterolo‐

[46] Lesurtel, M, Müllhaupt, B, Pestalozzi, B. C, Pfammatter, T, & Clavien, P. A. Transar‐ terial chemoembolization as a bridge to liver transplantation for hepatocellular carci‐

[47] Oldhafer, K. J, Chavan, A, Fruhauf, N. R, et al. Arterial chemoembolization before liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: marked tumor ne‐

[48] Decaens, T, & Roudo-thoraval, F. Bresson Hadni S, et al. Impact of pretransplanta‐ tion transarterial chemoembolization on survival and recurrence after liver trans‐

[49] Graziadei, I. W, Sandmueller, H, Waldenberger, P, et al. Chemoembolization fol‐ lowed by liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma impedes tumor progres‐ sion while on the waiting list and leads to excellent outcome. Liver Transpl (2003). ,

[50] Lencioni, R. A, Allgaier, H. P, Cioni, D, et al. Small hepatocellular carcinoma in cir‐ rhosis: randomized comparison of radio-frequency thermal ablation versus percuta‐

[51] Mazzaferro, V, Battiston, C, Perrone, S, et al. Radiofrequency ablation of small hepa‐ tocellular carcinoma in cirrhotic patients awaiting liver transplantation: a prospective

plantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Transpl (2005). , 11, 767-75.

noma: an evidence-based analysis. Am J Transplant (2006). , 6(11), 2644-50.

try of hepatic tumors in liver transplantation. Liver Transpl (2007). , 13, 391-9.

not adversely impact survival. Hepatology (2001). , 33, 1394-1403.

crosis, but no survival benefit? J Hepatol (1998). , 29, 953-9.

neous ethanol injection. Radiology (2003). , 228, 235-40.

study. Ann Surg (2004). , 240, 900-9.

gy (1985). , 89, 259-266.

94 Hepatocellular Carcinoma - Future Outlook

9, 557-63.

hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. (2008). , 359, 378-390.

curative resection. Liver Int. (2011). May; , 31(5), 740-3.


**Chapter 6**

**Targets and Approaches to Control Hepatocellular**

Cancer is uncontrolled proliferation of cells, which results from the loss of proper balance between cell death and cell growth. The transformed phenotypes of cancer cells are caused by the accumulation of mutations in a variety of genes, products of which normally play a role in the biochemical pathways that regulate cell death and cell proliferation. Cancer is a broad term used to define a group of more than 250 different diseases (Roncalli et al. 2010). It is a slow multi-stage, multi-step process (Cammà et al. 2008; Calvisi et al. 2009; Sherman 2011). In the first instance, these cells, derived initially from a normal cell, form a primary tumor which comprises a growth-transformed population of cells. The cells acquire a set of mutations to a set of genes which allow them to divide repeatedly in a way that normal cells cannot (Besaratinia et al. 2009; Calvisi et al. 2009). Histologically, cancer is characterized by several morphological alterations, including changes in tissue architecture, cytological abnormalities of both the nucleus and cytoplasm and the presence of abnormal mitoses. A stepwise several

Primary liver cancer or hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a very common malignant hepa‐ tobiliary disease and it represents the fifth most frequent neoplastic disease which causes approximately 1 million deaths per year (Yang and Roberts, 2010, Cha et al. 2010). HCC is the third leading cause of cancer related death worldwide (Raphael 2012). Viruses and chemicals have been identified as the most important etiological factor associated with the development of human liver cancer (Carr et al. 2010). The most common cause of HCC is hepatitis B and C (Woo et al. 2008; Masuzaki et al. 2008, Gouas et al. 2010; Iavarone and Colombo 2011) and a

> © 2013 Biswajit et al.; licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

biochemical, genetic and biological alterations eventually result in a cancer.

**Carcinoma in Future**

Hossain Chowdhury Mobaswar ,

Bhattacharya Sanchari and Shampa Ghosh

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

Mukherjee Biswajit,

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/56867

**1. Introduction**
