Put into perspective, treatment-emergent grade 3 or 4 liver dysfunction was documented in 5% of placebo-treated and 7% of sorafenib-treated NVP-BGJ398 in vivo patients in the pivotal SHARP (Sorafenib HCC Assessment Randomized Protocol)

trial.30 Regarding survival analysis, when the joint contribution of single-vector prognostic factors are considered in a multivariate model, the performance status, disease burden (intrahepatic and extrahepatic) and liver function (as measured by total bilirubin >1.5 mg/dL) provide further indications of predicted clinical outcome. Because these factors are considered by the BCLC staging system, it is no surprise that survival is progressively worse for each BCLC stage. In the background of BCLC staging, increased tumor burden (as reflected by multinodularity and bilobar involvement) or aggressiveness

(as determined by high alpha-fetoprotein, portal vein thrombosis , or poor performance status) and worsened liver function (as reflected by increased bilirubin or INR) provide additional prognostic information. The survival outcomes in specific cohorts compare favorably with other locoregional treatment options (chemoembolization and arterial embolization) that would typically be considered for unresectable patients in BCLC stages selleck chemicals A and B, as has also been shown recently.31 Data from our series show that survival after radioembolization appears particularly promising for the subset of patients with intermediate stage HCC who are considered poor candidates for chemoembolization (i.e., those with bilobar and/or multiple [>5] tumors; median, 15.4-16.6 months) as well as for those who had failed prior chemoembolization or arterial embolization (median, 15.4 months). Survival is also promising for the group of patients with advanced stage disease (BCLC C), particularly those with portal vein thrombosis , where radioembolization compares well to that observed after

sorafenib treatment and is well tolerated. A potential learn more confounding effect on survival due to sorafenib therapy given after radioembolization was ruled out. The main limitation of this study is its retrospective nature, although many patients were in fact followed prospectively and more than 98% of the data were available for the multivariate model. Due to this retrospective nature, we could not assess intention-to-treat patients who were evaluated for radioembolization but were considered inappropriate due, for instance, to insufficient liver function or technical considerations such as uncorrectable vasculature that would have led to the misdirection of microspheres to the gastrointestinal tract and other nontarget organs or excessive shunting of radiation to the lung. In addition, strict recommendations from the manufacturer and consensus guidelines23 were not always followed (e.g., patients compromised by poor liver function or with ECOG performance status >2 were treated showing unsurprising poor outcomes).