Portal vein tumor thrombus is a bottleneck in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

Abstract

The effect of portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) on the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma has become clearover the past several decades. However, identifying the mechanisms and performing the diagnosis and treatment of PVTT remainchallenging. Therefore, this study aimed to summarize the progress in these areas. A computerized literature search in Medlineand EMBASE was performed with the following combinations of search terms: “hepatocellular carcinoma” AND “portal veintumor thrombus.” Although several signal transduction or molecular pathways related to PVTT have been identified, the exactmechanisms of PVTT are still largely unknown. Many biomarkers have been reported to detect microvascular invasion, but nonehave proved to be clinically useful because of their low accuracy rates. Sorafenib is the only recommended therapeutic strategy inWestern countries. However, more treatment options are recommended in Eastern countries, including surgery, radiotherapy(RT), transhepatic arterial chemoembolization (TACE), transarterial radioembolization (TARE), and sorafenib. Therefore, weestablished a staging system based on the extent of portal vein invasion. Our staging system effectively predicts the long-termsurvival of PVTT patients. Currently, several clinical trials had shown that surgery is effective and safe in some PVTT patients. RT,TARE, and TACE can also be performed safely in patients with good liver function. However, only a few comparative clinical trialshad compared the effectiveness of these treatments. Therefore, more randomized controlled trials examining the extent of PVTTshould be conducted in the future.

Introduction

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most common neoplasm and third most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide¹. Despite advances in the diagnostic and treatment strategies for different HCC stages, the survival of patients with HCC is still poor. For the past 20 years, the 5-year recurrence rate remains at approximately 70% after R0 resection² and 5%-30% after liver transplantation³. Sorafenib is the only drug that extends the overall survival time of patients with advanced HCC by approximately three months⁴. Effectively addressing portal vein invasion in the form of macro-portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) or micro-PVTT may improve treatment results for HCC.

The effect of PVTT on the prognosis of patients after treatment has become clear over the past several decades. Without treatment, the median survival time for patients with macro-PVTT is 2.5-4 months compared with 10-24 months for patients without macro-PVTT. Macro-PVTT is the single most important independent risk factor of early postoperative recurrence in HCC⁵. Macro-PVTT is also an absolute contraindication of liver transplantation (LT). The presence of macro-PVTT indicates that the disease is in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) C stage. Even microscopic PVTT exhibits a significant, negative prognostic effect on patients who underwent LT and liver resection. For patients who underwent LT, the 3-year cumulative recurrence rate exceeds the Milan criteria; however, the recurrence rates for patients without microscopic PVTT is within the Milan criteria and is lower than that of patients with microscopic PVTT⁶. For patients who underwent liver resection, microscopic PVTT significantly decreases 3-year (RR = 1.82) and 5-year (RR = 1.51) disease-free survival⁷. No accurate, objective, or reproducible method is available for evaluating the presence of microscopic PVTT prior to surgery. Therefore, it is necessary to add information obtained from surgery on microscopic PVTT to the currently available HCC staging systems and LT criteria. In this article, we will review PVTT from the perspectives of incidence and molecular mechanisms, as well as the current knowledge on the diagnosis and treatment of PVTT.

A computerized literature search in Medline and EMBASE was performed with the following combinations of search terms: "hepatocellular carcinoma” AND "portal vein tumor thrombus.” Only English- and Chinese-language articles were searched. The last search update was performed in June 2015. We also manually searched articles for additional citations.

Incidence of PVTT

We found that PVTT incidence was considerably higher than previously expected. HCC is prone to invading the portal venous system. Approximately 10%-40% of patients exhibit macroscopic PVTT when HCC is first diagnosed⁸. The incidence of macroscopic PVTT is 5.4%-26.0% in patients who underwent hepatectomy^9,10, 11.3%-38.0% in patients who received non-surgical therapy^11,12, and 44.0%-62.2% at autopsy¹³. The incidence of micro-PVTT is even higher and is present in 20% of tumors with diameters of 2 cm, 30%-60% in tumors with diameters of 2-5 cm, and 60%-90% in tumors with diameters of > 5 cm¹⁴. Data from 5,524 patients with HCC and who underwent liver resection at our hospital (Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgical Hospital, Shanghai, China) from 1960 to 1998 showed that the incidences of macro-and micro-PVTT were 6.1% and 67.1%, respectively¹⁵.

Mechanisms of PVTT formation

Until recently, the mechanisms of PVTT formation have largely remained unknown. As the majority of PVTT emerges around the primary tumor (aPVTT), the traditional belief is that PVTT develops following the direct invasion of a liver tumor, resulting in a hepatic artery-portal vein fistula and portal vein countercurrent. However, we detected distinct PVTT (dPVTT), a unique type of PVTT distant from the liver tumor nodule¹⁶. Comparative proteomics showed that dPVTT possessed molecular signatures different from those of liver tumors, implying that the mechanism of PVTT formation is far more complicated than previously thought.

The lack of an experimental model hinders research progress on PVTT, and the primary culture of PVTT cells was previously considered as virtually impossible. However, after four years of unremitting efforts, we successfully established two PVTT-originating HCC cell lines, CSQT-1 and CSQT-2, by culturing PVTT cells from more than 60 PVTT patients. This cell model provides a solid foundation for future basic research¹⁷.

We conducted numerous successful experimental assessments on CSQT-1 and CSQT-2, such as advanced microRNA (miRNA) and cDNA microarray analyses. In addition, we established a corresponding animal model. We found that miRNA-135a is highly overexpressed in CSQT-2 and is related to the prognosis and survival of patients with both HCC and PVTT. Experiments conducted with a nude mouse model showed that blocking miR-135a expression significantly reduces PVTT incidence. We then identified the upstream forkhead box M1 (FOXM1) and downstream metastasis suppressor 1 (MTSS1) of miR-135a. Finally, we established the FOXM1-miR-135a-MTSS1 pathway¹⁸.

Chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) is an important etiological cause of HCC. However, the relationship between HBV and PVTT is still unclear. Therefore, we participated in a study conducted by researchers at Duke University that examined the role of HBV infection in microenvironmental changes¹⁹. We found that PVTT development is positively related to HBV infection status and transforming growth factor (TGF)-β activity. We then found that miRNA-34a, a tumor suppressor, is negatively associated with TGF-β activity. We developed and performed a qPCR-based assay to demonstrate that CCL22, a chemokine gene, is the primary target of miRNA-34a. In addition, we found that an inverse relationship exists between miRNA-34a and CCL22 levels. Finally, we validated the relationship between Treg cells and chemokine CCL22. Our results established the HBV-TGF-β-miRNA-34a-CCL22-Treg-PVTT pathway. In our opinion, this is the most complete molecular pathway explaining PVTT development.

Other micro-RNAs and genes also significantly contribute to PVTT development. Abnormalities in coagulation and fibrinolysis systems and angiogenesis, as well as in many adhesion molecules and chemokines, are associated with PVTT formation. Unfortunately, all of these factors still cannot be applied clinically as PVTT biomarkers.

Biomarkers for PVTT

Current imaging techniques cannot detect microvascular invasion in the third or more proximal ramifications of the main portal vein. Attempts to identify one or more serum markers to accurately predict PVTT had been unsuccessful.

In a retrospective study involving 1,452 patients with HCC with or without PVTT, the cut-off value of >20, 000 ng/mL for α-fetoprotein has a specificity of 96% and a sensitivity of only 76%²⁰. MiRNAs have been used as biomarkers for HCC, but not for PVTT. A group of 20-miRNA tumor signatures were acquired by comparing the miRNA profiles of 241 patients with HCC. The corresponding non-tumorous liver tissues significantly predicted HCC with venous metastases, but not PVTT²¹. A five-protein signature including 3478, 2022, 8901, 9415, 8773, 2766, and 2745 showed a sensitivity of only 75.8% and specificity of 82.3% for predicting PVTT²². Other potential biomarkers include des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin (DCP), thrombus precursor protein, and alfa-l-fucosidase. However, further studies are required to confirm their usefulness as PVTT biomarkers.

As no clinically useful, specific biomarkers are available, combinations of other detection methods have also been studied. Several studies exhibit potential clinical value. One study²³ combined a cut-off value of 101 mAU/mL for serum DCP with a cut-off value of 3.6 cm for tumor diameter and a SUVmax of 4.2. The sensitivity for PVTT diagnosis was 100% and specificity was 90.9% if patients with HCC showed two of these three features. However, these results necessitate further validation in large-scale studies.

Therapeutic interventions for PVTT

Eastern and Western countries have widely different treatment approaches for HCC and PVTT^1,24. Sorafenib is the only recommended therapeutic strategy by EASL guidelines. However, Asia-Pacific guidelines recommend several treatment options, including surgery, radiotherapy (RT), transhepatic arterial chemoembolization (TACE), and sorafenib. The high incidence of PVTT in Eastern countries is an important reason for these different treatment approaches. As other therapeutic methods, such as RT and TACE, are also used to treat PVTT patients, it is necessary to establish a staging system with prognostic value to determine the long-term survival of HCC patients with PVTT. Referring to the results of a cohort study we published in 2007²⁵, PVTT can be classified into four grades according to the extent of PVTT in the portal vein: type Ⅰ, wherein a tumor thrombus is present in the segmental branches of the portal vein or above; type Ⅱ, wherein the tumor thrombus is present in the right or left portal vein; type Ⅲ, wherein the tumor thrombus is present in the main portal vein trunk; and type Ⅳ, wherein the tumor thrombus extends from the portal vein to the superior mesenteric vein. This classification system effectively predicts the long-term survival of patients after surgery²⁶ or TACE²⁷. Therefore, this classification is useful for clinical decision-making processes in HCC treatment.

Surgery

Advances in surgical techniques have enabled the safe resection of both hepatic tumors and PVTT. Currently, patients with PVTT who exhibited varying degrees of portal vein involvement have a perioperative mortality of 0%-5.9%, with median survival time ranging from 8.9 months to 33 months⁸. Patients with type Ⅰ/Ⅱ PVTT have a reported perioperative mortality of 0% to 3.1%^26,28,29, with a 5-year overall survival rate of 10%-59%^9,28,30,31, which is considerably higher compared with patients with type Ⅲ/Ⅳ PVTT (perioperative mortality, 0%-28%; 5-year overall survival rate, 0%-26.4%)^10,29,31,32 (Table 1). Furthermore, the obstruction of the portal vein in patients with type Ⅲ/Ⅳ PVTT can result in deteriorated liver function, cause refractory ascites, and induce variceal bleeding from the lower esophagus. A thrombus should be surgically removed if a patient’s liver function permits concomitant hepatic resection. However, additional clinical trials are necessary to examine this treatment approach. Prognosis is unaffected by different surgical methods, including en bloc resection of a liver tumor and PVTT, thrombectomy, or even peeling off a PVTT⁹. Surgical resection margin (SM) should be attempted in patients with infiltrative PVTT growth. In a retrospective study that included 381 patients, Zhou et al.³³ reported that a SM of > 5 mm is an independent prognostic factor for ICC. Meta-analysis³⁴ showed that patients with type Ⅰ/Ⅱ PVTT and who underwent surgery have better survival rates than those who underwent TACE. However, TACE is suitable for patients with type Ⅲ/Ⅳ.

Table 1 Hepatectomy and TACE for PVTT patients

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) studying the effectiveness of postoperative TACE³⁵ demonstrated that TACE delays postoperative recurrence. Preoperative irradiation is beneficial for patients with PVTT, as it can shrink PVTT, induce hypertrophy of the contralateral liver, and decrease tumor recurrence rate³⁶. We are now evaluating the efficacy of sorafenib in delaying postoperative recurrence in patients with PVTT, and the initial results are encouraging (data not shown).

TACE

Given the potential risk of liver failure and the limited benefits associated with TACE, some researchers had previously suggested that it should not be administered to patients with PVTT, especially to those with type Ⅲ/Ⅳ PVTT. Nevertheless, evidence indicates that TACE can be performed safely and feasibly in select patients with good liver function and adequate collateral circulation around the occluded portal vein regardless of PVTT extent²⁷. Since 2010, the 30-day mortality has been reported³⁷ to be < 1.2%. The reported median survival time for patients with all PVTT types who received TACE is between 5.6 and 8.7 months^27,37-40. Niu²⁷ reported that the overall median survival time for patients with types Ⅰ, Ⅱ, Ⅲ, and Ⅳ PVTT and who received TACE were 19.0, 11.0, 7.0, and 4.0 months, respectively, which was significantly longer than that of patient groups with corresponding PVTT types and who did not receive TACE (P < 0.01). Liver function status also greatly influences survival; patients with Child A live longer (median: 7.4-11 months) than those with Child B (median: 2.8-4 months)^37,39,41,42. However, no complete remission (CR) has been reported after TACE. Partial response is achieved in 19.5%-26.3% with a stable disease rate of 42.5%-62.7%^40,42,43. A significant difference is observed in median survival between TACE responders (10.5 months) and non-responders (5.5 months)³⁸. The use of small embolic particles and superselective chemoembolization reduces fatal compli-cations and achieves increased response rates^37,38 (Table 1).

RT

In the past, radiation was rarely used alone and was usually combined with TACE or other treatments given the liver’s low tolerance to external RT. The rapid progress in RT techniques has enabled the delivery of high radiation doses to HCC and PVTT without significantly increasing radiation toxicity. Published articles had reported significantly different total RT doses because of the differences in RT techniques and entry criteria. Reported RT doses vary from 17.5 Gy to 60 Gy in the 1.8-4.5 Gy fraction with response rates of 27.9%-53.8% and a CR of 0%-16.7%; the median survival time for responders and non-responders was 10.7-22 and 5-7.2 months, respectively^44,45. Severe RT-related toxicity is rarely reported in patients with PVTT, but HBV reactivation should be monitored⁴⁵. Hypofractionation enhances the effects of RT, but requires highly precise, image-guided radiation therapy techniques. The benefits of proton beam therapy are also increasingly apparent. The reported median survival duration can reach 13.2-22 months when combined with other treatments⁴⁶. However, these results require large-scale verification. The RT plan should be formulated individually in the future according to tumor and PVTT location, liver function status, and other ongoing treatments.

Transarterial radioembolization (TARE)

TARE is a special type of TACE utilizing iodine-131-labeled lipiodol (¹³¹I) or yttrium-90 (⁹⁰Y) as a cytotoxic agent in the hepatic artery. The effect of ¹³¹I in patients with PVTT is controversial and still under investigation.⁹⁰Y, a β-emitting isotope, is the most popular radioembolization agent. TARE exhibits comparable efficacy with TACE for advanced HCC⁴⁷. TARE has a low risk of liver ischemia because of the minimal embolic effects of the ⁹⁰Y-glass microsphere. Therefore, TARE is suitable for patients with PVTT⁴⁸. The response rate is 28%-50%, and the median survival time is 3.2-10.4 months for patients with all PVTT types⁸.

Sorafenib

Sorafenib is an oral multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and is the only drug that improves survival in patients with advanced HCC. However, a SHARP trial demonstrated that tumor response to sorafenib treatment is only 2%-3%⁴. A subgroup analysis of patients with PVTT showed that the median survival time of the sorafenib group was 8.1 months compared with the 4.9 months of the placebo group⁴⁹. The incidence of severe adverse events can be as high as 9.4%-14.6% with sorafenib, and some patients may require reduced doses or even treatment interruption⁴. Only a few clinical trials had compared sorafenib with other treatment methods. Nakazawa⁴⁴ reported that RT significantly improves survival in patients with PVTT compared with sorafenib (10.9 vs. 4.8 months, respectively; P = 0.025).

Conclusions

PVTT incidence is much higher than expected. Currently, the mechanisms of PVTT occurrence remain largely unknown. Although many biomarkers have been reported, none have been shown to be clinically useful because of their low accuracy rates. Combining other investigatory methods, such as clinical imaging, can provide a possible solution to the lack of useful PVTT biomarkers. Great differences exist in PVTT treatment paradigms between Western and Eastern countries. Surgery is effective and safe in select patients with PVTT. RT is an alternative treatment. More RCTs should be conducted to examine the extent of PVTT.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grants from the Science Fund for Creative Research Groups (Grant No. 81221061), The State Key Project on Diseases of China (Grant No. 2012zx10002016016003), The China National Funds for Distinguished Young Scientists (Grant No. 81125018), Chang Jiang Scholars Program (2013) of Chinese Ministry of Education, The National Key Basic Research Program (Grant No. 2015CB554000), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 81101831, 81101511, and 81472282), The New Excellent Talents Program of Shanghai Municipal Health Bureau (Grant No. XBR2011025), Shanghai Science and Technology Committee (Grant No. 134119a0200), Shanghai Science and Technology Development Funds (Grant No. 14QA1405000), SMMU Innovation Alliance for Liver Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment (Grant 2012), General Program from Shanghai Municipal Health Bureau (Grant No. 20124301), and Shanghai Rising-star Program from Shanghai Science and Technology Committee (Grant No.13QA 1404900).

Conflict of interest statement

No potential conflicts of interest are disclosed.

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: 908-43.

Yang JD, Roberts LR. Hepatocellular carcinoma: a global view. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010; 7: 448-58. [PubMed]

Trotter JF, Wachs M, Everson GT, Kam I. Adult-to-adult transplantation of the right hepatic lobe from a living donor. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346: 1074-82. [PubMed]

Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, Hilgard P, Gane E, Blanc JF, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359: 378-90.

Choi KK, Kim SH, Choi SB, Lim JH, Choi GH, Choi JS, et al. Portal venous invasion: the single most independent risk factor for immediate postoperative recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011; 26: 1646-51. [PubMed]

Mazzaferro V, Llovet JM, Miceli R, Bhoori S, Schiavo M, Mariani L, et al. Predicting survival after liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria: a retrospective, exploratory analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2009; 10: 35-43. [PubMed]

Rodríguez-Perálvarez M, Luong TV, Andreana L, Meyer T, Dhillon AP, Burroughs AK. A systematic review of microvascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma: diagnostic and prognostic variability. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012; 20: 325-39. [PubMed]

Lau WY, Sangro B, Chen PJ, Cheng SQ, Chow P, Lee RC, et al. Treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis: the emerging role for radioembolization using yttrium-90. Oncology. 2013; 84: 311-8. [PubMed]

Inoue Y, Hasegawa K, Ishizawa T, Aoki T, Sano K, Beck Y, et al. Is there any difference in survival according to the portal tumor thrombectomy method in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma? Surgery. 2009; 145: 9-19. [PubMed]

Ikai I, Arii S, Okazaki M, Okita K, Omata M, Kojiro M, et al. Report of the 17th nationwide follow-up survey of primary liver cancer in Japan. Hepatol Res. 2007; 37: 676-91.

Allgaier HP, Deibert P, Olschewski M, Spamer C, Blum U, Gerok W, et al. Survival benefit of patients with inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma treated by a combination of transarterial chemoembolization and percutaneous ethanol injection——a single-center analysis including 132 patients. Int J Cancer. 1998; 79: 601-5. [PubMed]

The Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP) Investigators. A new prognostic system for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study of 435 patients. Hepatology. 1998; 28: 751-5.

Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan. Primary liver cancer in Japan. Clinicopathologic features and results of surgical treatment. Ann Surg. 1990; 211: 277-87. [PubMed]

Llovet JM, Schwartz M, Mazzaferro V. Resection and liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis. 2005; 25: 181-200. [PubMed]

Wu MC, Chen H, Shen F. Surgical treatment for primary liver cancer: report of 5524 cases. Chin J Surg. 2001; 39: 25-8.

Guo WX, Xue J, Shi J, Li N, Shao Y, Yu XY, et al. Proteomics analysis of distinct portal vein tumor thrombi in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. J Proteome Res. 2010; 9: 4170-5. [PubMed]

Wang T, Hu HS, Feng YX, Shi J, Li N, Guo WX, et al. Characterisation of a novel cell line (CSQT-2) with high metastatic activity derived from portal vein tumour thrombus of hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 2010; 102: 1618-26. [PubMed]

Liu SP, Guo WX, Shi J, Li N, Yu XY, Xue J, et al. MicroRNA-135a contributes to the development of portal vein tumor thrombus by promoting metastasis in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2012; 56: 389-96. [PubMed]

Yang PY, Li QJ, Feng YX, Zhang Y, Markowitz GJ, Ning SL, et al. TGF-β-miR-34a-CCL22 signaling-induced Treg cell recruitment promotes venous metastases of HBV-positive hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Cell. 2012; 22: 291-303. [PubMed]

Liu Y, Wang X, Jiang K, Zhang W, Dong J. The diagnostic value of tumor biomarkers for detecting hepatocellular carcinoma accompanied by portal vein tumor thrombosis. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2014; 69: 455-9.

Budhu A, Jia HL, Forgues M, Liu CG, Goldstein D, Lam A, et al. Identification of metastasis-related microRNAs in hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2008; 47: 897-907. [PubMed]

Qiu JG, Fan J, Liu YK, Zhou J, Dai Z, Huang C, et al. Screening and detection of portal vein tumor thrombi-associated serum low molecular weight protein biomarkers in human hepatocellular carcinoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2008; 134: 299-305. [PubMed]

Shirabe K, Toshima T, Kimura K, Yamashita Y, Ikeda T, Ikegami T, et al. New scoring system for prediction of microvascular invasion in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Int. 2014; 34: 937-41. [PubMed]

Omata M, Lesmana LA, Tateishi R, Chen PJ, Lin SM, Yoshida H, et al. Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver consensus recommendations on hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Int. 2010; 4: 439-74. [PubMed]

Cheng SQ, Wu MC, Chen H, Shen F, Yang JH, Ding GH, et al. Tumor thrombus types influence the prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma with the tumor thrombi in the portal vein. Hepatogastroenterology. 2007; 54: 499-502. [PubMed]

Shi J, Lai ECH, Li N, Guo WX, Xue J, Lau WY, et al. Surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010; 17: 2073-80. [PubMed]

Niu ZJ, Ma YL, Kang P, Ou SQ, Meng ZB, Li ZK, et al. Transarterial chemoembolization compared with conservative treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus: using a new classification. Med Oncol. 2012; 29: 2992-7. [PubMed]

Chen XP, Qiu FZ, Wu ZD, Zhang ZW, Huang ZY, Chen YF, et al. Effects of location and extension of portal vein tumor thrombus on long-term outcomes of surgical treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006; 13: 940-6. [PubMed]

Wu CC, Hsieh SR, Chen JT, Ho WL, Lin MC, Yeh DC, et al. An appraisal of liver and portal vein resection for hepatocellular carcinoma with tumor thrombi extending to portal bifurcation. Arch Surg. 2000; 135: 1273-9. [PubMed]

Liu PH, Lee YH, Hsia CY, Hsu CY, Huang YH, Chiou YY, et al. Surgical resection versus transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis: a propensity score analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014; 21: 1825-33. [PubMed]

Ikai I, Hatano E, Hasegawa S, Fujii H, Taura K, Uyama N, et al. Prognostic index for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma combined with tumor thrombosis in the major portal vein. J Am Coll Surg. 2006; 202: 431-8. [PubMed]

Poon RT, Fan ST, Ng IO, Wong J. Prognosis after hepatic resection for stage ⅣA hepatocellular carcinoma: a need for reclassification. Ann Surg. 2003; 237: 376-83. [PubMed]

Zhou J, Tang ZY, Wu ZQ, Zhou XD, Ma ZC, Tan CJ, et al. Factors influencing survival in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with macroscopic portal vein tumor thrombosis after surgery, with special reference to time dependency: a single-center experience of 381 cases. Hepatogastroenterology. 2006; 53: 275-80. [PubMed]

Xue TC, Xie XY, Zhang L, Yin X, Zhang BH, Ren ZG. Transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus: a meta-analysis. BMC Gastroenterol. 2013; 13: 60. [PubMed]

Peng BG, He Q, Li JP, Zhou F. Adjuvant transcatheter arterial chemoembolization improves efficacy of hepatectomy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein tumor thrombus. Am J Surg. 2009; 198: 313-8. [PubMed]

Kamiyama T, Nakanishi K, Yokoo H, Tahara M, Nakagawa T, Kamachi H, et al. Efficacy of preoperative radiotherapy to portal vein tumor thrombus in the main trunk or first branch in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Clin Oncol. 2007; 12: 363-8. [PubMed]

Chung GE, Lee JH, Kim HY, Hwang SY, Kim JS, Chung JW, et al. Transarterial chemoembolization can be safely performed in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma invading the main portal vein and may improve the overall survival. Radiology. 2011; 258: 627-34. [PubMed]

Chern MC, Chuang VP, Liang CT, Lin ZH, Kuo TM. Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein invasion: safety, efficacy, and prognostic factors. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2014; 25: 32-40. [PubMed]

Kim KM, Kim JH, Park IS, Ko GY, Yoon HK, Sung KB, et al. Reappraisal of repeated transarterial chemoembolization in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein invasion. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009; 24: 806-14. [PubMed]

Luo J, Guo RP, Lai ECH, Zhang YJ, Lau WY, Chen MS, et al. Transarterial chemoembolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis: a prospective comparative study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011; 18: 413-20. [PubMed]

Georgiades CS, Hong K, D'Angelo M, Geschwind JF. Safety and efficacy of transarterial chemoembolization in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein thrombosis. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005; 16: 1653-9. [PubMed]

Liu L, Zhang C, Zhao Y, Qi X, Chen H, Bai W, et al. Transarterial chemoembolization for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis: prognostic factors in a single-center study of 188 patients. Biomed Res Int. 2014; 2014: 194278. [PubMed]

Jang JW, Bae SH, Choi JY, Oh HJ, Kim MS, Lee SY, et al. A combination therapy with transarterial chemo-lipiodolization and systemic chemo-infusion for large extensive hepatocellular carcinoma invading portal vein in comparison with conservative management. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2007; 59: 9-15. [PubMed]

Nakazawa T, Hidaka H, Shibuya A, Okuwaki Y, Tanaka Y, Takada J, et al. Overall survival in response to sorafenib versus radiotherapy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with major portal vein tumor thrombosis: propensity score analysis. BMC Gastroenterol. 2014; 14: 84. [PubMed]

Yoon SM, Lim YS, Won HJ, Kim JH, Kim KM, Lee HC, et al. Radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma invading the portal vein: long-term patient outcomes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 82: 2004-11. [PubMed]

Hata M, Tokuuye K, Sugahara S, Kagei K, Igaki H, Hashimoto T, et al. Proton beam therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus. Cancer. 2005; 104: 794-801. [PubMed]

Kooby DA, Egnatashvili V, Srinivasan S, Chamsuddin A, Delman KA, Kauh J, et al. Comparison of yttrium-90 radioembolization and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010; 21: 224-30. [PubMed]

Memon K, Kulik L, Lewandowski RJ, Mulcahy MF, Benson AB, Ganger D, et al. Radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein thrombosis: impact of liver function on systemic treatment options at disease progression. J Hepatol. 2013; 58: 73-80. [PubMed]

Bruix J, Raoul JL, Sherman M, Mazzaferro V, Bolondi L, Craxi A, et al. Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: subanalyses of a phase Ⅲ trial. J Hepatol. 2012; 57: 821-9. [PubMed]

Peng ZW, Guo RP, Zhang YJ, Lin XJ, Chen MS, Lau WY. Hepatic resection versus transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus. Cancer. 2012; 118: 4725-36. [PubMed]