About 140,000 people in the United States were diagnosed with colon
or rectal cancer in 1996, and 40% of those patients will ultimately die
of metastasis from that disease. The liver is the dominant metastatic
site in the majority of these patients, and more than 80% of patients with
hepatic metastases succumb to liver failure.
Despite the fact that metastatic colorectal cancer is usually a systemic
disease, in some patients, the liver is the only site of metastasis. This
is evidenced by the fact that, with careful patient selection, resection
of isolated hepatic metastases can result in long-term disease-free survival.
For example, resection of up to three colorectal cancer lesions in patients
without evidence of extrahepatic colorectal tumor leads to a 5-year survival
of approximately 25%.[3,4]
The incorporation of intraoperative ultrasound of the liver into the
staging evaluation, as well as the application of prognostic factors, such
as carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), lesion size, and stage of the primary
tumor, may permit the identification of a group of patients who would enjoy
an even better survival. Unfortunately, although about one-third of
patients with hepatic metastases appear to have liver-only tumor, in no
more than 10% of these patients is the tumor amenable to curative hepatic
The regional delivery of chemotherapy to patients with liver tumors
is not a new concept. Even though colorectal metastases appear to migrate
to the liver via the portal vein, macrometastases in the liver derive more
than 80% of their blood supply from the hepatic arterial circulation; in
contrast, normal hepatocytes are supplied primarily by the portal circulation.
Therefore, the administration of chemotherapy into the hepatic artery allows
for the selective delivery of drug to the tumor with relative sparing of
normal hepatocytes. The pharmacology behind this strategy is well-defined:
depending on a drug's clearance and toxicity profile, a marked increase
in the area under the curve (AUC) may be achieved. If a dose-response relationship
for that drug and that disease exists, this could then translate into proportionally
The regional behavior of colorectal cancer metastatic to the liver and
favorable drug pharmacokinetics led to extensive clinical investigation
of hepatic intra-arterial (HIA) chemotherapy in the 1970s and '80s, initially
via percutaneously placed catheters. The introduction of a totally implantable
pump system made this an ambulatory treatment. Encouraging, if not inflated,
response rates ranging from 29% to 88% were reported and engendered
numerous randomized protocols comparing systemic vs HIA chemotherapy. Despite
these studies, the optimal dosing and role of HIA therapy in the management
of colorectal liver metastases remain unclear.
This review will summarize and critique the randomized studies and will
address the technologic and surgical advances that have now better defined
the technique necessary for the safe, successful administration of HIA
chemotherapy. A series of phase II trials will be reviewed, and the design
of a Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) randomized study assessing this
modality will be described. Although the focus of this review is on liver
metastases from colorectal cancer, a brief description of HIA therapy in
other malignancies will also be presented.
Results of Randomized Trials
Four major prospective trials comparing systemic fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy
vs HIA floxuridine (FUDR) chemotherapy delivered via the implanted pump
in untreated patients with liver-only colorectal metastases were completed
in the early 1980s (Table 1).[10-13]
In all, 375 patients were enrolled in these randomized studies. In each
study, the response rate to HIA chemotherapy was superior to the systemic
counterpart. However, in none of the studies did this translate into a
survival improvement for the HIA approach.
Two European trials conducted during the late 1980s randomly assigned
patients to either best supportive care or HIA FUDR. The studies of Rougier
et al and Allen-Mersh et al both demonstrated a survival advantage
of HIA therapy, but most of the control patients did not receive systemic
chemotherapy, raising the concern that these patients, at least by American
standards, received suboptimal treatment.
The latter study, done in the United Kingdom, was conducted with
particularly rigorous quality control: Every pump was implanted by the
same surgeon (Allen-Mersh). A thorough quality-of-life analysis, administered
by dedicated nurses, demonstrated a prolongation of normal-quality survival,
with respect to physical symptoms, anxiety, and depression, in patients
treated with HIA chemotherapy, as compared with those given best supportive
The data of all of these trials have been subjected to two different
meta-analyses. Each meta-analysis confirmed the trends that were apparent
in the individual studies; namely, that response rates were greater with
HIA therapy. However, although there was a trend toward an improvement
in survival, only when the patients enrolled on the no-treatment control
arms were included did the difference reach statistical significance.[16,17]
Why would the substantial improvement in response rate not translate
into a survival advantage? There are numerous possible explanations for
- Colorectal cancer is a systemic disease, and thus, even effective
regional chemotherapy to liver metastases does not alter patient survival.
Although colorectal cancer metastatic to the liver is usually a systemic
disease, as noted above, selected patients with isolated liver metastases
from colorectal cancer can be cured with hepatic resection.
Also, most patients with unresectable liver metastases die of progressive
liver dysfunction, and even with effective management of liver metastases,
most patients treated with HIA chemotherapy in these studies die from advancing
liver involvement. Therefore, the argument that systemic therapy is
needed is not necessarily supported by the facts.
- Hepatobiliary toxicity, including biliary sclerosis, led to the
cessation of therapy in many patients.
Without question, the dose of FUDR in most of the studies--.3 mg/kg/d
for 14 days--was too high. This was not appreciated until many patients
suffered permanent biliary damage. Therefore, the HIA therapy was overly
toxic, and nearly half of the patients stopped treatment for that reason
rather than for treatment failure.
- Surgical complications, including catheter dislodgment and gastrointestinal
misperfusion (ie, inadvertent administration of chemotherapy to the stomach
or duodenum), made this a very difficult therapy to deliver safely.
Reflecting the experience of the operating surgeon and the infancy
of the technique, surgical complications in these studies were prohibitive.
For example, of 33 patients randomized to HIA therapy in the Mayo Clinic
study, HIA treatment was never begun in 5 patients because of surgical
complications, was prematurely discontinued in another 5 because of later
problems, and was abrogated in 4 others because of gastrointestinal misperfusion.
- Crossover of patients from systemic to HIA therapy may have masked
a survival advantage.
This may have confounded the findings of the two largest studies,[10,11]
since there is evidence that fluoropyrimidine-based HIA chemotherapy produces
a response rate better than 30% in previously treated patients.[17,21]
The results of these trials led to one of two interpretations: either
the therapy was not worth pursuing or needed to be improved markedly to
make it worthwhile. Focusing on potential areas of improvement, investigators
concentrated on patients without radiographic evidence of extrahepatic
tumor and pursued two avenues: (1) standardizing the surgical technique
of pump placement and (2) optimizing the delivery of chemotherapy from
the standpoint of toxicity and response.
1. Wingo PA, Tong T, Bolden S: Cancer statistics, 1995. CA Cancer J
Clin 45:8-30, 1995.
2. Goslin R, Steele Jr. G, Zamcheck N, et al: Factors influencing survival
in patients with hepatic metastases from adenocarcinoma of the colon or
rectum. Dis Colon Rectum 25:749-754, 1982.
3. Steele GJ, Bleday R, Mayer RJ, et al: A prospective evaluation of
hepatic resection for colorectal carcinoma metastases to the liver: Gastrointestinal
Tumor Study Group Protocol 6584. J Clin Oncol 9:1105-1112, 1991.
4. Wanebo HJ, Chu QD, Vezeridis MP, et al: Patient selection for hepatic
resection of colorectal metastases. Arch Surg 131:322-329, 1996.
5. Nordlinger B, Guiguet M, Vaillant J-C, et al: Surgical resection
of colorectal carcinoma metastases to the liver. Cancer 77:1254-1262, 1996.
6. Breedis C, Young G: The blood supply of neoplasms in the liver. Am
J Pathol 30:969-985, 1954.
7. Collins JM: Pharmacologic rationale for regional drug delivery. J
Clin Oncol 2:498-504, 1984.
8. Weiss GR, Garnick MB, Osteen RT, et al: Long-term hepatic arterial
infusion of 5-fluorodeoxyuridine for liver metastases using an implantable
infusion pump. J Clin Oncol 1:337-344, 1983.
9. Balch CM, Urist MM, Soong S-J, et al: A prospective phase II clinical
trial of continuous FUDR regional chemotherapy for colorectal metastases
to the liver using a totally implantable drug infusion pump. Ann Surg 198:567-573,
10. Kemeny N, Daly J, Reichman B, et al: Intrahepatic or systemic infusion
of fluorodeoxyuridine in patients with liver metastases from colorectal
carcinoma. Ann Intern Med 107(4):459-465, 1987.
11. Hohn DC, Stagg RJ, Friedman MA, et al: A randomized trial of continuous
intravenous versus hepatic intraarterial floxuridine in patients with colorectal
cancer metastatic to the liver: The Northern Oncology Group Trial. J Clin
Oncol 7:1646-1654, 1989.
12. Chang AE, Schneider PD, Sugarbaker PH, et al: A prospective randomized
trial of regional versus systemic continuous 5-fluorodeoxyuridine chemotherapy
in the treatment of colorectal liver metastases. Ann Surg 206:685-693,
13. Martin JK Jr., O'Connell MJ, Wieand HS, et al: Intra-arterial floxuridine
vs systemic fluorouracil for hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer.
Arch Surg 125:1022-1027, 1990.
14. Rougier P, Laplanche A, Huguier M, et al: Hepatic arterial infusion
of floxuridine in patients with liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma:
Long-term results of a prospective randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 10(7):1112-1118,
15. Allen-Mersh TG, Earlam S, Fordy C, et al: Quality of life and survival
with continuous hepatic-artery floxuridine infusion for colorectal liver
metastases. Lancet 344:1255-1260, 1994.
16. Harmantas A, Rotstein LE, Langer B: Regional versus systemic chemotherapy
in the treatment of colorectal carcinoma metastatic to the liver. Cancer
17. Stagg RJ, Venook AP, Chase JL, et al: Alternating hepatic intra-arterial
floxuridine and fluorouracil: A less toxic regimen for treatment of liver
metastases from colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 83:423-428, 1991.
18. Hohn D, Melnick J, Stagg R, et al: Biliary sclerosis in patients
receiving hepatic arterial infusions of floxuridine. J Clin Oncol 3:98-102,
19. Campbell CA, Burns RC, Sitzmann JV, et al: Regional chemotherapy
devices: Effect of experience and anatomy on complications. J Clin Oncol
20. Hohn DC, Rayner AA, Economou JS, et al: Toxicities and complications
of implanted pump hepatic arterial and intravenous floxuridine infusion.
Cancer 57:465-470, 1986.
21. Kemeny N, Cohen A, Seiter K, et al: Randomized trial of hepatic
arterial floxuridine, mitomycin, and carmustine versus floxuridine alone
in previously treated patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer.
J Clin Oncol 11:330-335, 1993.
22. Hohn DC, Stagg RJ, Price DC, et al: Avoidance of gastroduodenal
toxicity in patients receiving hepatic arterial 5-fluoro-2'-deoxyuridine.
J Clin Oncol 3(3):1257-1260, 1985.
23. Rayner AA, Kerlan RK, Stagg RJ, et al: Total hepatic arterial perfusion
after occlusion of variant lobar vessels: Implications for hepatic arterial
chemotherapy. Surgery 99:708-715, 1986.
24. Curley SA, Chase JL, Roh MS, et al: Technical considerations and
complications associated with the placement of 180 implantable hepatic
arterial infusion devices. Surgery 114:928-935, 1993.
25. Ziessman HA, Thrall JH, Yang PJ, et al: Hepatic arterial perfusion
scintigraphy with Tc-99m-MAA. Radiology 152:167-172, 1984.
26. Kemeny N, Niedzwiecki D, Shurgot B, et al: Prognostic variables
in patients with hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer. Cancer 63:742-747,
27. Frye J, Venook A, Ostroff J, et al: Hepatic intra-arterial methylene
blue injection during endoscopy: A method of detecting gastroduodenal misperfusion
in patients receiving hepatic intra-arterial chemotherapy via an implanted
pump. Gastrointest Endosc 38:52-54, 1992.
28. Ludwig J, Kim CH, Wiesner RH, et al: Floxuridine-induced sclerosing
cholangitis: an ischemic cholangiopathy? Hepatology 9:215-218, 1989.
29. Kemeny N, Seiter K, Niedzwiecki D, et al: A randomized trial of
intrahepatic infusion of fluorodeoxyuridine with dexamethasone versus fluorodeoxyuridine
alone in the treatment of metastatic cancer. Cancer 69:327-334, 1992.
30. Kemeny N, Seiter K, Conti JA, et al: Hepatic arterial floxuridine
and leucovorin for unresectable liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma.
Cancer 73:1134-1142, 1994.
31. Kemeny N, Conti JA, Cohen A, et al: Phase II study of hepatic arterial
floxuridine, leucovorin, and dexamethasone for unresectable liver metastases
from colorectal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 12:2288-2295, 1994.
32. Safi F, Bittner R, Roscher R, et al: Regional chemotherapy for hepatic
metastases of colorectal carcinoma (continuous intraarterial versus continuous
intraarterial/intravenous therapy. Cancer 64:379-387, 1989.
33. Kemeny N, Conti JA, Sigurdson E, et al: A pilot study of hepatic
artery floxuridine combined with systemic 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin.
Cancer 71:1964-1971, 1993.
34. Buroker TR, O'Connell MJ, Wieand HS, et al: Randomized comparison
of two schedules of fluorouracil and leucovorin in the treatment of advanced
colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 12:14-20, 1994.
35. Leichman CG, Fleming TR, Muggia FM, et al: Phase II study of fluorouracil
and its modulation in advanced colorectal cancer: A Southwest Oncology
Group study. J Clin Oncol 13:1303-1311, 1995.
36. Advanced Colorectal Cancer Meta-Analysis Project: Modulation of
fluorouracil by leucovorin in patients with advanced colorectal cancer:
Evidence in terms of response rate. J Clin Oncol 10:896-903, 1992.
37. Belluco C, Guillem JG, Kemeny N, et al: p53 nuclear protein overexpression
in colorectal cancer: a dominant predictor of survival in patients with
advanced hepatic metastases. J Clin Oncol 14:2696-2701, 1996.
38. Johnston PG, Fisher ER, Rockette HE, et al: The role of thymidylate
synthase expression in prognosis and outcome of adjuvant chemotherapy in
patients with rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 12:2640-2647, 1994.
39. Cole BF: Evaluating the clinical and economic trade-offs of hepatic
arterial infusion. J Natl Cancer Inst 88:222-224, 1996.
40. Rothenberg ML, Eckardt JR, Kuhn JG, et al: Phase II trial of Irinotecan
in patients with progressive or rapidly recurrent colorectal cancer. J
Clin Oncol 14:1128-1135, 1996.
41. Moertel CG, Fleming TR, MacDonald JS, et al: Levamisole and fluorouracil
for adjuvant therapy of resected colon carcinoma. N Engl J Med 322:352-358,
42. Kemeny MM, Goldberg DA, Browning S, et al: Experience with continuous
regional chemotherapy and hepatic resection as treatment of hepatic metastases
from colorectal primaries. Cancer 55:1265-1270, 1985.
43. Weaver ML, Atkinson D, Zemel R: Hepatic cryosurgery in treating
colorectal metastases. Cancer 76:210-214, 1995.
44. Schneebaum S, Walker MJ, Young D, et al: The regional treatment
of liver metastases from breast cancer. J Surg Oncol 55:26-32, 1994.
45. Atiq OT, Kemeny N, Niedzwiecki D, et al: Treatment of unresectable
primary liver cancer with intrahepatic fluorodeoxyuridine and mitomycin
C through an implantable pump. Cancer 69:920-924, 1992.
46. Patt YZ, Yoffe B, Charnsangavej C, et al: Low serum alpha-fetoprotein
level in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma as a predictor of response
to 5-FU and Interferon-alpha-2b. Cancer 72:2574-2582, 1993.
47. Doci R, Bignami P, Bozzetti F, et al: Intrahepatic chemotherapy
for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer 61:1983-1987, 1988.
48. Venook AP, Stagg RJ, Lewis BJ, et al: Chemoembolization for hepatocellular
carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 8(6):1108-1114, 1990.
49. Groupe d'Etude et de Traitement du Carcinome Hepatocellulaire. A
comparison of Lipiodol chemoembolization and conservative treatment for
unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 332:1256-1261, 1995.
50. Mick R, Gupta E, Vokes EE, et al: Limited-sampling models for Irinotecan
pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics: Prediction of biliary index and intestinal
toxicity. J Clin Oncol 14:2012-2019, 1996.
51. Wills KN, Maneval DC, Menzel P, et al: Development and characterization
of recombinant adenoviruses encoding human p53 for gene therapy of cancer.
Human Gene Therapy 5:1079-1088, 1994.