Neoadjuvant treatment strategies for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Table 3 Select studies on neoadjuvant transarterial chemoembolization for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Ref.	Study type	Intervention	Sample size	Conversion to resection	Tumor response
Burger et al[58], 2005	Retrospective	Cisplatin, doxorubicin, and mitomycin-C	17	2 (12%)	NR
Herber et al[59],2007	Retrospective	Mitomycin-C	15	BR	1 PR, 9 SD, 4PD
Gusani et al[60], 2008	Retrospective	Gemcitabine-based	42	NR	20 SD, 15 PD
Hyder et al[61], 2013	Retrospective – multi-institutional	cTACE (64.7%), DEB-TACE (5.6%), bland embolization (6.6%), or Y-90 (23.2%)	198	NR	56 PR, 77 SD, 29 PD
Vogl et al[62], 2012	Retrospective	Mit-C (20.9%), Gem. (7%), Mit-C +Gem (47%), Gem+ Mit-C and Cisplatin (25.1%)	115	NR	10 PR, 66 SD, 39 PD
Alibertti et al[64], 2017	Retrospective	DEB-TACE and PEG-TACE	127	4 (4%)	19 PR, 101 SD, 7 PD
Schiffman et al[65], 2011	Retrospective	EBIRI or DEB-DOX therapy	24	3 (13%)	1CR, 1PR, 13 SD, 3 PD
Kuhlmann et al[66], 2012	Prospective	Irinotecan (iDEB-TACE), mitomycin-C (cTACE)	41	1 (4%)	2 PR, 12 SD, 19 PD
Poggi et al[67], 2009	Retrospective	DEB-TACE	9	3 (33%)	4 PR, 5 SD

NR: Not reported; PR: Partial response; SD: Stable disease; PD: Disease progression; ICC: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma; DEB: Drug-eluting bead