Lipiodol as an Imaging Biomarker of Tumor Necrosis After Transcatheter Chemoembolization Therapy in Patients With Primary and Metastatic Liver Cancer
Phase: PHASE2
Conditions: Liver Cancer
Sponsor: Yale University

 
Lipiodol as an imaging biomarker of tumor necrosis after transcatheter 
chemoembolization therapy in patients with primary and metastatic 
liver cancer 
 
 
NCT#: 01877187 
 
 
Version date: Dec 14, 2015 
 
 
 
 
 

Lipiodol as an imaging biomarker of tumor necrosis after transcatheter 
chemoembolization therapy in patients with primary and metastatic 
liver cancer  
 
HIC#: 1601017054 
Study Phase: II 
Study Products: Lipiodol 
IND #: 116,739 
Principal Investigator:  
Yale University School of Medicine 
Todd Schlachter, MD 
Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging 
330 Cedar Street, PO Box 208042 
New Haven, CT 06520-8042 
Tel: 203-785-5885 
Fax: 203-737-1077 
Email: todd.schlachter@yale.edu 
 
Co-Investigators:  
Hyun Kim, MD 
Julius Chapiro, MD 
 
Study Coordinators: 
Eliot Funai, BS 
 
Research Nurse:  
Teresa White, RN, BSN, OCN 
 
Biostatistician: 
Fangyong Li, MPH, MS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Research Facilities  
 
Yale-New Haven Hospital 
20 York Street, New Haven, CT 06510 
 
Institutional Review Board 
Human Research Protection Program 
55 College Street, New Haven, CT 06510 
 
Protocol Sponsor  
PI sponsored, Todd Schlachter, MD 
 
Confidential Information 
 
Protocol Revision Record 
Final: January 28, 2013 
Revised: Amendment 1, November 13, 2013 
Amendment 2, May 28, 2015 
Amendment 3, December 14, 2015

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 4 of 58 
Table of Contents 
Section 
Page # 
Investigator Agreement Page ....................................................................................................................... 6 
Schema/Synopsis ........................................................................................................................................ 12 
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... 15 
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................... 16 
1. 
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 17 
1.1. 
Hepatocellular Carcinoma .......................................................................................................... 17 
1.2. 
Hepatic Metastases from Solid Tumors...................................................................................... 17 
1.3. 
Transarterial Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Metastatic Disease ....... 18 
1.4. 
Transarterial Chemoembolization Safety Profile........................................................................ 23 
1.5. 
Clinical Agent: Lipiodol (Ethiodol) ............................................................................................... 24 
1.6. 
Rationale ..................................................................................................................................... 26 
2. 
Study Objectives and Endpoints ......................................................................................................... 28 
2.1. 
Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 28 
2.2. 
Endpoints .................................................................................................................................... 28 
3. 
Subject Selection ................................................................................................................................. 29 
3.1. 
Inclusion Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 30 
3.2. 
Exclusion Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 30 
3.3. 
Inclusion of Woman and Minorities ........................................................................................... 30 
4. 
Subject Registration Procedures ......................................................................................................... 31 
4.1. 
General Guidelines ..................................................................................................................... 31 
4.2. 
Registration Process ................................................................................................................... 31 
4.3. 
Screening Assessments ............................................................................................................... 31 
5. 
Study Design/Investigational Plan ...................................................................................................... 32 
5.1. 
Overall Design ............................................................................................................................. 32 
5.2. 
Agent Administration ................................................................................................................. 33 
5.3. 
Visit Schedule and Study Evaluations ......................................................................................... 34 
5.4. 
Concomitant medications ........................................................................................................... 34 
5.5. 
Duration of Therapy.................................................................................................................... 38 
5.6. 
Duration of Follow-up ................................................................................................................. 38 
5.7. 
Criteria for Removal from Study ................................................................................................. 38 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 5 of 58 
5.8. 
Study Discontinuation ................................................................................................................ 38 
6. 
Adverse Event Collection and Reporting Requirements ..................................................................... 39 
6.1. 
Definitions ................................................................................................................................... 39 
6.2. 
Adverse Event Coding ................................................................................................................. 40 
6.3. 
Adverse Event Capture and Reporting ....................................................................................... 40 
7. 
Measurement of Effect ....................................................................................................................... 45 
7.1. 
Measurement of Anti-tumor Effect ............................................................................................ 45 
7.2. 
Guidelines for Evaluation of Measurable Disease ...................................................................... 45 
8. 
Study Drug Information ...................................................................................................................... 47 
8.1. 
Supply Drug Name ...................................................................................................................... 47 
9. 
Statistical Methods ............................................................................................................................. 49 
9.1. 
Statistical Considerations ........................................................................................................... 49 
9.2. 
Sample Size Justification ............................................................................................................. 49 
9.3. 
Analytic Plan ............................................................................................................................... 50 
9.4. 
Exploratory analyses ................................................................................................................... 51 
10. Regulatory Considerations .................................................................................................................. 52 
10.1. 
Clinical Trial Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 52 
10.2. 
Records to be Kept ..................................................................................................................... 52 
11. Ethics ................................................................................................................................................... 53 
11.1. 
Institutional Review Board (IRB) ................................................................................................. 53 
11.2. 
Ethical Conduct of the Study ...................................................................................................... 53 
11.3. 
Subject Information and Consent ............................................................................................... 54 
12. References .......................................................................................................................................... 55 
 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 6 of 58 
Investigator Agreement Page 
Study Title:  
 
I confirm agreement to conduct the study in compliance with the protocol and all applicable regulations. 
 
Investigator Name: ____________________________________________ 
Affiliation: ____________________________________________ 
 
Investigator Signature: _________________________________________ 
Date: ______________ 
 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 7 of 58 
 
Schedule of changes (5/8/2017) 
 Change of PI from Dr. Jean-Francois Geschwind to Dr. Todd Schlachter. 
Schedule of changes (4/12/2016) 
Page 29 
 Added exclusion criteria: contraindication in areas where bile ducts are dilated, unless 
external biliary drainage is performed prior to injection. 
Schedule of changes (12/14/2015) 
Page 1 
 
Removed Johns Hopkins site 
 
Personnel changes: added Hyun Kim, MD, Teresa White, RN, Fangyong Li, MPH 
 
Removed: Ihab Kamel, MD PhD, Timothy Pawlik, MD PhD, Diane Reyes, CRNP, Robert Anders, 
MD PhD, Laura Wood, MD PhD, Sydney Carr, Taylor Dunklin, BS 
Page 2 
 
Removed Johns Hopkins site 
Page 13, 49 - 51 
 
Development of statistical designs 
Page 52 
 
Updated monitoring plan 
Schedule of changes  (5/28/2015) 
Page 1 
 
Added PI information for Yale School of Medicine site 
 
Added Robert Anders, MD PhD, Laura Wood, MD PhD, Eliot Funai, BS, Taylor Dunklin, BS. 
 
Removed Rafael Duran, MD, Richard Wahl, MD, Charlene Ofosu, MS, Elizaveta Besova. 
Page 2 
 
Added address for where research will be conducted, Yale School of Medicine 
 
Added address for Yale SOM IRB 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 8 of 58 
Throughout 
 
Amended the duration of follow-up, from 4 years to 6 months after TACE of targeted lesion is 
complete. Objective 2, which was to characterize lipiodol as a biomarker of survival, was 
amended to ‘assess 6-month survival following therapy with lipiodol TACE’.  The rationale is that 
patients are typically followed for response for 6 months after therapy and then are followed for 
survival, as standard of care, therefore the protocol follow-up is mirroring clinical practice.  
Schedule of changes (11/13/2013) 
Page 1  
 
Added Rafael Duran, MD and Todd Schlachter, MD to list of Investigators 
 
Added Elizaveta Besova 
Page 2  
 
Formatting- removed nonapplicable information about coordinating centers 
 
Reformatted “Protocol Revision Record” for clarification. Removed protocol revisions prior to 
IRB approval 
Page 6 
 
Corrected Sponsor section. Removed “Guerbet”. Inserted “PI sponsored”. 
 
 
Added Rafael Duran, MD and Todd Schlachter, MD to list of Investigators 
 
Methodology: Removed the term “unresectable”.  See changes below for page 24 for complete 
explanation. 
 
 
Methodology: Removed FDG-PET/CT of the liver at 1 month post completion of TACE.  This is 
incorrect and is in several places throughout the protocol (pages 6, 7, 26, 27, 32). As correctly 
described (page 28, Section 5.3; page 30, section 5.3; page 39, Section 7.1) patients will have 
FDG-PET/CT at baseline, 3, and 6 months post completion of TACE. 
 
 
 
Methodology: Added that if the baseline FDG-PET/CT shows the index lesion is not PET avid, f/u 
FDG-PET/CT scans are omitted. (Addition also made on page 26, Section 5.1; page 30, Section 
5.3) 
Page 7 
 
Inclusion criteria: clarified patient population. See description below for Section 3.1 for 
explanation. 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 9 of 58 
 
Duration of treatment: clarified to describe expected duration enrollment, duration of 
treatment, and duration of follow-up 
 
Page 20 
Section 1.5.2, Safety/Adverse Events 
 
Added risk of allergic reaction 
Page 23 
Section 3, Subject Selection. 
 
Clarified that patients with HCC must meet either criteria:  
1) histological or cytological diagnosis, or  
2) the EASL criteria (the radiological presence of a liver mass greater than 2 cm, with arterial 
hypervascularity that is seen on two imaging modalities, within a cirrhotic liver, and in the 
presence of an alphafetoprotein (AFP) > 200 ng.mL will be used as an alternative diagnostic 
criterion) 
Page 24  
Section 3.1 Inclusion Criteria:  
 
Removed the term “unresectable”.  This is incorrect and is in several places throughout the 
protocol (pages 6, 23, 26, 31,    . As correctly described (page 22, section 2.2.1; page 44, section 
9.1.1 , page 26, Section 5.1 )patients with HCC, who are referred for cTACE may be enrolled. 
Therefore, patients who are being worked up for transplant, listed for transplant, or who may 
undergo resection in the future, but who are currently referred for cTACE, may be enrolled. This 
is clear in on page 44, Section 9.1.1, where we describe that should patient undergo surgery, we 
will obtain tissue to correlate with imaging findings. 
Page 26 
Section 5.1 Overall Design 
 
Added Gadavist (gadobuterol) and Eovist (gadoxetate) to the list of contrast agents that may be 
used for the MRI scanning. 
Page 27 
Section 5.1 Overall Design 
 
Added clarification that all study imaging exams are read and interpreted by radiologists in the 
same manner as non-study clinical imaging studies. Added clarification that all study imaging 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 10 of 58 
exams are interpreted by the study investigators in order to complete the objectives in Section 7 
(Measurement of Effect) and Section 9 (Statistical Methods). 
Section 5.2 Agent Administration 
 
Clarified the standard of practice method of agent administration for cTACE. The amounts of 
The amounts of chemoembolization material, lidocaine, and embospheres delivered are 
approximately: 
o 10 cc’s of lipiodol,  
o 10 cc of chemotherapy, with 50 mg Doxorubicin and 10 mg of Mitomycin-C mixed 1:1 
with Lipiodol (10 cc’s) giving a total of 20 cc,  
o 10 cc of 1% lidocaine, and  
o 1 vial of embospheres measuring 100-300 microns 
However exact amounts are titrated to each clinical situation. 
 
“As in our standard of care practice, approximately 10 cc’s of lipiodol is administered to the 
patients during a TACE procedure.  The chemoembolization material consists of 10 cc of 
chemotherapy, with 50 mg Doxorubicin and 10 mg of Mitomycin-C mixed 1:1 with Lipiodol (10 
cc’s) giving a total of 20 cc. The amount of chemoembolization material administered is titrated 
to the area being treated, i.e., a smaller area (lesion) may be adequately treated with a portion 
of the prepared chemoembolization material. 
Due to the drug shortages, cisplatin has been unavailable for approximately the last 9 
months.  
Therefore, currently, the chemoembolization agents consist of: 
-  approximately 50 mg doxorubicin and 10 mg of mitomycin-C. 
In the event that cisplatin becomes available again, the chemoembolization agents 
would consist of: 
- approximately 50 mg doxorubicin, 10 mg of mitomycin-C, and 100 mg cisplatin 
To follow the chemoembolization materials, approximately 10 cc of 1% lidocaine and 
approximately 1 vial of embospheres measuring 100-300 microns, are administered. 
The amount of 1% lidocaine and of embospheres is titrated to each clinical situation. 
Page 27  
 
Administrative correction 
Section 5.2.2 Regimen Description. 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 11 of 58 
 
Clarified to refer the reader back to Section 5.2 which has the identical information. 
Page 30 
Study calendar 
 
Formatting changes. 
Page 31 
Study calendar 
 
Corrected study calendar. Removed PET Scan at day 30 
Page 33 
Section 5.7 Criteria for Removal from Study 
 
For clarification, combined  2 criteria that were overlapping “removal at request of patient and 
representative” and “withdrawal of consent” 
Page 36 
Section 6.3.2.2.1 
 
Typo correction 
Page 38 
Section 6.3.3.3 Pregnancy 
 
Removed the phase “including at least 6 half lives after product administration” because the 
half-life of lipiodol is unknown. 
 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 12 of 58 
Schema/Synopsis 
 
Name of Sponsor/Company: 
PI sponsored  
 
 
Name of Finished Product: 
Lipiodol 
Name of Active Ingredient: 
Lipiodol 
Title of Study: 
Lipiodol as an imaging biomarker of tumor necrosis after transcatheter chemoembolization therapy in 
patients with primary and metastatic liver cancer  
Investigators: 
Hyun Kim, MD, Todd Schlachter, MD, Julius Chapiro, MD 
Study Center: 
Yale University 
Anticipated Study Period (years): 
6 years- November 1, 2012-October 31, 2018 
Phase of Development: 
II 
Objective: 
To determine if Lipiodol can be used as an imaging biomarker of tumor necrosis after transarterial 
chemoembolization therapy in patients with primary and metastatic liver cancer.  
Methodology: 
The study is designed to treat patients with liver-predominant HCC or metastatic disease meeting study 
entry criteria. Patients will be treated with conventional, Lipiodol based chemoembolization on Day 0. If 
multiple TACE procedures are required, then the time points below will begin after the treatment is 
complete for a particular lesion in the liver.  
 
The following imaging will be performed after the procedure: 
1. Non-enhanced CT of the abdomen 24 hours after TACE and before surgical resection or 
transplantation if applicable. 
2. DCE (dynamic contrast enhanced) - and diffusion-MRI of the liver before TACE, 1, 3, and 6 
months post completion of TACE. 
3. CT scan of the abdomen, with and without contrast, before TACE, 1, 3, and 6 months post 
completion of TACE. 
4. FDG-PET/CT of the liver before TACE, 3 and 6 months post completion of TACE. 
*No F/U FDG-PET/CT if lesion is not avid 
 
Timeline: 
 
Before TACE – DCE MRI + CT abdomen with contrast + PET-CT 
 
Day 0 – TACE 
 
Day 1 – Non-contrast CT of the liver 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 13 of 58 
 
Day 30 – DCE MRI + CT abdomen with and without contrast  
 
Day 90 – DCE MRI + CT abdomen with and without contrast + PET-CT  
 
Day 180 -- DCE MRI + CT abdomen with and without contrast + PET-CT 
 
 
# of Patients: 
60 (HCC (n=30) and metastatic disease (n=30)) to be enrolled; 100 patients total will be consented 
Diagnosis and Main Criteria for Inclusion: 
Inclusion Criteria  
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Patients with liver-predominant disease, who have been referred for 
cTACE.  Multifocal HCC is acceptable, no diffuse HCC.  Or patients with a diagnosis of hepatic metastases 
from any solid tumor.   
 
Age > 18 
 
ECOG performance status of 0-2. 
 
Childs class of A or B (up to 9)  
 
Test product, dose and mode of administration, batch number: 
Lipiodol .  In TACE procedures, an emulsion is formed by mixing Lipiodol with the cytostatic drug(s) and 
is injected intra-arterially through the hepatic artery to produce avascularity and infarction/necrosis of 
the tumor(s). 
Duration of enrollment: approximately 2 years 
Duration of treatment: until investigator determines the lesion has been fully treated 
Duration of follow-up: 6 months following completion of  TACE 
Criteria for evaluation: 
Efficacy: 
Response to contrast enhanced MRI will be assessed for measurable disease.  For the purposes of this 
study, patients will be evaluated approximately 1, 3, and 6 months (Days 30, 90, and 180) following the 
last TACE (after the operator determines that a lesion has been fully treated).  
 
Survival: 
6-month survival will be assessed. 
 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 14 of 58 
Statistical methods: 
This is a trial evaluating Lipiodol as an imaging biomarker for successful treatment. A sample size of 60 
(HCC (n=30) and metastatic disease (n=30)) will allow for data collection and analysis to assess Lipiodol 
as an imaging biomarker in this pilot study.  
Objective 1: Explore whether Lipiodol can be used as an imaging biomarker predicting tumor response 
to therapy. 
 Lipiodol deposition will be measured as scores from 1 to 100 and (on the 24h non-contrast CT) will be 
also categorized by 4 ordinal levels: ≤25%, >25-50%, >50-75%, >75%. 
Percent lipiodol deposition in the tumor (obtained from non-contrast CT) will be correlated with RECIST 
response separately using contrast CT, MRI and PET imaging.  The Spearman’s rank correlation 
coefficient will be used with RECIST response categories (CR, PR, SD, PD), and Pearson’s correlation 
coefficient will be used for the % change in the sum of the longest diameter of target lesions (reference 
is baseline). The strategy is to assess which of the imaging modalities correlate most closely with lipiodol 
deposition. 
 
Correlation of lipiodol deposition with other MR imaging methods  
Percent lipiodol deposition (on the non-contrast CT) will be correlated with MRI response utilizing the 
EASL and qEASL amendment (necrosis). 
Exact percent of lipiodol deposition (on the non-contrast CT) will be correlated with apparent diffusion 
coefficient (ADC) and with volumetic response using Pearson’s product-moment correlation.  
Objective 2: To assess 6-month survival following therapy with lipiodol TACE. Survival will be analyzed 
by using the Kaplan-Meier method to compare the progression free survival across the 4 ordinal Lipiodol 
retention strata.  
 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 15 of 58 
List of Tables 
Table 1.  
Study Calendar ....................................................................................................................... 36 
 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 16 of 58 
List of Abbreviations 
Abbreviation 
Definition 
AE 
Adverse event  
HCC 
Hepatocellular carcinoma 
TACE 
Transarterial chemoembolization 
CT 
Computed tomography 
MR 
Magnetic resonance 
PET 
Positron emission tomography 
ECOG 
Eastern cooperative group 
DCE-MRI 
Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI 
EASL 
European Association for the Study of the Liver criteria 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 17 of 58 
1. 
Introduction 
1.1. Hepatocellular Carcinoma 
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer in the world and represents more than 
5% of all cancers.  Approximately 500,000 cases of HCC are diagnosed each year and it is the third cause 
of cancer-related deaths [1-3].  There are wide geographical variations in the incidence of the disease 
with the highest rates in the developing countries of Asia and Africa.  However, the incidence of HCC is 
increasing in North America and Europe [4]. 
Untreated HCC carries a poor prognosis and is directly related to degree of underlying cirrhosis and 
tumor stage.  Early detection offers the only possibility for cure.  Patient survival is generally not more 
than 6 months in patients with large tumor mass and advanced cirrhosis.  Patients with small HCCs (< 
5cm diameter) and stable liver function have a better prognosis with 2-year survival rates of 56% [5]. 
HCC is now responsible for 14,000 deaths annually in the United States.  It is generally accepted that 
surgical resection, liver transplantation and percutaneous ablation are the only curative treatments for 
patients with early stage HCC.  The shortage of donor livers further diminishes liver transplantation as a 
viable option for many patients.  The majority of HCC patients (approx 85-90%) are not candidates for 
curative treatments either due to poor liver function or the presence of advanced disease.  These 
patients are treated with palliative treatments.   
Chemotherapeutic agents (eg. doxorubicin) can be infused directly into the systemic circulation but 
patients who receive this treatment suffer serious side effects that may be life threatening (eg cardiac 
toxicity), pain, nausea, vomiting, myelosuppresion and alopecia.  For those patients able to receive 
systemic chemotherapy, response rates ranged from 15% to 20% and have had virtually no impact on 
survival. 
These factors, combined with local pattern of disease dissemination, have made local interventional 
therapy the cornerstone of hepatocellular carcinoma treatment for unresectable disease and patients 
who are not eligible for transplant.  
1.2. Hepatic Metastases from Solid Tumors 
There are many solid-organ malignant tumors (colorectal carcinoma, neuroendocrine tumors, pancreatic 
endocrine tumors and other, non-colorectal non-neuroendocrine tumors) for which cure is not possible 
with current systemic agents.  Many of these tumors are found to have already metastasized to the liver 
at the time of diagnosis or eventually metastasize to the liver despite best therapeutic efforts with 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 18 of 58 
available systemic agents.  The liver is the most common site of metastases from colorectal carcinoma 
and is a frequent metastatic site for pancreatic endocrine tumors (PET), neuroendocrine tumors (NET) 
and other tumor types.  Overall, the largest risk factor for the development of hepatic metastases is the 
stage of the primary tumor (colorectal carcinoma) or the size of the primary tumor (NET, PET).  In 
hepatic metastatic disease, the most important prognostic factor is the percent of liver replaced by 
tumor.  If allowed to grow and disseminate within the liver, metastatic deposits become the dominant, 
and often, the most life-threatening feature of the metastatic disease, either through progressive 
hepatic failure or production of excess endocrine products that produce potentially lethal systemic 
consequences (NET, PET).  
Due to the relative sensitivity of the liver to radiation, external beam radiation has had limited utility in 
treating hepatic metastatic disease.  Modest improvements have been achieved in the treatment of 
metastatic colorectal cancer using new combination regimens of systemic agents; however, most 
patients ultimately fail first-line therapy either based on lack of efficacy or inability to tolerate further 
courses of treatment.  A number of new, non-radiation based liver-directed therapies have been 
developed for reducing or controlling tumor mass in the liver that have demonstrated varying efficacy 
and patient tolerance.  These treatments also may produce serious morbidity that adversely impacts 
patient quality of life, and can result in life-threatening complications and adverse events.  
In summary, the status of clinical management of patients with metastatic disease involving the liver has 
experienced modest improvements over the past 40 years.  Standardization of treatment approach has 
been hampered by the need to adapt therapy to tumor type and presentation, initial response to first 
line therapy and patient tolerance for therapeutic interventions.  Diverse drugs, biologics, medical 
devices and surgical procedures are available for treatment of hepatic metastases.  There is a clinical 
need to develop new, liver-directed therapies with less morbidity and improved patient tolerance 
compared with existing therapies.  In addition, new therapies are needed that can be applied at any 
time in the ongoing course of treatment for a patient with metastatic liver disease.  
1.3. Transarterial Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Metastatic Disease 
Liver directed forms of therapy have become the mainstay of therapy of patients with unresectable HCC. 
These therapies include chemical (alcohol, acetic acid) and thermal (radiofrequency ablation, 
microwave, laser, etc) ablative techniques, as well as intra-arterial chemotherapy treatments.   Intra-
arterial therapies have been developed to take advantage of the fact that the hepatic artery supplies 
most of the blood flow and nutrients to hepatic tumors.   

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 19 of 58 
Of those, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the most widely performed procedure for 
patients with unresectable HCC.Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) involves the periodic injection 
of a chemotherapeutic agent, mixed with an embolic material, into selected branches of the hepatic 
arteries feeding a liver tumor, thus combining chemotherapy administration with intra-tumor ischemia.   
The rational for TACE is that the infusion of drugs such as doxorubicin, mitomycin c and cisplatin 
suspended in an oily medium followed by embolization of the blood vessel with embolic agents will 
reduce arterial blood supply to the tumor allowing greater delivery of the chemotherapy to the tumor 
and thus causing necrosis of the tumor.  Lipiodol is the most common vehicle used for the intra-arterial 
administration of the chemotherapeutic agents. The advantage of TACE is that higher concentrations of 
the drug can be delivered to the tumor with decreased systemic exposure compared with systemic 
chemotherapy. TACE has been shown to deliver up to 400 times the intra-hepatic concentration of 
chemotherapy in comparison to intravenous administration depending on the chemotherapeutic agent 
[6].  As such, tissue levels of chemotherapy within the tumor were found to be 40 times of that found in 
surrounding normal hepatic tissue.  Embolization of a branch of the hepatic artery after the 
administration of chemotherapy results in the detection of the chemotherapeutic agent within the 
tumor of upwards of several months post administraton [7-9]. 
TACE achieves partial response in 15 – 55% of patients [10-16] and significantly delays tumor 
progression and vascular invasion [12, 16].  Recently two studies have reported survival benefits for 
chemoembolization in selected patients [16, 17].  The best candidates for chemoembolization are those 
with preserved liver function and asymptomatic multinodular tumors without vascular invasion or 
extrahepatic spread.   
Currently, there are no randomized clinical trials demonstrating the superiority of any one 
chemotherapeutic agent; thus, any of the following agents are currently being used: doxorubicin, 
cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or 5-fluorodeoxyuridine (5-FUDR) [5, 10, 11].  Embospheres® is usually 
used as the embolic material.   
The impact of TACE on survival has been assessed through numerous prospective and retrospective 
studies. Two recently published randomized prospective clinical trials have shown a statistically 
significant survival advantage for TACE compared to symptomatic treatment.  The first trial, which 
utilized cisplatin, Lipiodol, and gelatin sponge particles in 80 Asian patients, showed one-, two- and 
three-year survival rates of 57%, 31%, and 26% in treated patients compared to 32%, 11%, and 3% 
(respectively) in control patients treated with best available supportive care, giving a relative risk of 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 20 of 58 
death of 0.49 (CI, 0.29 – 0.81)[18].  A second trial performed in Europe also showed a survival benefit in 
highly selected patients using Lipiodol, doxorubicin, and gel foam [15].  A recent meta-analysis 
confirmed the findings of the two randomized trials published by Llovet and Lo and showed that 
chemoembolization provides significant survival benefit in a selected group of patients, namely those 
with good performance status [14].  Based on those and other studies, chemoembolization is currently 
the standard of care for patients with intermediate stage HCC and has been included since 2006 as part 
of the official guidelines for the treatment of patients with HCC (by the American Association for the 
Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), as well the National Cancer Care Network (NCCN) and European 
Association of the Study of the Liver (EASL). 
TACE has also been used with success in secondary unresectable hepatic malignancies. 
1.3.1. 
Colorectal Metastases 
The only chance of cure for patients with liver metastases from colon carcinoma is resection. 
Unfortunately, fewer than 30% of patients have resectable disease [19]. Even in optimal resection 
candidates, recurrence is frequent, with a 5-year survival rate of only 35%. Negative predictors of 
survival include a short interval between diagnosis of the colonic primary tumor and the liver 
metastases, number of metastases, carcinoembryonic antigen level greater than 10 ng/mL, extrahepatic 
disease, and the ability to obtain a negative resection margin [20]. 
The majority of patients with hepatic metastases from colon cancer undergo systemic chemotherapy. 
There are a variety of novel chemotherapeutic agents are being used to treat metastatic colorectal 
cancer. Cytotoxic agents such as irinotecan and oxaliplatin, as well as the monoclonal antibodies 
cetuximab and bevacizumab, have shown promising results in early trials. Combination therapy with 
bevacizumab in addition to irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin has improved survival to a mean of 
20.3 months [21]. Similar survival was identified with addition of oxaliplatin to 5-fluorouracil and 
leucovorin [22] However, even with these agents, progressive disease, particularly in the liver, occurs at 
a mean of 9–10 months. At this point, palliative therapies such as chemoembolization are considered.  
Phase II studies of chemoembolization for metastatic colorectal cancer have been reported by several 
centers in the United States. Patients enrolled in these trials are usually individuals in whom systemic 
and/or intraarterial infusion chemotherapy has failed. Abramson et al [23] devised a spreadsheet model 
to determine cost-effectiveness thresholds for palliative chemoembolization for colorectal metastases. 
A mean survival time of 12 months or greater was demonstrated to be necessary for 
chemoembolization to be considered a cost-effective method of treatment. Lang et al [24] used a 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 21 of 58 
combination of superselective segmental and selective lobar injections of a doxorubicin/iodized oil 
emulsion in the treatment of 46 patients. The actuarial survival rates were 68% at 1 year and 37% at 2 
years. In the study of Sanz-Altamira et al [25], 40 patients received chemoembolization with 5-
fluorouracil, mitomycin-c, iodized oil, and gelatin sponge. The median survival time after the first 
chemoembolization procedure was 10 months. A number of prognostic factors predictive of longer 
survival were identified. Patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 
or 1 had a median survival of 24 months, versus 3 months among patients with a performance status of 
2. Patients with extrahepatic disease at the time of initial chemoembolization had a median survival of 3 
months, versus 14 months for those with isolated liver metastases. Among patients with good 
performance status and no extrahepatic disease, the survival rates were 73% at 1 year and 61% at 2 
years after chemoembolization. In the study of Tellez et al [26], 30 patients underwent 
chemoembolization with cisplatin, doxorubicin, mitomycin-c, and bovine collagen. Median survival times 
were 8.6 months from first chemoembolization and 29 months from diagnosis. In a study by Soulen [27], 
51 patients underwent chemoembolization with cisplatin, doxorubicin, mitomycin- c, iodized oil, and 
polyvinyl alcohol. Actuarial survival rates from diagnosis with liver metastases were 86%, 55%, and 23% 
at 1, 2, and 3 years, with a median of 24 months. Outcomes in patients with isolated liver metastases 
who were treated with chemoembolization by Salman et al [28] were similarly encouraging, with a mean 
survival time of 15 months versus 8 months among patients with extra-hepatic disease. The results in 
these extensively pretreated patients are promising, but high early response rates do not necessarily 
cause an improvement in survival. A consistent trend toward survival times longer than 12 months after 
initial therapy has also been demonstrated, suggesting that chemoembolization for colorectal 
metastases is a cost-effective method of treatment for patients with good performance status and 
disease isolated to the liver.  
1.3.2. 
Ocular Melanoma 
The liver is the initial site of metastatic disease in approximately 50% of patients with ocular melanoma 
[29]. More than 90% of patients with metastatic ocular melanoma will develop liver metastases[30]. 
When liver metastases develop, involvement is rapidly widespread and aggressive, with median survival 
times of 2–6 months [29]. A review of a variety of treatment methodologies in 201 patients by Bedikian 
et al [31] demonstrated longer survival with chemoembolization versus any other treatment method, 
including intraarterial and systemic chemotherapy, leading the authors to state that patients with 
isolated liver metastases from ocular melanoma should undergo hepatic arterial chemoembolization as 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 22 of 58 
a primary therapy. Mavligit et al [32]reported 30 patients treated by serial chemoembolization with 
cisplatin and polyvinyl alcohol particles. There was one complete response at follow-up imaging, and 
46% of patients had a partial response (50% tumor destruction at follow-up imaging). Median survival 
time was 11 months (14 months for patients whose disease responded vs 6 months those who showed 
no response), with an actuarial survival rate of approximately 33% at 1 year.  
1.3.3. 
Neuroendocrine Tumors 
Embolization has an established role in the palliation of these hypervascular tumors and typically 
produces symptom-free intervals in 90%–100% of patients. Two reports that initially evaluated 
chemoembolization of neuroendocrine tumors [33, 34] found a duration of response after 
chemoembolization of nearly 2 years. Brown et al [35] described objective responses in 96% of patients 
treated with hepatic arterial embolization without chemotherapy. Treatment for pain as the primary 
indication had less-durable results (6.2 months) than when embolization was performed for hormonal 
symptoms with or without the presence of pain (16 –17.5 months). Gupta et al [36] reported outcomes 
in 81 patients treated with embolization alone (n _=50) or chemoembolization (n =31). The time to 
symptomatic progression after arterial therapy was 19 months and the mean survival time for the 
patient group was 31 months. 
1.3.4. 
Sarcoma 
Mavligit et al [37] reported major regression of metastatic leiomyosarcoma in 10 of 14 patients treated 
with cisplatin/ gelatin sponge chemoembolization followed by a 2-hour vinblastine infusion into the 
hepatic artery, with a median duration of response of 1 year. Disease in 10 of 16 patients treated with 
cisplatin, doxorubicin, mitomycin-c, iodized oil, and polyvinyl alcohol particles by Rajan et al [38] showed 
a response, with extensive tumor necrosis on computed tomography in all cases. Three patients became 
candidates for surgical resection after treatment. Because systemic chemo-therapy and radiation 
therapy are ineffective against metastatic sarcomas in the liver, chemoembolization appears to be the 
most effective treatment for unresectable disease. 
1.3.5. 
Cholangiocarcinoma 
Burger et al [39] reported a median survival of 23 months after chemoembolization in 17 patients with 
unresectable cholangiocarcinoma. Two patients had their disease down-staged enough after 
chemoembolization to become resectable. Historic survival for patients with unresectable 
cholangiocarcinoma is 5–8 months. Even candidates for surgical resection have limited survival rates of 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 23 of 58 
20%–56% at 3 years. Complication rates for this group [39] were in keeping with those for treatment of 
other tumor types. Chemoembolization appears to be a viable treatment option for well-compensated 
patients with unresectable cholangiocarcinoma. 
1.3.6. 
Other Metastases 
Liver metastases from lung, breast, pancreas, stomach, small bowel, kidney, bladder, thymus, ovary, or 
thyroid tumors, as well as those from unknown primary tumors, have been treated with 
chemoembolization [40-42]. The published reports lump together patients with different tumor types, 
making interpretation of the results difficult. Overall, mixed metastatic lesions treated with 
chemoembolization are associated with a 60%–75% objective response rate and median patient survival 
times of 8–11 months. 
1.4. Transarterial Chemoembolization Safety Profile 
Generally, TACE is a well tolerated procedure, although side effects are common.  Embolization of the 
liver has been performed for decades for a variety of indications and is well-tolerated. Embolization of 
solid organs causes a self-limited post-embolization syndrome in the majority of patients, consisting of 
varying degrees of pain, nausea, vomiting, and fever. This is independent of chemotherapeutic drug use, 
reason for embolization (eg, bleeding, tumor), and the organ treated (eg, liver, kidney, spleen, uterus). 
With current medical care (eg, hydration, antiemetic therapy, and pain control), post-embolization 
syndrome is well-tolerated, and 50% of patients can be discharged from the hospital the day after 
chemoembolization. The average length of stay is 1.5 days. Liver function is transiently affected with an 
increase in liver aminotransferase levels. These values usually peak 3–5 days after therapy and return to 
baseline levels by 10 –14 days after embolization. There is no sustained degradation of liver function in 
properly selected patients who do not meet the well-established exclusion criteria for hepatic artery 
occlusion, even in the presence of cirrhosis [43]. Because most of the injected drug is retained in the 
liver, systemic toxicity is minimized, with little bone marrow suppression. The cumulative toxicity is far 
more limited than is experienced with systemic chemo-therapy, which requires protracted drug 
exposure for an indefinite period of time. Treatment related complications occur in approximately 10% 
of performed procedures, with mortality rate around 2% [44]. 
Serious adverse events occur after approximately 5% of chemoembolization procedures. The most 
common serious adverse events are liver abscess or liver infarction, which occur in approximately 2% of 
cases each. The 30-day mortality rate is 1% [45-47] [48]. 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 24 of 58 
Constitutional Symptoms.  The postembolization syndrome consisting of transient abdominal pain, ileus, 
fever and malaise affects 60% to 80% of patients receiving TACE.  Prophylactic antibiotics are not 
routinely administered as the fever is a predictor of treatment response.  This fever is a result of tumor 
necrosis initiated by the therapy. 
Gastrointestinal Side Effects and Complications.  Transaminases commonly rise 10 fold.  Patients may 
develop ischemic cholecystitis, hepatic abscess or biliary strictures.  Additionally, a minority of patients 
will develop nausea/vomiting and ascites. 
Endocrine Complications.  Some patients may develop symptomatic hypothyroidism as a result of 
retained iodine load. 
Hematologic Complications.  Some patients may develop a leukemoid reaction.  Bone marrow toxicity is 
uncommon occurring in less than 4% of patients and includes neutropenia and thrombocytopenia.  A 
small cohort of patients has developed gastrointestinal hemorrhage as a result of TACE therapy. 
1.5. Clinical Agent: Lipiodol (Ethiodol) 
Product Name 
Lipiodol® (ethyl esters of iodized fatty acids of poppy seed oil) 
Manufacturer 
Due to the current critical shortage of ETHIODOL®, Brand of Ethiodized Oil Injection, Guerbet is 
coordinating with the FDA to increase the availability of the ethyl esters of iodized fatty acids of poppy 
seed oil product. Guerbet has acquired the Ethiodol® NDA from Nycomed US Inc. effective May 7, 2010 
and is working with the FDA to resume manufacturing of Ethiodol in the near future to ensure continued 
availability for the US patients. During this interim period, Guerbet, in conjunction with the FDA, is 
initiating a temporary importation of LIPIODOL® ULTRA-FLUIDE, ethyl esters of iodized fatty acids of 
poppy seed oil, to the United States market. LIPIODOL® ULTRA-FLUIDE contains the same drug 
components as ETHIODOL®, Brand of Ethiodized Oil Injection, (previously manufactured and marketed 
in the United States by Savage Laboratories, a subsidiary of Nycomed). LIPIODOL® ULTRA-FLUIDE is 
manufactured in compliance with European Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) regulations by 
Delpharm Tours (France) for Guerbet.  
At this time, no other entity except Guerbet is authorized by the FDA to import or distribute LIPIODOL® 
ULTRA-FLUIDE. 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 25 of 58 
Chemical Name and Structure 
Lipiodol is an X-ray contrast medium consisting of a preparation of ethyl esters of fatty acids, diiodized 
at C16 and C18.  It is obtained from natural poppy seed oil which has undergone iodination and 
transesterification.  The product is provided in the form of a solution for injection as a clear, pale yellow 
to amber solution packaged in 10 mL glass ampules. Lipiodol contains no excipients.  Theiodine 
concentration of the preparation is 48 mg Iodine/mL. 
Use of Ethiodol 
In the United States, Lipiodol has been approved for use since 1954 and is labeled for use in patients 
undergoing hysterosalpingography or lymphography.  Lipiodol is primarily used off-label in 
chemoembolization procedures for the treatment of primary and secondary hepatic malignancies, and 
in various embolization procedures. It is also used off-label for computed tomography of the liver and 
spleen, and to detect hepatic metastases. 
Lipiodol is commonly used in arterial chemoembolization.  Besides its opacifying properties, it acts as 
both an embolic agent and a carrier of chemotherapeutic agents to the tumor. 
 
When injected into the hepatic artery, Lipiodol remains preferentially in an HCC for several weeks to 
over 1 year, due to the hypervascularity of the tumor and an absence of Kupffer cells inside tumor 
tissues.  This results in an embolic effect on small tumor vessels [49]. 
 
In TACE, Lipiodol is used as a vehicle to carry and localized chemotherapeutic agents inside a tumor.  
When the Lipiodol and drug mixture is injected into a vessel supplying the tumor, the drug remains 
in high concentrations within the tumor for a prolonged period [49].  
 
Because Lipiodol is a contrast agent and remains within the tumor, the areas of treated tumor are 
easily identified using radiographic imaging. 
In TACE procedures for HCC treatment, an emulsion is formed by mixing Lipiodol with the cytostatic 
drug and is injected intra-arterially through the hepatic artery to produce avascularity and 
infarction/necrosis of the tumor. Lipiodol has been found to remain selectively in the neovasculature 
and extravascular tissues of the HCC for very long periods.  This technique also allows for targeted 
delivery of the cytostatic drug inside or close to the tumor and a prolonged intra-tumoral residence time 
secondary to the iodized oil, leading to a prolonged local action and reducing systemic effects of the 
cytostatic drug [50, 51].  As a whole, the therapeutic action of chemoembolization results from 
prolonged drug action and infarction [52]. Some authors have shown that tumor cytostatic drug 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 26 of 58 
concentrations achieved this way are several thousand-fold higher than plasma drug concentrations 
[51]. In addition, during the process, the tumor is untouched from direct instrumentation or surgical 
manipulation that potentially may lead to tumor cell dissemination [50]. 
The efficacy of concomitant use of ethiodized oil and TACE procedures has been generally recognized for 
more than 2 decades.   
1.5.1. 
Relevant Pre-clinical Information 
Several carriers for the selective delivery of cytotoxic drugs to liver tumors have been investigated, 
amongst which Ethiodol is considered the agent of choice for this purpose as it is avidly taken up and 
retained for long periods of time by 85% of HCCs [51, 52].  Ethiodol selectively remains not only in large 
tumors but also in smaller intrahepatic metastases [35, 52]. 
 
1.5.2. 
Safety/Adverse Events 
Possible side effects of Lipiodol are transient fever post-procedure and gastrointestinal disorders 
(nausea, vomiting or diarrhea). In patients with an iodine deficiency, there is a risk of hyperthyroidism 
(symptoms include weight loss, accelerated heart rate, increased intestinal transit rate, anxiety, 
insomnia, etc.). Additionally, there is a risk of an allergic reaction.  Patients with a history of allergic 
reactions to iodinated products are premedicated prior to a TACE procedure as per standard of care. 
Please see package insert in Appendix. 
Lipiodol has been used since 1954 in general, and for the last 2 decades in TAE/TACE procedures, 
without any noted increase in risks or special complications.  It can therefore be concluded that Lipiodol 
can be safely used in selective embolization. 
 
1.6. Rationale  
The goal of Lipiodol based TACE is to deliver highly concentrated doses of chemotherapy to the tumor in 
order to maximize tumor kill and minimize systemic release of the drug in the plasma thereby reducing 
side effects (vs chemotherapy).  The key advantages of TACE are the precise nature of the delivery by 
utilizing the artery feeding the tumor thereby allowing the chemotherapy to be deposited directly within 
the tumor bed and the ability to achieve high concentrations of doxorubicin, cisplatin, mytomycin-c 
within the tumor bed.  There are three established purposes of Lipiodol in the chemotherapy cocktail: 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 27 of 58 
(1) the ability to see where the chemotherapy is being delivered during the procedure, (2) to provide an 
embolic effect to the feeding vessel of the tumor, and (3) to provide a vehicle for the chemotherapeutic 
agent. 
However, despite over 25 years of clinical experience with lipiodol based TACE, the role of Lipiodol 
remains incompletely studied, especially its potential use as an imaging biomarker of tumor response.  
We therefore propose to study the potential role of lipiodol as an imaging biomarker of tumor response. 
When Lipiodol is delivered to the tumor during TACE, it is generally retained within the tumor for many 
weeks to months. The radio-opacity of Lipiodol makes it very easy to track. If it is indeed proven true 
that Lipiodol retention in the treated tumor equates to tumor necrosis, then Lipiodol could potentially 
be considered as a valid imaging biomarker of successful tumor treatment. This hypothesis will be tested 
by imaging patients with multiple modalities (DCE-MRI, PET-CT, and CT) before and at multiple time 
points after TACE. The scans will be overlayed with each other (image fusion) and tumors will be 
compared from the standpoint of necrosis and viability.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 28 of 58 
2. 
Study Objectives and Endpoints 
2.1. Objectives 
2.1.1. 
Primary Objective 
 
To determine whether Lipiodol can be used as a valid imaging biomarker of successful drug 
delivery to liver tumors and of tumor response to therapy. 
2.1.2. 
Secondary Objective 
 
To estimate 6-month survival following therapy with lipiodol TACE.  
 
2.2. Endpoints 
2.2.1. 
Primary Endpoint 
 
RECIST/EASL/qEASL response, separately using contrast CT, MRI and PET, as an indicator of 
success of tumor response to therapy  
o RECIST/EASL/qEASL response will be based on the percentage change from baseline of 
the diameter of the specific target lesion identified at baseline (RECIST)/the percentage 
change in the viable tumor area of the specific target lesion identified at baseline (EASL).  
The response scale is 0-100% for decrease/ (opposite sign) 0-100% for increase. 
RECIST/EASL/qEASL response categories (CR, PR, SD, PD), will be based on the percentage change 
from baseline of the diameter of the specific target lesion identified at baseline (RECIST)/the 
percentage change in the viable tumor area/volume of the specific target lesion identified at 
baseline (EASL/qEASL). The analytic strategy is to measure the association between baseline 
lipiodol deposition and the treatment  responses indicated by the imaging modalities.   Separate 
analyses may be performed for each measurement time point for the respective imaging 
modalities. 
 
2.2.2. 
Secondary Endpoint 
 
6-month survival of patients with HCC and liver metastases treated with TACE utilizing Lipiodol. 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 29 of 58 
The analytic strategy is to measure the association between baseline lipiodol deposition 
and the 6-month survival rate by estimating median survival for each stratum, and by 
testing for homogeneity using a logrank test (if hazards are proportional).  
3. 
Subject Selection  
HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA 
Patients must have: 
a histological or cytological diagnosis (documentation of original biopsy for diagnosis is acceptable if 
tumor tissue is unavailable), or meet the EASL criteria (the radiological presence of a liver mass greater 
than 2 cm, with arterial hypervascularity that is seen on two imaging modalities, within a cirrhotic liver, 
and in the presence of an alphafetoprotein (AFP) > 200 ng.mL will be used as an alternative diagnostic 
criterion)   for diagnosis of HCC  
-HCC who are Childs class A or B (see Table below) with liver-predominant disease.   
Child-Pugh Classification of Liver Disease Severity 
 
Points Assigned 
Parameter 
1 
2 
3 
Ascites 
Absent 
Slight 
Moderate 
Bilirubin, mg/dL 
< 2 
2-3 
>3 
Albumin, G/dL 
> 3.5 
2.8-3.5 
< 2.8 
Prothrombin Time 
 
 
 
      Seconds over control 
1-3 
4-6 
>6 
      INR 
<1.7 
1.8-2.3 
>2.3 
Encephalopathy 
None 
Grade 1-2 
Grade 3-4 
 
 
 
 
Child-Pugh Classification of Liver Disease Severity:  Modified Child-Pugh classification of liver disease severity according to the 
degree of ascites, the plasma concentrations of bilirubin and albumin, the prothrombin time, and the degree of 
encephalopathy.  A total score of 5-6 is considered grade A (well-compensated disease); 7-9 is grade B (significant functional 
compromise); and 10 -15 is grade C (decompensate disease).  These grades correlate with one-year and two-year percent 
survival; grade A – 100 and 85 percent; grade B – 80 and 60 percent; and grade C - 45 and 35 percent, respectively. 
 
HEPATIC METASTASES FROM ANY SOLID TUMOR 
Patients with a diagnosis of hepatic metastases from any solid tumor must have histological or 
cytological diagnosis of the primary tumor. 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 30 of 58 
3.1. Inclusion Criteria  
3.1.1. 
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with liver-predominant disease, who have been 
referred for cTACE.  Multifocal HCC is acceptable, no diffuse HCC.  Or, patients 
with a diagnosis of hepatic metastases from any solid tumor.   
3.1.2. 
Age > 18 
3.1.3. 
ECOG performance status of 0-2. 
3.1.4. 
Childs class of A or B (up to 9)  
3.2. Exclusion Criteria 
3.2.1. 
 Any contraindication to doxorubicin, cisplatin, or mitomycin-c  administration 
(or specific mixture of chemotherapy drugs to be used)  
3.2.2. 
Evidence of severe or uncontrolled systemic diseases. 
3.2.3. 
Congestive cardiac failure >NYHA class 2, MI within 6 months, active coronary 
artery disease, cardiac arrhythmias requiring anti-arrhythmic therapy other than 
beta blockers or digoxin,  unstable angina, or laboratory finding that in the view 
of the investigator makes it undesirable for the patient to participate in the trial. 
3.2.4. 
Known allergy to Lipiodol (Ethiodol), poppyseed oil, or iodinated contrast agents 
(that cannot be adequately mitigated with a pre-procedure medications) 
3.2.5. 
Main portal vein thrombosis is excluded; segmental or branch portal vein 
thrombosis is acceptable 
3.2.6. 
Patients who are breastfeeding 
3.2.7. 
Patients who are pregnant 
3.2.8. 
Contraindicated in areas of the liver where the bile ducts are dilated, unless 
external biliary drainage is performed before injection. 
3.3. Inclusion of Woman and Minorities 
All patients, irrespective of sex or ethnicity, will be sequentially invited to participate in the study until 
enrollment has been met. 
 
 
 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 31 of 58 
 
4. 
Subject Registration Procedures  
4.1. General Guidelines 
Patients consented for the study will be entered into the Yale-New Haven Health electronic database 
(OnCore) and entered into the study enrollment log. 
4.2. Registration Process 
Patients enrolled into the study (treated with conventional TACE) will be given a study identifier and will 
be counted in the final data analysis. 
4.3. Screening Assessments 
Assessments completed in the initial clinic visits (pre-consent), as part of standard of care assessments, 
may be used a study screening assessments. 
Evaluations are within 30 days prior to TACE.  If clinically indicated, blood work will be repeated 
within 1 week of treatment. 
 
History and Physical exam (including vital signs, ECOG-PS assessment) 
 
Chemistry Panel 
 
AST, ALT, bilirubin(total and direct), alkaline phosphatase, total protein, albumin, 
calcium, glucose, creatinine, blood urea nitrogen (BUN), bicarbonate 
 
Electrolyte Panel 
o sodium, potassium, and chloride 
 
Complete Blood Count 
o hemoglobin, hematocrit, platelet count, white blood cell count (WBC).  White 
blood cell count (WBC) should include differential neutrophil, lymphocyte, 
monocyte, basophil and eosinophil counts. 
 
PT/INR  
o PT, the International Ratio of PT (PT-INR) 
 
Alpha Feto-Protein 
 
Serum or urine Pregnancy Test  
o for women of childbearing potential (must be negative) 
 
Cardiovascular: Electrocardiogram and NYHA classification if warranted 
 
CT with contrast of the chest-abdomen-pelvis 
 
Contrast enhanced MRI of the liver 
 
PET/CT 
 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 32 of 58 
5. 
Study Design/Investigational Plan 
5.1. Overall Design 
The study is designed to treat patients with liver-predominant HCC or metastatic disease meeting study 
entry criteria. Patients will be treated with conventional, Lipiodol based chemoembolization on Day 0. If 
multiple TACE procedures are required, then the time points below will begin after the treatment is 
complete for a particular lesion in the liver.  
The following imaging will be performed after the procedure: 
 
Non-enhanced CT of the abdomen 24 hours after TACE and before surgical resection or 
transplantation if applicable. 
- 
Non-enhanced CT of the abdomen 24 hours post TACE is performed to 
document deposition of the lipiodol into the targeted area of the liver. 
 
DCE (dynamic contrast enhanced) - and diffusion-MRI of the liver before TACE, 1, 3, and 6 
months post completion of TACE. 
 
MRI of the liver: contrast agent used is Magnevist (gadopentetate dimeglumine),  
Multihance (gadobenate dimeglumine), Gadavist (gadobuterol), or Eovist 
(gadoxetate). The administered dose for  agents  is 0.1 mmol/kg (0.2 mL/kg). 
- 
The MRI contrast agents are administered according to label. 
 
CT scan of the abdomen, with and without contrast, before TACE, 1, 3, and 6 months post 
completion of TACE. 
 
CT of the abdomen: contrast agents used are Omnipaque (iohexol) or Visipaque 
(iodixanol). The administered dose for both agents is 120 cc’s for patients weighing 
≥ 120 lbs, and is 1cc/lb for patients weighing under 120 lbs. 
 
 
The CT contrast agents are administered according to label. 
 
FDG-PET/CT of the liver before TACE, 3, and 6 months post completion of TACE. 
 
The radioactive dose  of FDG dose is based on patient weight, 0.09mci /lb(minimum 
10mci, max 25mCi). The FDG is sourced from PETNET Solutions Inc., a 
subsidiary of Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. 
 
 
The FDG is administered as standard of care. 
*No F/U FDG-PET/CT if lesion is not avid 
 
 
Timeline: 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 33 of 58 
 
Before TACE – DCE MRI + CT abdomen with contrast + PET-CT 
 
Day 0 – TACE 
 
Day 1 – Non-contrast CT of the liver 
 
Day 30 – DCE MRI + CT abdomen with and without contrast  
 
Day 90 – DCE MRI + CT abdomen with and without contrast + PET-CT  
 
Day 180 -- DCE MRI + CT abdomen with and without contrast + PET-CT 
 
The study imaging exams listed above (MRI, CT, and PET) will be read and interpreted by radiologists in 
the same manner as non-study clinical imaging studies. In addition to the clinical reads, the study 
investigators will interpret the study imaging exams in order to complete the objectives in Section 7 
(Measurement of Effect) and Section 9 (Statistical Methods). 
 
5.2. Agent Administration 
As in our standard of care practice: 
The amounts of chemoembolization material, lidocaine, and embospheres delivered are approximately: 
o 10 cc’s of lipiodol,  
o 10 cc of chemotherapy, with 50 mg Doxorubicin and 10 mg of Mitomycin-C mixed 1:1 
with Lipiodol (10 cc’s) giving a total of 20 cc,  
o 10 cc of 1% lidocaine, and  
o 1 vial of embospheres measuring 100-300 microns 
However exact amounts are titrated to each clinical situation. 
 
Approximately 10 cc’s of lipiodol is administered to the patients during a TACE procedure.  The 
chemoembolization material consists of 10 cc of chemotherapy, with 50 mg Doxorubicin and 10 mg of 
Mitomycin-C mixed 1:1 with Lipiodol (10 cc’s) giving a total of 20 cc. The amount of chemoembolization 
material administered is titrated to the area being treated, i.e., a smaller area (lesion) may be 
adequately treated with a portion of the prepared chemoembolization material. 
Due to the drug shortages, cisplatin has been unavailable for approximately the last 9 
months.  
Therefore, currently, the chemoembolization agents consist of: 
-  approximately 50 mg doxorubicin and 10 mg of mitomycin-C. 
 
In the event that cisplatin becomes available again, the chemoembolization agents 
would consist of: 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 34 of 58 
- approximately 50 mg doxorubicin, 10 mg of mitomycin-C, and 100 mg cisplatin 
To follow the chemoembolization materials, approximately 10 cc of 1% lidocaine and 
approximately 1 vial of embospheres measuring 100-300 microns, are administered. The 
amount of 1% lidocaine and of embospheres is titrated to each clinical situation. 
 
5.2.1. 
Dose Escalation  
Not applicable 
5.2.2. 
Regimen Description 
See Section 5.2, Agent Administration.  
 
 
5.3. Visit Schedule and Study Evaluations 
EVALUATIONS IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO TACE 
 
Documentation of vital signs (heart rate, blood pressure, and respirations) 
EVALUATIONS IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING TACE 
 
Documentation of vital signs (hear t rate, blood pressure, and respirations) 
 
EVALUATIONS AFTER TACE 
 
Physical exam and review of systems after TACE, prior to post-procedure discharge to 
home 
 
Physical Exam, Blood pressure monitoring, Review of systems, Labs:  1 month after 
treatment, then 2 months after this, and 3 months after this (Days 30, 90, and 180) 
 
MRI: Day 30, 90, 180 
 
CT of abdomen with and without contrast: Day 30, 90, 180 
 
PET-CT: Day 90, Day 180 
*No F/U FDG-PET/CT if lesion is not avid 
 
 
5.4. Concomitant medications 
 
Metformin: Patients being treated with metformin will have the metformin suspended 48 
hours before the TACE procedure and restarted 2 days after the procedure. 

HIC# 1601017054 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd. 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 35 of 58 
 
 
Diuretics: Patients being treated with diuretics will not have the diuretics held prior to TACE 
except when clinically indicated (when the patient is at increased risk for dehydration). This 
decision is at the discretion of the Investigator. 
 
Please see the below Study Calendar table. 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 36 of 58 
Table 1.  
Study Calendar 
Parameter 
Pre-treatment 
 
Day 0  
 
 
Day 1 
 
 
Day 30 (+/- 7 d) 
 
Day 90 
(+/- 14 d) 
 
Day 180 
(+/- 21 days) 
Informed consent1 
X1 
 
 
  
  
 
Medical History 
X1 
 
 
 X 
X 
X 
Review of systems 
 
 
X 
 
 
 
Physical Exam  
X1 
 
X 
X 
X 
X 
Performance Status 
X1 
 
 
X 
X 
X 
Hematology2 
X1 
 
 
X 
 X 
X 
Chemistry/Electrolyte 
Panel3 
X1 
 
 
X 
 X  
 
X 
PT/INR 
X1 
 
 
X 
 X 
X 
Serum/urine pregnancy 
test 
X1 
 
 
  
  
 
NYHA Classification 
X4 
 
 
  
  
 
Electrocardiogram 
X4 
 
 
  
  
 
CT (abdomen), w + w/o   
contrast 
X1 
 
 
X  
 
 
X  
 
 
X 
Tumor Marker (AFP, 
CEA, Chromogranin A, or 
X1 
 
 
 X 
  
 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 37 of 58 
other appropriate marker) 
 
 
X 
 
 
X 
Concomitant Meds 
X1 
 
 
X 
X 
X 
TACE Procedure 
  
X5 
 
  
  
 
CT scan without contrast 
X1 
 
X 
 
 
 
MRI (liver) 
X1 
 
 
X 
 X 
X 
Pet-CT scan 
X1 
 
 
 
X 
X 
1  Within 30 days prior to study enrollment 
2   Hemoglobin, hematocrit, platelets, WBC with differential 
3  Creatinine, BUN, total bilirubin, AST, ALT, alk. phos, Ca, K, Cr, Na, albumin, total protein. 
4  If indicated 
5   Repeated as indicated until physician determines that lesion has been fully treated 
*   Windows of 7, 14 and up to 21 days are allowed around the follow-up visits 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 38 of 58 
5.5. Duration of Therapy 
TACE is offered as indicated, per standard of care. 
5.6. Duration of Follow-up 
6 months from completion of TACE  
5.7. Criteria for Removal from Study 
Subjects who meet the following criteria should be discontinued from the study: 
 
At the request of the patient or a representative/ Withdrawal of consent 
 
 
Use of illicit drugs or other substances that may, in the opinion of the Investigator, 
contribute to toxicity 
 
Deterioration of PS to ECOG 4 
 
The patient is lost to follow-up 
 
Death 
 
5.8. Study Discontinuation 
The investigator has the right to close the study, at any time, although this should occur only after 
consultation between involved parties. The Ethics Committee (EC)/Institutional Review Board (IRB) must 
be informed. Events that may trigger premature termination of a study include, but are not limited to: 
new toxicity finding, results of any interim analysis, completed accrual and follow-up of patients, non-
compliance with the protocol, change in development plans for the study drug, slow recruitment, or 
poor quality data. 
 
 
 
 
 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 39 of 58 
6. 
Adverse Event Collection and Reporting Requirements 
6.1. Definitions 
6.1.1. 
Adverse Event (AE) 
An Adverse Event (AE) is defined as any new untoward medical occurrence or worsening of a 
pre-existing medical condition in a patient or clinical investigation subject administered an 
investigational (medicinal) product and that does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this 
treatment. An AE can therefore be any unfavorable and unintended sign (including abnormal laboratory 
finding, for example), symptom, or disease temporally associated with the use of investigational 
product, whether or not considered related to the investigational product (refer to ICH E6 GCP Guidance 
– section 1.2). 
6.1.2. 
Serious Adverse Event (SAE) 
A Serious AE (SAE) is any untoward medical occurrence that at any dose produces any of the following 
outcomes (refer to ICH E6 GCP Guidance – section 1.50): 
 
Results in death; 
 
Is life threatening (defined as an event in which the subject was at risk of death at the time of 
the event; it does not refer to an event which hypothetically might have caused death if it were 
more severe); 
 
Requires inpatient hospitalization or causes prolongation of existing hospitalization (see NOTE 
below for exceptions); 
 
Results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity; 
 
Is a congenital anomaly/birth defect (note: reports of congenital anomalies/birth defects must 
also be reported on the Pregnancy Supplemental Form); 
 
Is an important medical event (defined as a medical event(s) that may not be immediately 
life-threatening or result in death or hospitalization but, based upon appropriate medical and 
scientific judgment, may jeopardize the subject or may require intervention [e.g., medical, 
surgical] to prevent one of the other serious outcomes listed in the definition above.). Examples 
of such events include, but are not limited to, intensive treatment in an emergency room or at 
home for allergic bronchospasm; blood dyscrasias or convulsions that do not result in 
hospitalization.) 
 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 40 of 58 
NOTE:  
The following hospitalizations are not considered SAEs: 
 
Admissions as per protocol for a planned medical/surgical procedure; 
 
Routine health assessment requiring admission for baseline/trending of health status (e.g., 
routine colonoscopy); 
 
Medical/surgical admission for purpose other than remedying ill health state and was planned 
prior to entry into the study. Appropriate documentation is required in these cases; 
 
Admission encountered for another life circumstance that carries no bearing on health status 
and requires no medical/surgical intervention (e.g., lack of housing, economic inadequacy, care-
giver respite, family circumstances, administrative). 
6.1.3. 
Non-serious Adverse Event 
A non-serious adverse event is any adverse events not classified as serious (as described in previous 
section). 
6.2. Adverse Event Coding 
 
CTCAE term (AE description) and grade: The descriptions and grading scales found in the 
revised NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0 will be utilized 
for all AE reporting. All appropriate treatment areas should have access to a copy of the CTCAE 
version 4.0.  
 
Attribution of the AE: 
o Definite – The AE is clearly related to the study treatment. 
o Probable – The AE is likely related to the study treatment. 
o Possible – The AE may be related to the study treatment. 
o Unlikely – The AE is doubtfully related to the study treatment. 
o Unrelated – The AE is clearly NOT related to the study treatment. 
6.3. Adverse Event Capture and Reporting 
6.3.1. 
Routine Adverse Event Capture and Reporting 
The collection of all AE information begins at initiation of investigational product and continues during 
the clinical study until 30 days of receiving the last TACE on study.  
Because Lipiodol based TACE is known to be safe and has been used effectively for over 20 years, 
targeted data collection is appropriate.  
Adverse event data that will be collected and reported: 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 41 of 58 
 
All serious adverse events, deaths, and events that lead to study discontinuation  
 
Unscheduled hospitalizations  
 
Grade 3 and 4 adverse events, as well as Grade 2 events that affect vital organs (heart, liver)  
 
Data for all subject withdrawals 
 
Adverse events should be followed to resolution or stabilization, or reported as SAEs if they become 
serious. Follow-up is also required for AEs that cause interruption or discontinuation of investigational 
product, or those that are present at the end of study participation. Subjects with AEs at study 
completion should receive post-treatment follow-up as appropriate.  
All identified AEs must be recorded and described on the appropriate AE page of the Case Report Form 
(CRF). 
6.3.2. 
Serious Adverse Event Capture and Reporting 
ALL serious adverse events, regardless of causality must be reported to the following entities: 
o IND Sponsor 
o IRB (per the IRB’s reporting requirements) 
o FDA (if PI is also the sponsor of the IND/IDE) 
6.3.2.1. SAE Reporting to the IRB 
SAEs that meet the IRB’s definition of an unanticipated event per Yale IRB Policy 710 must be reported 
to the IRB (Yale IRB Policy 710). 
6.3.2.2. Sponsor SAE Reporting to the FDA (for Sponsor-Investigator INDs) 
All SAEs are reported to the FDA via the IND annual report per 21 CFR 312.33. SAEs deemed unexpected 
and related to the investigational product qualify for expedited reporting and must be submitted by the 
IND Sponsor-Investigator to the FDA per 21 CFR 312.32 as shown immediately below. 
6.3.2.2.1. 
7 Calendar-Day Telephone or Fax IND Safety Report to FDA 
The Sponsor-Investigator is required to notify the FDA of any fatal or life-threatening adverse event that 
is unexpected and assessed by the Sponsor Investigator to be possibly related to the use of Lipiodol 
within 7 calendar-days of first learning of the event. An unexpected adverse event deemed possibly 
related to the use of an investigational study drug is defined as any adverse drug experience of which 
the specificity or severity is not consistent with the current investigator brochure, the general 
investigational plan, or elsewhere in the current application, as amended.  

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 42 of 58 
Such reports are to be telephoned or faxed to the FDA within 7 calendar-days of first learning of the 
event. Each telephone call or fax transmission should be directed to the FDA department that is  
responsible for the review of the IND. 
6.3.2.2.2. 
15 Calendar-Day Written IND Safety Report to FDA 
The Sponsor-Investigator is required to notify the FDA, and all participating investigators (as applicable), 
in a written IND Safety Report, of any serious, unexpected adverse event considered by the Sponsor-
Investigator to be possibly related to the use of Lipiodol within 15 calendar-days of first learning of the 
event.  
A serious, unexpected adverse event deemed possibly related to the use of an investigational study drug 
is any adverse drug experience of which the specificity or severity is not consistent with the current 
investigator brochure, the general investigational plan, or elsewhere in the current application, as 
amended, and results in any of the following outcomes:  
 
Death (report first as a 7-day telephone/fax report); 
 
life-threatening adverse drug experience (report first as a 7-day telephone/fax report); 
 
inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization;  
 
a persistent or significant disability/incapacity, or a congenital anomaly/birth defect;  
 
or is an important medical event that may not result in death, be life-threatening, or require 
hospitalization but is considered a serious adverse drug experience when, based upon 
appropriate medical judgment, it may jeopardize the patient or subject and may require medical 
or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed in this definition. 
All written IND Safety Reports should include an Analysis of Similar Events in accordance with 
21 CFR 312.32. All safety reports previously filed with the IND concerning similar events should be 
analyzed. The new report should contain comments on the significance of the new event in light of the 
previous, similar reports and be submitted to the FDA, within 15 calendar-days of first learning of the 
event. The FDA prefers these reports be documented on a MedWatch 3500A Form, but alternative 
formats are acceptable (e.g., summary letter). 
6.3.2.2.3. 
Follow-up Reports to FDA 
All follow-up information concerning IND Safety Reports should be submitted to the FDA as soon as 
possible (and no later than 15 calendar days after receiving an FDA request for more information). 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 43 of 58 
6.3.3. 
Other Potential Adverse Events 
6.3.3.1. Laboratory Test Abnormalities 
All laboratory test values captured as part of the study should be recorded on the appropriate 
laboratory test results pages of the CRF. In addition, the following laboratory abnormalities should also 
be captured on the non-serious AE CRF page or SAE paper CRF page as appropriate: 
 
Any laboratory test result that is clinically significant or meets the definition of an SAE; 
 
Any laboratory abnormality that required the subject to have Lipiodol discontinued or 
interrupted; 
 
Any laboratory abnormality that required the subject to receive specific corrective therapy. 
6.3.3.2. Overdose 
An overdose is defined as the accidental or intentional ingestion of any dose of a product that is 
considered both excessive and medically important. All occurrences of overdose must be reported as an 
SAE. 
6.3.3.3. Pregnancy 
Sexually active women of child bearing potential (WOCBP) must use an effective method of birth control 
during the course of the study, in a manner such that risk of failure is minimized. 
Prior to study enrollment, WOCBP must be advised of the importance of avoiding pregnancy during 
study participation and the potential risk factors for an unintentional pregnancy. The subject must sign 
an informed consent form documenting this discussion. 
All WOCBP MUST have a negative serum pregnancy test 7 days prior to receiving investigational 
product. All WOCBP should be instructed to contact the investigator immediately if they suspect they 
may be pregnant (e.g., missed or late menstrual period) at any time during study participation. 
If, following initiation of the investigational product, it is subsequently discovered that a study subject is 
pregnant or may have been pregnant at the time of the investigational product exposure, the 
investigational product will be permanently discontinued in an appropriate manner. Exceptions to the 
investigational product discontinuation may be considered for life-threatening conditions only after 
consultation with the sponsor or as otherwise specified in this protocol. The investigator must 
immediately notify the sponsor of this event, record the pregnancy on the SAE form. Initial information 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 44 of 58 
on a pregnancy must be reported immediately to the sponsor and the outcome information provided 
once the outcome is known. Forward these forms to the sponsor according to SAE reporting procedures. 
Protocol-required procedures for study discontinuation and follow-up must be performed on the subject 
unless contraindicated by pregnancy (e.g., x-rays studies). Follow-up information regarding the course of 
the pregnancy, including perinatal and neonatal outcome must be reported. Infants should be followed 
for a minimum of 8 weeks. 
6.3.3.4. Other Safety Considerations 
Any significant changes noted during interim or final physical examinations, electrocardiograms, x-rays, 
and any other potential safety assessments, whether or not these procedures are required by protocol, 
should also be recorded on the appropriate non-serious AE or SAE page of the CRF. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 45 of 58 
7. 
Measurement of Effect 
7.1. Measurement of Anti-tumor Effect 
MRI scan of Lesions 
Response to contrast enhanced MRI will be assessed for measurable disease by the criteria outlined 
below.  A baseline DCE-MRI will be performed before treatment begins.  For the purposes of this study, 
patients will be evaluated approximately 1, 3, and 6 months (Days 30, 90, and 180) following the last 
TACE (after the operator determines that a lesion has been fully treated). Response will be assessed in 
two different ways: (1) the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors ( RECIST) criteria and (2) 
European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria for assessment of response to loco-
regional therapy [2]. 
 
PET-CT scan of Lesions 
Response to PET-CT will be assessed for measurable disease by the criteria outlined below.  A baseline 
PET-CT will be performed before treatment begins.  For the purposes of this study, patients will be 
evaluated approximately 12 weeks following the last TACE (after the operator determines that a lesion 
has been fully treated), then 12 weeks after that (Days 90 and 180).  Response will be assessed in per 
lesion (see below). 
 
CT scan of Lesions 
Response to contrast enhanced CT will be assessed for measurable disease by the criteria outlined 
below.  A CT will be performed before treatment begins.  For the purposes of this study, patients will be 
evaluated approximately 4 weeks following the last TACE (after the operator determines that a lesion 
has been fully treated), then 8 weeks after that, and finally 12 weeks after that (Days 30, 90 and 180).  
Response will be assessed in per lesion (see below). 
 
7.2. Guidelines for Evaluation of Measurable Disease 
MRI Response Criteria: Evaluation of Lesions (RECIST Criteria) 
 
Complete Response – Complete disappearance of all target lesions. 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 46 of 58 
 
Partial Response – At least 30% decrease in the sum of the longest diameter (LD) of target 
lesions, taking as a reference the baseline sum LD. 
 
Stable Disease – All other cases.  
 
Progressive Disease – At least a 20% increase in the sum of the LD of the target lesions, 
taking as a reference the smallest sum LD recorded since the treatment started or the 
appearance of one or more new lesions.  
 
 
MRI Response Criteria: Evaluation of Lesions (EASL Criteria) 
 
Complete Response – Complete disappearance of all viable tumoral area and no new 
lesions.  No new lesions may evolve during a 4 week period after initial documentation of 
response. 
 
Partial Response – Greater than 50% reduction in viable tumoral area of all measurable 
lesions via uptake of contrast.  
 
Stable Disease – All other cases.  
 
Progressive Disease – Greater than or equal to 25% increase in tumoral area of one or more 
measurable lesions or the appearance of new lesions. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 47 of 58 
8. 
Study Drug Information 
8.1. Supply Drug Name 
Lipiodol® (ethyl esters of iodized fatty acids of poppy seed oil) 
Due to the current critical shortage of ETHIODOL®, Brand of Ethiodized Oil Injection, Guerbet is 
coordinating with the FDA to increase the availability of the ethyl esters of iodized fatty acids of poppy 
seed oil product. Guerbet has acquired the Ethiodol® NDA from Nycomed US Inc. effective May 7, 2010 
and is working with the FDA to resume manufacturing of Ethiodol in the near future to ensure continued 
availability for the US patients. During this interim period, Guerbet, in conjunction with the FDA, is 
initiating a temporary importation of LIPIODOL® ULTRA-FLUIDE, ethyl esters of iodized fatty acids of 
poppy seed oil, to the United States market. LIPIODOL® ULTRA-FLUIDE contains the same drug 
components as ETHIODOL®, Brand of Ethiodized Oil Injection, (previously manufactured and marketed 
in the United States by Savage Laboratories, a subsidiary of Nycomed). LIPIODOL® ULTRA-FLUIDE is 
manufactured in compliance with European Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) regulations by 
Delpharm Tours (France) for Guerbet.  
At this time, no other entity except Guerbet is authorized by the FDA to import or distribute LIPIODOL® 
ULTRA-FLUIDE. 
Other names    
Ethiodol 
Classification 
Lipiodol is an X-ray contrast medium consisting of a preparation of ethyl esters of fatty acids, diiodized 
at C16 and C18.  It is obtained from natural poppy seed oil which has undergone iodination and 
transesterification.  The product is provided in the form of a solution for injection as a clear, pale yellow 
to amber solution packaged in 10 mL glass ampules. Lipiodol contains no excipients.  Theiodine 
concentration of the preparation is 48 mg Iodine/mL. 
Mode of action 
Lipiodol is commonly used in arterial chemoembolization.  Besides its opacifying properties, it acts as 
both an embolic agent and a carrier of chemotherapeutic agents to the tumor. 
Preparation 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 48 of 58 
 In TACE procedures for liver tumor treatment, an emulsion is formed by mixing Lipiodol with the 
cytostatic drug. 
 
Administration 
In TACE procedures for HCC treatment, an emulsion is formed by mixing Lipiodol with the cytostatic 
drug and is injected intra-arterially through the hepatic artery to produce avascularity and 
infarction/necrosis of the tumor.   
 
Availability 
Due to the current critical shortage of ETHIODOL®, Brand of Ethiodized Oil Injection, Guerbet is 
coordinating with the FDA to increase the availability of the ethyl esters of iodized fatty acids of poppy 
seed oil product. Guerbet has acquired the Ethiodol® NDA from Nycomed US Inc. effective May 7, 2010 
and is working with the FDA to resume manufacturing of Ethiodol in the near future to ensure continued 
availability for the US patients. During this interim period, Guerbet, in conjunction with the FDA, is 
initiating a temporary importation of LIPIODOL® ULTRA-FLUIDE, ethyl esters of iodized fatty acids of 
poppy seed oil, to the United States market. LIPIODOL® ULTRA-FLUIDE contains the same drug 
components as ETHIODOL®, Brand of Ethiodized Oil Injection, (previously manufactured and marketed 
in the United States by Savage Laboratories, a subsidiary of Nycomed). LIPIODOL® ULTRA-FLUIDE is 
manufactured in compliance with European Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) regulations by 
Delpharm Tours (France) for Guerbet.  
At this time, no other entity except Guerbet is authorized by the FDA to import or distribute LIPIODOL® 
ULTRA-FLUIDE. 
 
 
 
 
 
 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 49 of 58 
9. 
Statistical Methods 
9.1. Statistical Considerations 
9.1.1. 
Analysis Sets 
 
Safety analysis set: all enrolled patients who completed at least 1 TACE 
procedure 
 
Full analysis set: all enrolled patients 
 
Per Protocol analysis set: all enrolled patients who complete the study and have 
no protocol deviations 
 
Modified Intent-to-Treat analysis set: all enrolled patients who complete all of 
their required pre-TACE, Day 0, and Day 1 procedures and evaluations, and 
complete at least 1 valid post-Day 1 imaging exam. 
9.1.2. General Statistical Methods 
 
Type I error= 0.05 and will be 2-sided; 95% confidence intervals will be calculated.  
 
Summary statistics: For continuous measures, descriptive statistics will include the 
mean, standard deviation, min, median, max. For categorical measures, counts and 
proportions will be presented.  
 
missing values: No imputation for missing values will be performed.,  
 
There will be no adjustment for multiple comparisons in any of the planned analyses..  
 
Diagnostic analyses will be conducted to assess if non-parametric statistical methods 
should be used in lieu of the parametric methods. 
Additional analyses may be performed, as appropriate, by YCAS statisticians. 
9.2. Sample Size Justification 
A sample size of 60 (HCC (n=30) and metastatic disease (n=30)) will allow for data collection and analysis 
to assess Lipiodol as an imaging biomarker in this pilot study. This sample size is based on feasibility and 
pilot study objectives.Operating characteristics were analyzed using PASS software (56)  to estimate the 
effect size that can be detected with this sample size. A sample size of 60 achieves 80% power to detect 
a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.35 with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. The sample size of 30 
will allow for detecting a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.49 in each subgroup. Similarly, for 
Spearman correlation, the minimum detectable correlations are 0.36 and 0.51 respectively, assuming a 
bivariate normal distribution. 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 50 of 58 
Yale Center for Analytical Sciences (YCAS), which is the Biostatistics Shared Resources of Yale Cancer 
Center, will provide support to data analysis.   
9.3. Analytic Plan 
 
9.3.1. 
Analysis of the Primary Endpoint 
 
 
A single, representative, index lesion in each patient will be used to measure response.  
 
 
Percentage of lipiodol deposition (on the 24h non-contrast CT) will be scored as a continuous 
variable on a scale of 0-100, in addition to being categorized into 4 ordinal levels: ≤25%, >25-50%, 
>50-75%, >75%. 
 
Percent lipiodol deposition in the tumor (obtained from 24h non-contrast CT, scored from 0-100) will be 
correlated with percent RECIST response, separately using contrast CT, MRI and PET imaging, and 
reported separately for each time point.  The Pearson product-moment correlation will be used to 
measure the strength of the association, and 95% confidence intervals will be calculated. 
 
Exact percent of lipiodol deposition (on the non-contrast CT, scored from 0-100) will be correlated 
with percent necrosis as reported on pathologic examination (if the patient goes on to hepatic 
surgical resection or transplantation; the percent necrosis of the lesion on a scale of 0-100) using 
Pearson’s product-moment correlation,  and 95% confidence intervals will be calculated.  
 
Percent lipiodol deposition in the tumor (obtained from 24h non-contrast CT, scored from 0-100) 
will be correlated with percent EASL response, separately using contrast CT, MRI and PET imaging, 
and reported separately for each time point.  The Pearson’s product-moment correlation will be 
used to measure the strength of the association, and 95% confidence intervals will be calculated. 
 
Exact percent of lipiodol deposition (on the non-contrast CT, scored from 0-100) will be 
correlated with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) [53, 54] and with volumetic response 
[54, 55]using Pearson’s product-moment correlation.  and 95% confidence intervals will be 
calculated.Two correlations will be measured  
 
The percent tumor ADC (scored from 0-100) as demonstrated on contrast MRI will be 
correlated with percent lipiodol deposition. 
 
The percent tumor volumetric response (scored from 0-100) as demonstrated on 
contrast MRI will be correlated with percent lipiodol deposition. 
   
 
9.3.2 Analysis of Secondary Endpoint 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 51 of 58 
 
 
6-month survival will be analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method to compare the progression free 
survival across the 4 ordinal Lipiodol retention strata described above.  .  If the proportional hazards 
assumption applies, a Kaplan-Meier logrank statistic will be reported.  Median survival, with respective 
95% confidence intervals, will be estimated by Lipiodol retention stratum 
9.4.  Exploratory analyses 
 
A correlation matrix for the RECIST/EASL scores using each imaging modality and the 
lipiodol deposition will be presented to assess agreement among all measures. 
o If the correlations allow, analysis of a multivariate RECIST/EASL response, 
consisting of the responses from the 3 imaging modalities as a single 
multivariate outcome measure, will be modeled as a function of lipiodol 
deposition.  
Mixed model repeated measures analysis may be conducted to evaluate associations between lipiodol 
deposition at day 1 and timely change of each RECIST response measured by other image methods.  
Variance-covariance structures may be assessed to characterize patterns of association over time. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 52 of 58 
10. 
Regulatory Considerations 
10.1. Clinical Trial Monitoring 
The principal investigator will be responsible for monitoring the data, assuring protocol compliance, and 
conducting the safety reviews at the specified frequency, which must be conducted at a minimum of 
every 6 months (including when reapproval of the protocol is sought).  The Yale Cancer Center Data and 
Safety Monitroing Committee (DSMC) auditing schedule includes a 100% review of the first 2 subjects, 
with a subsequent review schedule to be determined after but will include submission of safety dat at a 
minimum of every 6 months.  In addition, a detailed monitoring plan will be established with the Yale 
Center for Clinical Investigation to assure comprehensive protection of the rights and safety of all 
subjects and the quality and integrity of the data.  During the review process, the principal investigator 
and research monitors will evaluate whether the study should continue unchanged, require 
modification/amendment, or close to enrollment. The principal investigator, the IRB or Yale Cancer 
Center DSMC have the authority to stop or suspend the study or require modifications. 
Given the now established safety and validity of the current Lipiodol-TACE procedure in our prior work, 
and experience with the combined co-administration of Lipiodol and TACE, we do not view the proposed 
studies as high risk.  Although we have assessed the proposed study as one of greater than minimal risk, 
the potential exists for anticipated and/or unanticipated adverse events, serious or otherwise, to occur 
since it is not possible to predict with certainty the absolute risk in any given individual or in advance of 
first-hand experience with the proposed study methods. Therefore, a plan for monitoring the data and 
reporting on the safety of the study has been detailed in above sections.  Monitoring will be performed 
in coordination with YCCI. 
 
10.2. Records to be Kept 
10.2.1. Case Report Forms (CRFs) 
As used in this protocol, the term case report form (CRF) refers to either a paper form or an electronic 
data record or both, depending on the data collection method used in this study. A CRF is required and 
should be completed for each included subject.  
The investigator has ultimate responsibility for the accuracy, authenticity, and timely collection and 
reporting of all clinical, safety, laboratory data entered on the CRFs and any other data collection forms. 
All CRFs must be signed by the investigator to verify that the data contained on the CRFs is accurate. Any 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 53 of 58 
corrections to entries made in the CRFs, source documents must be dated, initialed and explained (if 
necessary) and should not obscure the original entry. 
Usually, source documents are the hospital's or the physician's subject medical chart. In these instances 
the data collected on the CRFs must match the data in the corresponding charts. A CRF, or part of the 
CRF, may also serve as a source document.  
10.2.2. Record Retention  
To enable inspections and/or audits from regulatory authorities and the trial Sponsor, the investigator 
agrees to keep records, including the identity of all participating subjects (i.e. information to link 
records, e.g., CRFs and hospital records), all original signed informed consent forms, copies of all CRFs, 
serious adverse event forms, source documents, and detailed records of treatment disposition, and 
adequate documentation of relevant correspondence (e.g., letters, meeting minutes, telephone calls 
reports). The records should be retained by the investigator according to the IRB’s policies, FDA’s 
regulations, or as specified in the Clinical Study Agreement, whichever is longer. 
If the investigator is unable for any reason to continue to retain study records for the required period 
(e.g., retirement, relocation), the Sponsor should be prospectively notified. The study records must be 
transferred to a designee acceptable to the Sponsor, such as another investigator, another institution, or 
to the Sponsor. The investigator must obtain the trial Sponsor’s written permission before disposing of 
any records, even if retention requirements have been met. 
 
11. 
Ethics 
11.1. Institutional Review Board (IRB) 
It is the responsibility of the investigator to have prospective approval of the study protocol, protocol 
amendments, informed consent forms, and other relevant documents, e.g., recruitment 
advertisements, if applicable, from the IRB. All IRB correspondence should be retained in the 
Investigator File.  
11.2. Ethical Conduct of the Study 
The study will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for 
Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, adopted by the General Assembly of the World Medical 
Association (1996). In addition, the study will be conducted in accordance with the protocol, the 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 54 of 58 
International Conference on Harmonization guideline on Good Clinical Practice, and applicable local 
regulatory requirements and laws. 
11.3. Subject Information and Consent 
All parties will ensure protection of subject personal data and will not include subject names on any 
Sponsor forms, reports, publications, or in any other disclosures, except where required by laws.  
The informed consent form must be in compliance with ICH GCP, local regulatory requirements, and 
legal requirements. 
The informed consent form used in this study, and any changes made during the course of the study, 
must be prospectively approved by both the IRB and the Sponsor before implementation. 
The investigator must ensure that each study subject, or his/her legally acceptable representative, is 
fully informed about the nature and objectives of the study and possible risks associated with 
participation. The investigator, or a person designated by the investigator, will obtain written informed 
consent from each subject or the subject's legally acceptable representative before any study-specific 
activity is performed. The investigator will retain the original of each subject's signed consent form. 
 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 55 of 58 
12. 
References 
1. 
El-Serag, H.B., Hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med, 2011. 365(12): p. 1118-27. 
2. 
Bruix, J., et al., 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): p. 421-30. 
3. 
Modulation of fluorouracil by leucovorin in patients with advanced colorectal cancer: 
evidence in terms of response rate. Advanced Colorectal Cancer Meta-Analysis Project. J Clin 
Oncol, 1992. 10(6): p. 896-903. 
4. 
El-Serag, H.B. and A.C. Mason, Rising incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in the 
United States. N Engl J Med, 1999. 340(10): p. 745-50. 
5. 
Barbara, L., et al., Natural history of small untreated hepatocellular carcinoma in 
cirrhosis: a multivariate analysis of prognostic factors of tumor growth rate and patient 
survival. Hepatology, 1992. 16(1): p. 132-7. 
6. 
Watanabe, 
S., 
et 
al., 
Prospective 
and 
randomized 
controlled 
study 
of 
chemoembolization therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Cooperative 
Study Group for Liver Cancer Treatment in Shikoku area. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol, 1994. 
33 Suppl: p. S93-6. 
7. 
Sasaki, Y., et al., A new approach to chemoembolization therapy for hepatoma using 
ethiodized oil, cisplatin, and gelatin sponge. Cancer, 1987. 60(6): p. 1194-203. 
8. 
Kanematsu, T., et al., A 5-year experience of lipiodolization: selective regional 
chemotherapy for 200 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology, 1989. 10(1): p. 98-
102. 
9. 
Ensminger, W.D. and J.W. Gyves, Clinical pharmacology of hepatic arterial 
chemotherapy. Semin Oncol, 1983. 10(2): p. 176-82. 
10. 
Lin, D.Y., et al., Hepatic arterial embolization in patients with unresectable 
hepatocellular carcinoma--a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology, 1988. 94(2): p. 
453-6. 
11. 
Pelletier, G., et al., A randomized trial of hepatic arterial chemoembolization in 
patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol, 1990. 11(2): p. 181-4. 
12. 
A comparison of lipiodol chemoembolization and conservative treatment for 
unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Groupe d'Etude et de Traitement du Carcinome 
Hepatocellulaire. N Engl J Med, 1995. 332(19): p. 1256-61. 
13. 
Bruix, J., et al., Transarterial embolization versus symptomatic treatment in patients 
with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: results of a randomized, controlled trial in a single 
institution. Hepatology, 1998. 27(6): p. 1578-83. 
14. 
Pelletier, G., et al., Treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with lipiodol 
chemoembolization: a multicenter randomized trial. Groupe CHC. J Hepatol, 1998. 29(1): p. 
129-34. 
15. 
Lo, 
C.M., 
et 
al., 
Randomized 
controlled 
trial 
of 
transarterial 
lipiodol 
chemoembolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology, 2002. 35(5): p. 
1164-71. 
16. 
Llovet, J.M., et al., Arterial embolisation or chemoembolisation versus symptomatic 
treatment in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised controlled 
trial. Lancet, 2002. 359(9319): p. 1734-9. 
17. 
Llovet, J.M. and J. Bruix, Systematic review of randomized trials for unresectable 
hepatocellular carcinoma: Chemoembolization improves survival. Hepatology, 2003. 37(2): p. 
429-42. 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 56 of 58 
18. 
Vetter, D., et al., Transcatheter oily chemoembolization in the management of 
advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis: results of a Western comparative study in 60 
patients. Hepatology, 1991. 13(3): p. 427-33. 
19. 
Bramhall, S.R., et al., Liver resection for colorectal metastases. Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 
2003. 85(5): p. 334-9. 
20. 
Chawla, M., et al., Serial renal dynamic scintigraphy in evaluation of renal function in 
patient with bilateral wilms' tumors. Clin Nucl Med, 2005. 30(12): p. 820-2. 
21. 
Hurwitz, H., et al., Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for 
metastatic colorectal cancer. N Engl J Med, 2004. 350(23): p. 2335-42. 
22. 
Andre, T., et al., Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin as adjuvant treatment for 
colon cancer. N Engl J Med, 2004. 350(23): p. 2343-51. 
23. 
Abramson, R.G., et al., Cost-effectiveness of hepatic arterial chemoembolization for 
colorectal liver metastases refractory to systemic chemotherapy. Radiology, 2000. 216(2): p. 
485-91. 
24. 
Lang, E.K. and C.L. Brown, Jr., Colorectal metastases to the liver: selective 
chemoembolization. Radiology, 1993. 189(2): p. 417-22. 
25. 
Sanz-Altamira, P.M., et al., Selective chemoembolization in the management of 
hepatic metastases in refractory colorectal carcinoma: a phase II trial. Dis Colon Rectum, 1997. 
40(7): p. 770-5. 
26. 
Tellez, C., et al., Phase II trial of chemoembolization for the treatment of metastatic 
colorectal carcinoma to the liver and review of the literature. Cancer, 1998. 82(7): p. 1250-9. 
27. 
Soulen, M.C., Chemoembolization of hepatic malignancies. Oncology (Williston Park), 
1994. 8(4): p. 77-84; discussion 84, 89-90 passim. 
28. 
Salman, H.S., et al., Randomized phase II trial of embolization therapy versus 
chemoembolization therapy in previously treated patients with colorectal carcinoma 
metastatic to the liver. Clin Colorectal Cancer, 2002. 2(3): p. 173-9. 
29. 
Kath, R., et al., Prognosis and treatment of disseminated uveal melanoma. Cancer, 
1993. 72(7): p. 2219-23. 
30. 
Gragoudas, E.S., et al., Survival of patients with metastases from uveal melanoma. 
Ophthalmology, 1991. 98(3): p. 383-9; discussion 390. 
31. 
Bedikian, A.Y., et al., Treatment of uveal melanoma metastatic to the liver: a review of 
the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center experience and prognostic factors. Cancer, 1995. 76(9): p. 
1665-70. 
32. 
Mavligit, G.M., et al., Regression of ocular melanoma metastatic to the liver after 
hepatic arterial chemoembolization with cisplatin and polyvinyl sponge. JAMA, 1988. 260(7): 
p. 974-6. 
33. 
Stokes, K.R., K. Stuart, and M.E. Clouse, Hepatic arterial chemoembolization for 
metastatic endocrine tumors. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 1993. 4(3): p. 341-5. 
34. 
Therasse, E., et al., Transcatheter chemoembolization of progressive carcinoid liver 
metastasis. Radiology, 1993. 189(2): p. 541-7. 
35. 
Brown, K.T., et al., Particle embolization of hepatic neuroendocrine metastases for 
control of pain and hormonal symptoms. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 1999. 10(4): p. 397-403. 
36. 
Gupta, S., et al., Hepatic artery embolization and chemoembolization for treatment of 
patients with metastatic carcinoid tumors: the M.D. Anderson experience. Cancer J, 2003. 9(4): 
p. 261-7. 
37. 
Mavligit, G.M., et al., Gastrointestinal leiomyosarcoma metastatic to the liver. Durable 
tumor regression by hepatic chemoembolization infusion with cisplatin and vinblastine. 
Cancer, 1995. 75(8): p. 2083-8. 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 57 of 58 
38. 
Rajan, D.K., et al., Sarcomas metastatic to the liver: response and survival after 
cisplatin, doxorubicin, mitomycin-C, Ethiodol, and polyvinyl alcohol chemoembolization. J Vasc 
Interv Radiol, 2001. 12(2): p. 187-93. 
39. 
Burger, I., et al., Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in unresectable 
cholangiocarcinoma: initial experience in a single institution. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2005. 16(3): 
p. 353-61. 
40. 
Giroux, M.F., R.A. Baum, and M.C. Soulen, Chemoembolization of liver metastasis 
from breast carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2004. 15(3): p. 289-91. 
41. 
Mavligit, G.M., Z. Estrov, and A. Ayala, Carcinoma of the stomach metastatic to the 
liver that progressed after hepatic arterial infusion of cisplatin plus 5-floxuridine, and then 
dramatically regressed after chemoembolization based on positive chromogranin staining. Am 
J Clin Oncol, 1999. 22(3): p. 320-2. 
42. 
Andras, C., et al., [Clinical evaluation of local lipiodol chemoembolization therapy in 
primary and secondary hepatic tumors]. Orv Hetil, 2000. 141(32): p. 1773-7. 
43. 
Caturelli, E., et al., Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular 
carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis: evaluation of damage to nontumorous liver tissue-long-
term prospective study. Radiology, 2000. 215(1): p. 123-8. 
44. 
Brown, D.B., et al., Quality improvement guidelines for transhepatic arterial 
chemoembolization, embolization, and chemotherapeutic infusion for hepatic malignancy. J 
Vasc Interv Radiol, 2006. 17(2 Pt 1): p. 225-32. 
45. 
Kim, W., et al., Risk factors for liver abscess formation after hepatic 
chemoembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2001. 12(8): p. 965-8. 
46. 
Sakamoto, I., et al., Complications associated with transcatheter arterial embolization 
for hepatic tumors. Radiographics, 1998. 18(3): p. 605-19. 
47. 
Solomon, B., et al., Chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma with cisplatin, 
doxorubicin, mitomycin-C, ethiodol, and polyvinyl alcohol: prospective evaluation of response 
and survival in a U.S. population. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 1999. 10(6): p. 793-8. 
48. 
Brown, D.B., et al., Comparison of MELD and Child-Pugh scores to predict survival after 
chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol, 2004. 15(11): p 1209-18 
49. 
Shin, S.W., The current practice of transarterial chemoembolization for the treatment 
of hepatocellular carcinoma. Korean J Radiol, 2009. 10(5): p. 425-34. 
50. 
Yu, S.C. and C.T. Chan, Transarterial ethanol ablation of cirrhotic liver with lipiodol-
ethanol mixture: safety and efficacy study in rats. Invest Radiol, 2006. 41(8): p. 609-17. 
51. 
Pourgholami, M.H., et al., Albendazole: a potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial 
growth factor and malignant ascites formation in OVCAR-3 tumor-bearing nude mice. Clin 
Cancer Res, 2006. 12(6): p. 1928-35. 
52. 
Li, J., et al., Tissue tolerance to pelvic intraarterial chemoembolization with cisplatin-
lipiodol suspension. Gynecol Oncol, 1993. 50(1): p. 10-4. 
53. 
Kamel, I.R., et al., Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: serial early vascular and 
cellular changes after transarterial chemoembolization as detected with MR imaging. 
Radiology, 2009. 250(2): p. 466-73. 
54. 
Li, Z., et al., Islet cell liver metastases: assessment of volumetric early response with 
functional MR imaging after transarterial chemoembolization. Radiology, 2012. 264(1): p. 97-
109. 
55. 
Gowdra Halappa, V., et al., Neuroendocrine Liver Metastasis Treated by Using 
Intraarterial Therapy: Volumetric Functional Imaging Biomarkers of Early Tumor Response and 
Survival. Radiology, 2012. 
56. 
Hintze, J. (2014).  PASS 13.  NCSS, LLC. Kaysville, Utah, USA. www.ncsss.com. 

J12115 Study Protocol; Schlachter, Todd 
IND # 116,739 
[5/8/2017] 
Page 58 of 58 
13. 
Appendix: Lipiodol package insert