Cargando…

TACE versus TACE + entecavir versus TACE + tenofovir in the treatment of HBV associated hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND: At present, there are a variety of antiviral drugs for HBV in clinical practice, but there is no standard scheme for transcatheter arterial chemoembolization(TACE) combined with antiviral drugs. The aim of this study was to investigate whether TACE must be combined with antiviral therapy...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lu, Haohao, Zheng, Chuansheng, Xiong, Bin, Xia, Xiangwen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10009967/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36915044
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-023-10694-9
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: At present, there are a variety of antiviral drugs for HBV in clinical practice, but there is no standard scheme for transcatheter arterial chemoembolization(TACE) combined with antiviral drugs. The aim of this study was to investigate whether TACE must be combined with antiviral therapy in patients of HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC). Meanwhile, the efficacy and safety of TACE combined with entecavir and TACE combined with tenofovir in the treatment of HBV-related HCC were compared. METHOD: This study included 536 patients with HBV-related HCC who underwent TACE in Union Hospital from March 2017 to March 2020, and they met the criteria. They were divided into three groups: control group (N = 212): TACE alone; Entecavir group (N = 220): TACE combined with entecavir; and Tenofovir group (N = 228): TACE combined with tenofovir. We conducted a retrospective study to analyze the efficacy and safety of the three groups of patients. RESULTS: Objective response rate(ORR): 29.2% in control group, 54.1% in entecavir group, and 63.2% in tenofovir group (P < 0.05). Disease control rate(DCR): 63.7% in control group, 80.9% in entecavir group, and 88.1% in tenofovir group (P < 0.05). Median overall survival(mOS): control group, 12.2 months; entecavir group, 17.3 months; tenofovir group, 22.5 months (p < 0.05). Median progression-free survival (mPFS): control group, 9.3 months; entecavir group, 15.5 months; tenofovir group, 16.6 months (p < 0.05). At 6 months, there was an increase in creatinine(Cr) and a decrease in glomeruar filtration rate(GFR) in tenofovir group, which were statistically different from control and entecavir groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: TACE combined with entecavir and TACE combined with tenofovir had higher ORR and DCR, longer OS and PFS than TACE alone. The OS of TACE combined with tenofovir was higher than that of TACE combined with entecavir. TACE combined with tenofovir is a safe strategy, but we cannot completely ignore the impact of tenofovir on renal function.