Cargando…
Conventional transarterial chemoembolization versus drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma
BACKGROUND: To compare the overall survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who were treated with lipiodol-based conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) with that of patients treated with drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE). METHODS: By an electr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4460638/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26059447 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1480-x |
_version_ | 1782375403619352576 |
---|---|
author | Kloeckner, Roman Weinmann, Arndt Prinz, Friederike Pinto dos Santos, Daniel Ruckes, Christian Dueber, Christoph Pitton, Michael Bernhard |
author_facet | Kloeckner, Roman Weinmann, Arndt Prinz, Friederike Pinto dos Santos, Daniel Ruckes, Christian Dueber, Christoph Pitton, Michael Bernhard |
author_sort | Kloeckner, Roman |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To compare the overall survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who were treated with lipiodol-based conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) with that of patients treated with drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE). METHODS: By an electronic search of our radiology information system, we identified 674 patients that received TACE between November 2002 and July 2013. A total of 520 patients received cTACE, and 154 received DEB-TACE. In total, 424 patients were excluded for the following reasons: tumor type other than HCC (n = 91), liver transplantation after TACE (n = 119), lack of histological grading (n = 58), incomplete laboratory values (n = 15), other reasons (e.g., previous systemic chemotherapy) (n = 114), or were lost to follow-up (n = 27). Therefore, 250 patients were finally included for comparative analysis (n = 174 cTACE; n = 76 DEB-TACE). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding sex, overall status (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification), liver function (Child-Pugh), portal invasion, tumor load, or tumor grading (all p > 0.05). The mean number of treatment sessions was 4 ± 3.1 in the cTACE group versus 2.9 ± 1.8 in the DEB-TACE group (p = 0.01). Median survival was 409 days (95 % CI: 321–488 days) in the cTACE group, compared with 369 days (95 % CI: 310–589 days) in the DEB-TACE group (p = 0.76). In the subgroup of Child A patients, the survival was 602 days (484–792 days) for cTACE versus 627 days (364–788 days) for DEB-TACE (p = 0.39). In Child B/C patients, the survival was considerably lower: 223 days (165–315 days) for cTACE versus 226 days (114–335 days) for DEB-TACE (p = 0.53). CONCLUSION: The present study showed no significant difference in overall survival between cTACE and DEB-TACE in patients with HCC. However, the significantly lower number of treatments needed in the DEB-TACE group makes it a more appealing treatment option than cTACE for appropriately selected patients with unresectable HCC. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4460638 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-44606382015-06-10 Conventional transarterial chemoembolization versus drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma Kloeckner, Roman Weinmann, Arndt Prinz, Friederike Pinto dos Santos, Daniel Ruckes, Christian Dueber, Christoph Pitton, Michael Bernhard BMC Cancer Research Article BACKGROUND: To compare the overall survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who were treated with lipiodol-based conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) with that of patients treated with drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE). METHODS: By an electronic search of our radiology information system, we identified 674 patients that received TACE between November 2002 and July 2013. A total of 520 patients received cTACE, and 154 received DEB-TACE. In total, 424 patients were excluded for the following reasons: tumor type other than HCC (n = 91), liver transplantation after TACE (n = 119), lack of histological grading (n = 58), incomplete laboratory values (n = 15), other reasons (e.g., previous systemic chemotherapy) (n = 114), or were lost to follow-up (n = 27). Therefore, 250 patients were finally included for comparative analysis (n = 174 cTACE; n = 76 DEB-TACE). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding sex, overall status (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification), liver function (Child-Pugh), portal invasion, tumor load, or tumor grading (all p > 0.05). The mean number of treatment sessions was 4 ± 3.1 in the cTACE group versus 2.9 ± 1.8 in the DEB-TACE group (p = 0.01). Median survival was 409 days (95 % CI: 321–488 days) in the cTACE group, compared with 369 days (95 % CI: 310–589 days) in the DEB-TACE group (p = 0.76). In the subgroup of Child A patients, the survival was 602 days (484–792 days) for cTACE versus 627 days (364–788 days) for DEB-TACE (p = 0.39). In Child B/C patients, the survival was considerably lower: 223 days (165–315 days) for cTACE versus 226 days (114–335 days) for DEB-TACE (p = 0.53). CONCLUSION: The present study showed no significant difference in overall survival between cTACE and DEB-TACE in patients with HCC. However, the significantly lower number of treatments needed in the DEB-TACE group makes it a more appealing treatment option than cTACE for appropriately selected patients with unresectable HCC. BioMed Central 2015-06-10 /pmc/articles/PMC4460638/ /pubmed/26059447 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1480-x Text en © Kloeckner et al. 2015 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Kloeckner, Roman Weinmann, Arndt Prinz, Friederike Pinto dos Santos, Daniel Ruckes, Christian Dueber, Christoph Pitton, Michael Bernhard Conventional transarterial chemoembolization versus drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma |
title | Conventional transarterial chemoembolization versus drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma |
title_full | Conventional transarterial chemoembolization versus drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma |
title_fullStr | Conventional transarterial chemoembolization versus drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma |
title_full_unstemmed | Conventional transarterial chemoembolization versus drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma |
title_short | Conventional transarterial chemoembolization versus drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma |
title_sort | conventional transarterial chemoembolization versus drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4460638/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26059447 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1480-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kloecknerroman conventionaltransarterialchemoembolizationversusdrugelutingbeadtransarterialchemoembolizationforthetreatmentofhepatocellularcarcinoma AT weinmannarndt conventionaltransarterialchemoembolizationversusdrugelutingbeadtransarterialchemoembolizationforthetreatmentofhepatocellularcarcinoma AT prinzfriederike conventionaltransarterialchemoembolizationversusdrugelutingbeadtransarterialchemoembolizationforthetreatmentofhepatocellularcarcinoma AT pintodossantosdaniel conventionaltransarterialchemoembolizationversusdrugelutingbeadtransarterialchemoembolizationforthetreatmentofhepatocellularcarcinoma AT ruckeschristian conventionaltransarterialchemoembolizationversusdrugelutingbeadtransarterialchemoembolizationforthetreatmentofhepatocellularcarcinoma AT dueberchristoph conventionaltransarterialchemoembolizationversusdrugelutingbeadtransarterialchemoembolizationforthetreatmentofhepatocellularcarcinoma AT pittonmichaelbernhard conventionaltransarterialchemoembolizationversusdrugelutingbeadtransarterialchemoembolizationforthetreatmentofhepatocellularcarcinoma |