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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kloeckner, Roman, Weinmann, Arndt, Prinz, Friederike, Pinto dos Santos, Daniel, Ruckes, Christian, Dueber, Christoph, Pitton, Michael Bernhard
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