Cargando…

One day versus two days of hepatic arterial infusion with oxaliplatin and fluorouracil for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) with oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil was effective in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The program of FOLFOX-HAIC in HCC was performed for 1 day (HAIC 1d) or 2 days (HAIC 2d). We hereby retrospectively compared the efficacy and saf...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lai, Zhicheng, Huang, Yexing, Wen, Dongsheng, Lin, Xuanjia, Kan, Anna, Li, Qijiong, Wei, Wei, Chen, Minshan, Xu, Li, He, Minke, Shi, Ming
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9620590/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36310160
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-022-02608-6
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) with oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil was effective in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The program of FOLFOX-HAIC in HCC was performed for 1 day (HAIC 1d) or 2 days (HAIC 2d). We hereby retrospectively compared the efficacy and safety between these two treatment regimens and explored the predictive power of thymidylate synthase (TYMS), an enzyme involved in the DNA synthesis process and metabolism of fluorouracil. METHODS: This study included patients with a primary diagnosis of unresectable HCC. These patients received HAIC for 1 day or 2 days. The overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), tumor response, and adverse events were compared. The propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce bias. Peripheral blood samples before the treatments were collected and used to measure the concentration of TYMS through enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). ELISA was performed according to the manufacturers’ guidelines. RESULTS: We included 368 patients for this study: 248 in the HAIC 1d group and 120 in the HAIC 2d group. There was no significant difference of OS between the two groups (14.5 for HAIC 1d vs 15.3 months for HAIC 2d, p=0.46). Compared with the HAIC 1d group, the HAIC 2d group did not prolong the PFS (7.3 vs 7.5 months, p=0.91) or elevate the tumor response (42.5% vs 39.1%, p=0.53) per RECIST 1.1. In the PSM cohort, the efficacy between the two groups was similar. The total frequencies of grade 3–4 events were higher with the HAIC 2d group than with the HAIC 1d group, especially in the PSM cohort (p=0.043). Additionally, patients with TYMS low level might benefit longer OS from the HAIC 2d group (18.7 vs 13.6 months, p=0.014). CONCLUSIONS: There was not much of a difference in efficacy between the two groups, but the HAIC for 1 day might be safer, which needed further research. The level of TYMS might be the predictive biomarkers. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12916-022-02608-6.