To evaluate the efficacy of TACE (transcatheter arterial chemoembolization) with use of low-dose versus conventional-dose anticancer drugs in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with cirrhosis and to analyze their prognostic factors.
Eight-two patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma underwent super-selective TACE. Patients in group A (n = 40) received low-dose anticancer drugs. Patients in group B (n = 42) were given conventional-dose of anticancer drugs. Tumor response and survival time in the two groups were compared. Cox proportion-hazards modeling was used to evaluate the relative importance of prognostic variables.
There was no significant difference between the two groups in initial tumor response (P < 0.05). The median survival in all patients was 18 months (mo). The median survival in groups A and B were 20 mo and 16 mo respectively. The cumulative survival rates at 6, 12, 18, 24, 30 mo were 68.4%, 57.6%, 38.4%, 26.6%, 19.9% in group A, and 62.6%, 43.8%, 31.9%, 26.5%, 26.5% in group B. There was no significant difference in survival between the two groups (P > 0.05). The factors influencing prognosis were Child-Pugh scores (P < 0.0001), tumor thrombus in the portal vein (P < 0.0001), tumor size (P < 0.0001), method of embolization (P < 0.0001), TACE times (P < 0.001). The dosage of anticancer drugs employed in TACE was not relevant to the survival rates (P = 0.883).
TACE with use of large-dose anticancer drugs does not significantly enhance the anticancer effects and survival compared that with lowdose anticancer drugs. The therapeutic effect of TACE was mainly attributed to embolization of the artery rather than to anticancer drugs.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: With the introduction of spiral computed tomography and the development of novel imaging technology in recent years, multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) has increasingly been used for the diagnosis of various lesions, especially hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), due to its volume acquisitions, short scanning time, and especially its double-phase scanning nature, which takes advantage of the dual blood supply of liver. Multidetector-row computed tomography is used to classify HCC into several types based on the blood supply and the histological characteristics of HCC. The evaluation of HCC by MDCT provides crucial clues for the doctors to adopt correct clinical management strategies such as the selection of the appropriate dose of lipiodol before transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) and the prediction of the prognosis of HCC after TACE. The MDCT scanning allows doctors to choose the region of interest and to evaluate the blood supply according to the lipiodol uptake in order to decide whether there is recrudescence and whether a repeated therapy should be taken. This review describes MDCT, its biphasic scanning, its evaluation of blood supply in HCC and the subsequent classification of HCC, its therapeutic significance before TACE and the prognostic value after TACE.
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 07/2006; 21(6):941-6. DOI:10.1111/j.1440-1746.2006.04474.x · 3.50 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Chemoembolization (TACE) improves survival in cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The optimal schedule, or whether embolization (TAE) alone gives the same survival advantage, is not known.
To evaluate whether specific patient characteristics and/or radiological transarterial techniques result in better outcomes.
A PubMed search was carried out for cohort and randomized trials (n = 175) testing transarterial therapies; meta-analysis was performed where appropriate.
Anticancer drugs were used as sole agent in 75% of cases (double 15% and triple 6%): doxorubicin (36%), cisplatin (31%), epirubicin (12%), mitoxantrone (8%), mitomycin (8%), and SMANCS (5%). Embolizing agents used were: gelatin sponge particles (71%), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) particles (8%), degradable starch microspheres (DSM) (4%), and embospheres (4%). Sessions per patient were 2.5 +/- 1.5 (interval: 2 months). Objective response was 40 +/- 20%; survival rates at 1, 2, 3, and 5 years were: 62 +/- 20%, 42 +/- 17%, 30 +/- 15%, and 19 +/- 16%, respectively, and survival time was 18 +/- 9.5 months. The post-TACE complications were: acute liver failure, 7.5% (range 0-49%); acute renal failure, 1.8% (0-13%); encephalopathy, 1.8% (0-16%); ascites, 8.3% (0-52%); upper gastrointestinal bleeding; 3% (0-22%); and hepatic or splenic abscess, 1.3% (0-2.5%). Treatment-related mortality was 2.4% (0-9.5%), mainly due to acute liver failure. Our meta-analysis of nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) confirmed that TACE improves survival; but a meta-analysis of TACE versus TAE alone (3 RCTs, 412 patients) demonstrated no survival difference.
No chemotherapeutic agent appears better than any other. There is no evidence for benefit with lipiodol. Gelatin sponge is the most used embolic agent, but PVA particles may be better. TAE appears as effective as TACE. New strategies to reduce the risk of post-TACE complications are required.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Arterial embolization of the liver often temporarily retards the growth of liver tumors which are mainly nourished arterially. The use of degradable agents avoids collateral formation which would prohibit repeat procedures and permit tumor regrowth. The effect of embolizations is largest in small hypervascular lesions, e.g., many hepatocellular or neuroendocrine cancers. Toxic chemicals can be added, chemoembolization, with unproven effects on responses and survival rates. Institutional differences in indications and procedures make evaluation of embolizations difficult. However, intermediate-term survival increases in selected cases of unresectable hepatocellular cancers and hormonal symptoms from neuroendocrine tumors often improve. Scant experience supports embolization for anti-tumoral effects in some pediatric tumors, to control bleeding from ruptured tumors, for symptomatic hemangiomas, and for downstaging of hepatocellular cancers before transplantation.
Medical Oncology 02/2008; 25(1):1-11. DOI:10.1007/s12032-007-0039-3 · 2.63 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.