Department of Hepatology, Toranomon Hospital, Toranomon, Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2012 Mar;42(3):175-82. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyr189. Epub 2011 Dec 30.
The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare the anti-tumor and adverse effects of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization and transcatheter arterial infusion chemotherapy using miriplatin-lipiodol suspension in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.
From 2007 to 2010, 162 consecutive patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma were treated using miriplatin. Of these, 122 patients were treated by transcatheter arterial chemoembolization and 40 were treated by transcatheter arterial infusion chemotherapy. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups, except for prothrombin activity. Assessments were performed 1-3 months after treatment.
Objective responses were achieved in 13 patients undergoing transcatheter arterial infusion chemotherapy and 70 patients undergoing transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (33 versus 57%, P = 0.003). By multivariate logistic regression analysis, objective response was significantly associated with (i) a Lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive fraction of α-fetoprotein ≤10% (P = 0.004; risk ratio = 3.09; 95% confidence interval = 1.42-6.70), (ii) no previous transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (P = 0.007; risk ratio = 4.41; 95% confidence interval = 1.49-13.07) and (iii) transcatheter arterial chemoembolization using gelatin sponge 1 mm particles (P = 0.021; risk ratio = 2.97; 95% confidence interval = 1.17-7.49). Fever, anorexia and elevated serum transaminase levels were observed in most patients after miriplatin administration; there were no significant differences in the number of adverse effects between the two groups.
These results suggest that the addition of embolizing agents to a treatment regimen using miriplatin-lipiodol suspension can be safely used for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Objective response was achieved in a significantly higher number of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization patients than transcatheter arterial infusion chemotherapy patients.
本回顾性研究旨在比较米立铂碘油混悬剂经导管肝动脉化疗栓塞(TACE)与经导管肝动脉化疗灌注(TAI)治疗不可切除肝细胞癌(HCC)的抗肿瘤作用和不良反应。
2007 年至 2010 年,162 例不可切除 HCC 患者接受米立铂治疗。其中 122 例行 TACE 治疗,40 例行 TAI 治疗。两组患者除了凝血酶原活动度外,其他基线特征无显著差异。治疗后 1-3 个月进行评估。
TAI 组客观缓解率为 13 例(33%),TACE 组为 70 例(57%)(P=0.003)。多因素 logistic 回归分析显示,客观缓解与(i)植物血凝素结合型甲胎蛋白(AFP)Lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive fraction <10%(P=0.004;风险比=3.09;95%置信区间=1.42-6.70),(ii)无 TACE 史(P=0.007;风险比=4.41;95%置信区间=1.49-13.07)和(iii)使用 1mm 明胶海绵栓塞剂(P=0.021;风险比=2.97;95%置信区间=1.17-7.49)显著相关。米立铂治疗后大多数患者出现发热、厌食和血清转氨酶升高,但两组不良反应的数量无显著差异。
这些结果表明,在米立铂碘油混悬剂治疗方案中加入栓塞剂可安全用于不可切除 HCC 患者。TACE 组客观缓解率显著高于 TAI 组。