Riemsma Robert P, Bala Malgorzata M, Wolff Robert, Kleijnen Jos
Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, York, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Sep 12(9):CD009498. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009498.pub2.
Primary liver tumours and liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma are the two most common malignant tumours to affect the liver. The liver is second only to the lymph nodes as the most common site for metastatic disease. More than half of the patients with metastatic liver disease will die from metastatic complications. Chemoembolisation is based on the concept that the blood supply to hepatic tumours originates predominantly from the hepatic artery. Therefore, embolisation of the hepatic artery can lead to selective necrosis of the liver tumour while it may leave normal parenchyma virtually unaffected.
To study the beneficial and harmful effects of transarterial (chemo)embolisation compared with no intervention or placebo intervention in patients with liver metastases.
We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, LILACS, and CINAHL up to November 2011.
We included all randomised clinical trials assessing beneficial and harmful effects of transarterial (chemo)embolisation compared with no intervention or placebo intervention in patients with liver metastases, no matter the location of the primary tumour.
We extracted relevant information on participant characteristics, interventions, study outcome measures, and data on the outcome measures for our review as well as information on the design and methodology of the studies. Bias risk assessment of the trials, fulfilling the inclusion criteria, and data extraction from the retrieved final evaluation trials were done by one author and checked by a second author.
One randomised clinical trial fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the review. Sixty-one patients with colorectal liver metastases were randomised into three intervention groups: 22 received hepatic artery embolisation, 19 received hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy, and 20 were randomised to control, described as "no active therapeutic intervention, although symptomatic treatment was provided whenever necessary". As hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy is not in the scope of this review, we have not included the data from this intervention group. In the remaining two groups that were of interest to the review, 43 of the participants were men and 18 women. Most tumours were synchronous metastases involving up to 75% of the liver and non-resectable. The risk of bias in the trial was judged to be high.Patients were followed-up for a minimum of seven months. Mortality at last follow-up was 86% (19/22) in the hepatic artery embolisation group versus 95% (19/20) in the control group (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.1), that is, no statistically significant difference was observed. Median survival after trial entry was 7.0 months (range 2 to 44) in the hepatic artery embolisation group and 7.9 months (range 1 to 26) in the control group. Nine out of 22 (41%) in the hepatic artery embolisation group and five out of 20 (25%) in the control group developed evidence of extrahepatic disease (RR 1.64; 95% CI 0.60 to 4.07). Local recurrence was reported for 10 patients in the trial without details about the trial group. Most patients in the embolisation group experienced post-embolic syndrome (82%), and one patient had local haematoma. No other adverse events were reported. The authors did not report if there were any adverse events in the control group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of one small randomised trial that did not describe sequence generation, allocation concealment or blinding, it can be concluded that in patients with liver metastases no significant survival benefit or benefit on extrahepatic recurrence was found in the embolisation group in comparison with the palliation group. The probability for selective outcome reporting bias in the trial is high. At present, transarterial (chemo)embolisation cannot be recommended outside randomised clinical trials.
原发性肝癌和结直肠癌肝转移是影响肝脏的两种最常见的恶性肿瘤。肝脏是仅次于淋巴结的第二大常见转移疾病部位。超过一半的肝转移患者将死于转移并发症。化学栓塞基于这样的概念,即肝肿瘤的血液供应主要来自肝动脉。因此,肝动脉栓塞可导致肝肿瘤的选择性坏死,而对正常实质几乎无影响。
研究经动脉(化学)栓塞与不干预或安慰剂干预相比,对肝转移患者的有益和有害影响。
我们检索了Cochrane肝胆组对照试验注册库、Cochrane图书馆中的Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、EMBASE、科学引文索引扩展版、LILACS和CINAHL,检索截止至2011年11月。
我们纳入了所有评估经动脉(化学)栓塞与不干预或安慰剂干预相比,对肝转移患者有益和有害影响的随机临床试验,无论原发肿瘤的位置如何。
我们提取了有关参与者特征、干预措施、研究结局指标的相关信息,以及我们综述的结局指标数据,以及有关研究设计和方法的信息。由一位作者对符合纳入标准的试验进行偏倚风险评估,并由另一位作者进行核查,同时从检索到的最终评估试验中提取数据。
一项随机临床试验符合本综述的纳入标准。61例结直肠癌肝转移患者被随机分为三个干预组:22例接受肝动脉栓塞,19例接受肝动脉灌注化疗,20例被随机分配至对照组,对照组描述为“不进行积极的治疗干预,但必要时提供对症治疗”。由于肝动脉灌注化疗不在本综述范围内,我们未纳入该干预组的数据。在本综述感兴趣的其余两组中,43名参与者为男性,18名女性。大多数肿瘤为同时性转移,累及肝脏的比例高达75%且不可切除。该试验的偏倚风险被判定为高。对患者进行了至少7个月的随访。肝动脉栓塞组最后一次随访时的死亡率为86%(19/22),对照组为95%(19/20)(相对危险度0.91;95%可信区间0.75至1.1),即未观察到统计学上的显著差异。试验入组后的中位生存期,肝动脉栓塞组为7.0个月(范围2至44个月),对照组为7.9个月(范围1至26个月)。肝动脉栓塞组22例中有9例(41%)出现肝外疾病证据,对照组20例中有5例(25%)出现(相对危险度1.64;95%可信区间0.60至4.07)。试验报告了10例患者出现局部复发,但未详细说明试验组情况。栓塞组大多数患者出现栓塞后综合征(82%),1例患者出现局部血肿。未报告其他不良事件。作者未报告对照组是否有任何不良事件。
基于一项未描述随机序列生成、分配隐藏或盲法的小型随机试验,可得出结论,与姑息治疗组相比,栓塞组在肝转移患者中未发现显著的生存获益或对肝外复发的益处。该试验存在选择性结果报告偏倚的可能性很高。目前,在随机临床试验之外,不推荐经动脉(化学)栓塞。