Lee Yong Kang, Jung Kyu Sik, Kim Do Young, Choi Jin Young, Kim Beom Kyung, Kim Seung Up, Park Jun Yong, Ahn Sang Hoon, Han Kwang-Hyub, Kim Gyoung Min, Kim Man Deuk, Park Sung Il, Won Jong Yun, Lee Do Yun
Department of Internal Medicine and Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Department of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Feb;32(2):487-496. doi: 10.1111/jgh.13501.
This study aims to evaluate clinical outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) using drug-eluting beads (DEB).
This study retrospectively compared the clinical outcomes of 250 consecutive patients who underwent DEB-TACE (n = 106) or conventional TACE (cTACE) (n = 144) in a tertiary center between January 2010 and April 2014. The median age of the patients was 62 years and 81.6% were men. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The time to progression (TTP), radiological response rate using modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors criteria at 1 month after treatment, and complication rates within 1 month were also compared.
The most common etiology was hepatitis B virus infection. The median index tumor size was 2.8 cm, and 150 (60.0%) patients had Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B. Median TTP in the cTACE group was longer than in the DEB-TACE group (13.3 vs10.8 months; P = 0.023). However, DEB-TACE and cTACE groups showed no significant differences for mean OS (46.6 vs 44.9 months; P = 0.660) and disease control rate at 1 month (78.3% vs 86.8%; P = 0.076). The OS, TTP, and disease control rate were also not different between two groups, even when subgrouped by index tumor size. The complication rates within 1 month were higher in the cTACE group (6.6% vs 14.6%; P = 0.048).
Drug-eluting beads TACE appears to be a safe intra-arterial therapy. However, it is not superior to cTACE in terms of efficacy. Tumor size might not be a criterion to select treatment modality between cTACE and DEB-TACE in terms of efficacy.
本研究旨在评估接受载药微球(DEB)经动脉化疗栓塞术(TACE)的肝细胞癌患者的临床结局。
本研究回顾性比较了2010年1月至2014年4月在一家三级中心连续接受DEB-TACE(n = 106)或传统TACE(cTACE)(n = 144)治疗的250例患者的临床结局。患者的中位年龄为62岁,81.6%为男性。主要终点为总生存期(OS)。还比较了疾病进展时间(TTP)、治疗后1个月使用实体瘤改良疗效评价标准的放射学缓解率以及1个月内的并发症发生率。
最常见的病因是乙型肝炎病毒感染。中位肿瘤大小为2.8 cm,150例(60.0%)患者为巴塞罗那临床肝癌分期B期。cTACE组的中位TTP长于DEB-TACE组(13.3个月对10.8个月;P = 0.023)。然而,DEB-TACE组和cTACE组在平均OS(46.6个月对44.9个月;P = 0.660)和1个月时的疾病控制率(78.3%对86.8%;P = 0.076)方面无显著差异。即使按肿瘤大小进行亚组分析,两组的OS、TTP和疾病控制率也无差异。cTACE组1个月内的并发症发生率更高(6.6%对14.6%;P = 0.048)。
载药微球TACE似乎是一种安全的动脉内治疗方法。然而,在疗效方面它并不优于cTACE。就疗效而言,肿瘤大小可能不是在cTACE和DEB-TACE之间选择治疗方式的标准。