Si Tengfei, Huang Zhenlin, Khorsandi Shirin Elizabeth, Ma Yun, Heaton Nigel
Department of Inflammation Biology, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, Institute of Liver Studies, King's College Hospital, King's College London, Denmark Hill, London, United Kingdom.
The MOE Key Laboratory for Standardization of Chinese Medicine, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022 Sep 27;10:1010824. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.1010824. eCollection 2022.
Interest has revived in the use of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) for intermediate-advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) while transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) has been a longstanding loco-regional therapy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of patients with unresectable HCC treated with HAIC or TACE to look for differences in survival, adverse events, mortality and downstaging. All studies published before 29 July 2022 were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases for patients with unresectable HCC and received HAIC or TACE as initial treatment. Data extracted from studies was statistically analysed using RevMan5.3 software. A total of one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and 7 cohort studies (5 retrospective, 2 prospective) including 1,060 (TACE group: 534, HAIC group: 526) patients were screened. Compared with the TACE group, patients who received HAIC as initial therapy had better overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.53, 95%CI [0.40, 0.69]) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.54, 95%CI [0.40, 0.72]). Further subgroup analysis revealed that HAIC showed priority over TACE on prognosis outcome regardless of tumour stage, especially in patients with advanced portal vein tumour thrombus (PVTT). Utilization of port system will not boost the efficacy of HAIC whereas using a replaced-microcatheter for each procedure could better reduce the progressive disease (PD) rate (RR = 0.55, 95%CI [0.40, 0.76]). The pooled RR favoured the HAIC group with regard to partial response (PR) (RR = 2.87, 95%CI [2.18, 3.78]) and this was validated by both GRADE summary and trial sequential analysis. The rate of resection after treatment was higher in the HAIC group (RR = 2.37, 95%CI [1.54, 3.66]), whilst no difference was found with procedure-related mortality (RR = 0.56, 95%CI [0.13, 2.38]) between two groups. Compared with the traditional chemotherapy regimen (fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin) FOLFOX-HAIC appears to be better in improving the treatment efficacy. Patients with unresectable HCC could potentially benefit more from HAIC rather than standard TACE treatment. A re-evaluation of HAIC as a treatment option in intermediate and advanced HCC is warranted.
对于中晚期肝细胞癌(HCC),肝动脉灌注化疗(HAIC)的应用再次引起了人们的关注,而经动脉化疗栓塞术(TACE)一直是一种长期的局部区域治疗方法。我们对接受HAIC或TACE治疗的不可切除HCC患者进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,以寻找生存率、不良事件、死亡率和降期方面的差异。通过检索PubMed、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆数据库,确定了2022年7月29日前发表的所有研究,这些研究针对不可切除HCC患者,并将HAIC或TACE作为初始治疗。从研究中提取的数据使用RevMan5.3软件进行统计分析。共筛选出1项随机对照试验(RCT)和7项队列研究(5项回顾性研究、2项前瞻性研究),包括1060例患者(TACE组:534例,HAIC组:526例)。与TACE组相比,接受HAIC作为初始治疗的患者总生存期(OS)更好(HR = 0.53,95%CI [0.40, 0.69]),无进展生存期(PFS)也更好(HR = 0.54,95%CI [0.40, 0.72])。进一步的亚组分析显示,无论肿瘤分期如何,HAIC在预后结果上均优于TACE,尤其是在伴有门静脉癌栓(PVTT)的晚期患者中。使用门静脉系统不会提高HAIC的疗效,而每次操作使用交换微导管可更好地降低疾病进展(PD)率(RR = 0.55,95%CI [0.40, 0.76])。在部分缓解(PR)方面,汇总RR有利于HAIC组(RR = 2.87,95%CI [2.18, 3.78]),这在GRADE总结和试验序贯分析中均得到验证。HAIC组治疗后的切除率更高(RR = 2.37,95%CI [1.54, 3.66]),而两组在与操作相关的死亡率方面未发现差异(RR = 0.56,95%CI [0.13, 2.38])。与传统化疗方案(氟尿嘧啶/亚叶酸钙/奥沙利铂)FOLFOX-HAIC相比,在提高治疗疗效方面似乎更好。不可切除HCC患者可能从HAIC而非标准TACE治疗中获益更多。有必要对HAIC作为中晚期HCC的一种治疗选择进行重新评估。