Dergiler / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2020 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 3

Drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: does size really matter?

Sayfa
230–235
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Our study also highlights the impact of tumor characteristics on treatment outcome of different DEB size, which might help to select the optimal sphere size for TACE in the treatment of HCC.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:PURPOSE We aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of 100–300 μm versus 300–500 μm drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE) and to investigate the impact of tumor and feeding artery size on treatment outcome of different particle sizes in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:METHODS This retrospective cohort study enrolled 234 consecutive patients who underwent TACE using 100–300 μm DEB (Group A, n=75) and 300–500 μm DEB (Group B, n=159) in a tertiary center between August 2012 and March 2017.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Our study also highlights the impact of tumor characteristics on treatment outcome of different DEB size, which might help to select the optimal sphere size for TACE in the treatment of HCC.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:2012 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Özet

PURPOSE We aimed to compare the safety and effectiveness of 100–300 μm versus 300–500 μm drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE) and to investigate the impact of tumor and feeding artery size on treatment outcome of different particle sizes in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS This retrospective cohort study enrolled 234 consecutive patients who underwent TACE using 100–300 μm DEB (Group A, n=75) and 300–500 μm DEB (Group B, n=159) in a tertiary center between August 2012 and March 2017. Initial treatment response and adverse events were assessed using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) and National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0, respectively. RESULTS A total of 704 HCCs in 234 patients were evaluated. The average index tumor size was 3.8 cm. Multivariate analysis showed that tumor size, lobe involvement, particle size, and tumor location were significant predictive factors of complete response. The overall rate of complete response in groups A and B were 56.0% and 33.3% (P = 0.001), respectively. Group A had higher complete response rate than group B in the subgroup of BCLC B with tumor <3 cm (57.9% vs. 21.1%; P = 0.020) and subgroup of feeding artery ≥0.9 mm (55.2% vs. 30.9%; P = 0.014). There were fewer major complications in group A compared with group B (0% vs. 6.9%, P = 0.018). CONCLUSION TACE with 100–300 μm DEB is associated with better initial treatment response and fewer major complications compared with 300–500 μm. Our study also highlights the impact of tumor characteristics on treatment outcome of different DEB size, which might help to select the optimal sphere size for TACE in the treatment of HCC.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

LEE, S., OU, H., YU, C., HUANG, T., TSANG, L. L., CHENG, Y. (2020). Drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: does size really matter?. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 3, 230–235. https://ajindex.com/articles/155888

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (11)

  1. Marrero JA, Kulik LM, Sirlin C, et al. Diagnosis, staging and management of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2018 practice guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology 2018
  2. 723–750. [CrossRef] 2. Varela M, Real MI, Burrel M, et al. Chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma with drug eluting beads: efficacy and doxorubicin pharmacokinetics. J Hepatol 2007
  3. 474–481. [CrossRef] 3. Padia SA, Shivaram G, Bastawrous S, et al. Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting bead chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of small-versus medium-size particles. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2013
  4. 301–306. [CrossRef] 4. Deipolyi AR, Oklu R, Al-Ansari S, Zhu AX, Goyal L, Ganguli S. Safety and efficacy of 70–150 μm and 100–300 μm drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2015
  5. 516–522. [CrossRef] 5. Martin R, Irurzun J, Munchart J, et al. Optimal technique and response of doxorubicin beads in hepatocellular cancer: bead size and dose. Korean J Hepatol 2011
  6. [CrossRef] 6. Dhanasekaran R, Kooby DA, Staley CA, Kauh JS, Khanna V, Kim HS. Comparison of conventional transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and chemoembolization with doxorubicin drug eluting beads (DEB) for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). J Surg Oncol 2010
  7. 476–480. [CrossRef] 7. Prajapati HJ, Xing M, Spivey JR, et al. Survival, efficacy, and safety of small versus large doxorubicin drug-eluting beads TACE chemoembolization in patients with unresectable HCC. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014
  8. W706–W14. [CrossRef] 8. Kwan SW, Fidelman N, Ma E, Kerlan RK, Yao FY. Imaging predictors of the response to transarterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a radiological‐pathological correlation. Liver Transpl 2012
  9. 727–736. [CrossRef] 9. Vesselle G, Quirier-Leleu C, Velasco S, et al. Predictive factors for complete response of chemoembolization with drug-eluting beads (DEB-TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur Radiol 2016
  10. 1640–1648. [CrossRef] 10. Lencioni R, Llovet JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis 2010
  11. 52–60. [CrossRef] 11. Common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) v5.0. Published on November 27, 2017. 12. Huang K, Zhou Q, Wang R, Cheng D, Ma Y. Doxorubicin‐eluting beads versus conventional transarterial chemoembolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 20