AIM: Liver metastases from breast cancer (BCLM) are associated with poor prognosis. Cytotoxic chemotherapy can result in regression of tumor lesions and a decrease in symptoms. Available data, in the literature, also suggest a subgroup of patients may benefit from surgery, but few talked about transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE). We report the results of TACE and systemic chemotherapy for patients with liver metastases from breast cancer and evaluate the prognostic factors. METHODS: Forty-eight patients with liver metastases, from proved breast primary cancer were treated with TACE or systemic chemotherapy between January 1995 and December 2000. Treatment results were assessed according to WHO criteria, along with analysis of prognostic factors for survival using Cox regression model. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 28 mo (1-72 mo). Response rates were calculated for the TACE group and chemotherapy group, being 35.7% and 7.1%, respectively. The difference was significant. The one-, two- and three-year Survival rates for the TACE group were 63.04%, 30.35%, and 13.01%, and those for the systemic chemotherapy group were 33.88%, 11.29%, and 0%. According to univariate analysis, variables significantly associated with survival were the lymph node status of the primary cancer, the clinical stage of liver metastases, the Child-Pugh grade, loss of weight. Other factors such as age, the intervals between the primary to the metastases, the maximal diameter of the liver metastases, the number of liver metastases, extrahepatic metastasis showed no prognostic significances. These factors mentioned above such as the lymph node status of the primary cancer, the clinical stage of liver metastases, the Child-Pugh grade, loss of weight were also independent factors in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: TACE treatment of liver metastases from breast cancer may prolong survival in certain patients. This approach offers new promise for the curative treatment of the patients with metastatic breast cancer.
AIM: Liver metastases from breast cancer (BCLM) are associated with poor prognosis. Cytotoxic chemotherapy can result in regression of tumor lesions and a decrease in symptoms. Available data, in the literature, also suggest a subgroup of patients may benefit from surgery, but few talked about transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE). We report the results of TACE and systemic chemotherapy for patients with liver metastases from breast cancer and evaluate the prognostic factors. METHODS: Forty-eight patients with liver metastases, from proved breast primary cancer were treated with TACE or systemic chemotherapy between January 1995 and December 2000. Treatment results were assessed according to WHO criteria, along with analysis of prognostic factors for survival using Cox regression model. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 28 mo (1-72 mo). Response rates were calculated for the TACE group and chemotherapy group, being 35.7% and 7.1%, respectively. The difference was significant. The one-, two- and three-year Survival rates for the TACE group were 63.04%, 30.35%, and 13.01%, and those for the systemic chemotherapy group were 33.88%, 11.29%, and 0%. According to univariate analysis, variables significantly associated with survival were the lymph node status of the primary cancer, the clinical stage of liver metastases, the Child-Pugh grade, loss of weight. Other factors such as age, the intervals between the primary to the metastases, the maximal diameter of the liver metastases, the number of liver metastases, extrahepatic metastasis showed no prognostic significances. These factors mentioned above such as the lymph node status of the primary cancer, the clinical stage of liver metastases, the Child-Pugh grade, loss of weight were also independent factors in multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION:TACE treatment of liver metastases from breast cancer may prolong survival in certain patients. This approach offers new promise for the curative treatment of the patients with metastatic breast cancer.
Authors: J L Pérez-Gracia; R Colomer; E Esteban; R Barceló; M Benavides; J Puertas; A Arcediano; M V Tornamira; V Valentín; A Muñoz; H Cortés-Funes; J Hornedo Journal: Cancer Date: 2001-11-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jose I Mayordomo; Alfredo Milla; Serafin Morales; Alfonso Yubero; Antonio Lorenzo; Jose M Baena; Alfonso Modolell; Javier Sanz; Jose Illarramendi; Maria J Garcia; Ignacio Machengs; Miguel A Burrilo; Alejandro Tres Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Herbert G Sayer; Kristina Schilling; Tobias Vogt; Kerstin Blumenstengel; Miriam Charbel Issa; Lars-Olof Mügge; Christoph Kasper; Roland Kath; Klaus Höffken Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2003-06-18 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Andrew Bottomley; Laura Biganzoli; Tanja Cufer; Robert E Coleman; Corneel Coens; Fabio Efficace; Hilary Allan Calvert; Teresa Gamucci; Chris Twelves; Pierre Fargeot; Martine Piccart Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Man Fung Yuen; Annie On-On Chan; Benjamin Chun-Yu Wong; Chee Kin Hui; Gaik Cheng Ooi; Wai Kuen Tso; He Jun Yuan; Danny Ka-Ho Wong; Ching Lung Lai Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Thomas J Vogl; Nagy N N Naguib; Nour-Eldin A Nour-Eldin; Katrin Eichler; Stefan Zangos; Tatjana Gruber-Rouh Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-08-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: B M Aarts; F M Gómez Muñoz; H Wildiers; V O Dezentjé; T R Baetens; W Schats; M Lopez-Yurda; R C Dresen; B J de Wit-van der Veen; C M Deroose; G Maleux; R G H Beets-Tan; E G Klompenhouwer Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 2.740