AIM: To evaluate which patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are most likely to respond to thalidomide treatment. METHODS: From July 2002 to July 2004, patients with HCC who received thalidomide treatment, were enrolled. We extracted relevant data from the patients' medical records, including history and type of hepatitis, comorbidity, serum alpha-fetoprotein (alpha-FP) level, volumetric changes in tumor, length of survival, and the dose, duration, side effects of thalidomide treatment. The tumor response was evaluated. On the basis of these data, the patients were divided into two groups: those with either partial response or stable disease (PR + SD group) and those with progressive disease (PD group). RESULTS: Two of 42 (5%) patients had a partial tumor response after treatment with thalidomide, 200 mg/d, and 9 (21%) had stable disease. Patients in the PR + SD group all had cirrhosis. Comparing patients with and without cirrhosis, the former were more likely to respond to thalidomide therapy (PR + SD: 100% vs PD: 64.5%, P = 0.041 < 0.05). Thalidomide was significantly more likely to be effective in tumors smaller than 5 cm (PR + SD: 63.6% vs PD: 25.8%, P = 0.034 < 0.05). Compared with patients with progressive disease (PD), patients in the PR + SD group had a higher total dose of thalidomide (13669.4 +/- 8446.0 mg vs 22022.7 +/- 11461.4 mg, P = 0.023 < 0.05) and a longer survival (181.0 +/- 107.1 d vs 304.4 +/- 167.1 d, P = 0.047 < 0.05). Patients with comorbid disease had a significantly greater incidence of adverse reactions than those without (93.8% vs 60.0%, P = 0.021 < 0.05). The average number of adverse reactions in each person with a comorbid condition was twice as high as in those without other diseases (2.2 +/- 1.3 vs 1.1 +/- 1.2; P = 0.022 < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Thalidomide therapy is most likely to be effective in patients with early stage small HCC, especially in those with other underlying diseases. A low dose (200 mg/d) of thalidomide is recommended to continue the treatment long enough to make it more effective.
AIM: To evaluate which patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are most likely to respond to thalidomide treatment. METHODS: From July 2002 to July 2004, patients with HCC who received thalidomide treatment, were enrolled. We extracted relevant data from the patients' medical records, including history and type of hepatitis, comorbidity, serum alpha-fetoprotein (alpha-FP) level, volumetric changes in tumor, length of survival, and the dose, duration, side effects of thalidomide treatment. The tumor response was evaluated. On the basis of these data, the patients were divided into two groups: those with either partial response or stable disease (PR + SD group) and those with progressive disease (PD group). RESULTS: Two of 42 (5%) patients had a partial tumor response after treatment with thalidomide, 200 mg/d, and 9 (21%) had stable disease. Patients in the PR + SD group all had cirrhosis. Comparing patients with and without cirrhosis, the former were more likely to respond to thalidomide therapy (PR + SD: 100% vs PD: 64.5%, P = 0.041 < 0.05). Thalidomide was significantly more likely to be effective in tumors smaller than 5 cm (PR + SD: 63.6% vs PD: 25.8%, P = 0.034 < 0.05). Compared with patients with progressive disease (PD), patients in the PR + SD group had a higher total dose of thalidomide (13669.4 +/- 8446.0 mg vs 22022.7 +/- 11461.4 mg, P = 0.023 < 0.05) and a longer survival (181.0 +/- 107.1 d vs 304.4 +/- 167.1 d, P = 0.047 < 0.05). Patients with comorbid disease had a significantly greater incidence of adverse reactions than those without (93.8% vs 60.0%, P = 0.021 < 0.05). The average number of adverse reactions in each person with a comorbid condition was twice as high as in those without other diseases (2.2 +/- 1.3 vs 1.1 +/- 1.2; P = 0.022 < 0.05). CONCLUSION:Thalidomide therapy is most likely to be effective in patients with early stage small HCC, especially in those with other underlying diseases. A low dose (200 mg/d) of thalidomide is recommended to continue the treatment long enough to make it more effective.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: R F Little; K M Wyvill; J M Pluda; L Welles; V Marshall; W D Figg; F M Newcomb; G Tosato; E Feigal; S M Steinberg; D Whitby; J J Goedert; R Yarchoan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: T Torimura; M Sata; T Ueno; M Kin; R Tsuji; K Suzaku; O Hashimoto; H Sugawara; K Tanikawa Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 1998-09 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Masao Omata; Laurentius A Lesmana; Ryosuke Tateishi; Pei-Jer Chen; Shi-Ming Lin; Haruhiko Yoshida; Masatoshi Kudo; Jeong Min Lee; Byung Ihn Choi; Ronnie T P Poon; Shuichiro Shiina; Ann Lii Cheng; Ji-Dong Jia; Shuntaro Obi; Kwang Hyub Han; Wasim Jafri; Pierce Chow; Seng Gee Lim; Yogesh K Chawla; Unggul Budihusodo; Rino A Gani; C Rinaldi Lesmana; Terawan Agus Putranto; Yun Fan Liaw; Shiv Kumar Sarin Journal: Hepatol Int Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 6.047
Authors: Gary L Davis; Jane Dempster; James D Meler; Douglas W Orr; Mark W Walberg; Brian Brown; Brian D Berger; John K O'Connor; Robert M Goldstein Journal: Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) Date: 2008-07