AIMS: To compare selective and non-selective TACE techniques in the treatment of HCC with a special emphasis on clinical and liver tolerance, tumour response and survival. METHODS: 184 patients with advanced HCC were retrospectively included. Three different TACE techniques were compared: non selective lipiodol-chemotherapy + non selective embolisation (TACE-technique group 1), non selective lipiodol-chemotherapy + selective embolisation (group 2), and selective lipiodol-chemotherapy + selective embolisation (group 3). RESULTS: In multivariate analysis TACE-technique group is an independently significant prognostic factor for poor clinical tolerance, poor liver tolerance and tumour response. The rate of patients with poor clinical tolerance was lower in group 3 (27.0%) than in groups 1 (64.1%, p < 10(-3)) or 2 (66.7%, p < 10(-3)). The rate of patients with poor liver tolerance was higher in group 2 (34.0%) than in groups 1 (17.6%, p = 0.050) or 3 (6.9%, p = 0.011). The rate of patients with tumour response was higher when embolisation was selective versus non-selective, i.e., group 2 + 3 (78.7%) versus group 1 (62.5%, p = 0.054). Overall survival was not significantly different between the three groups (p = 0.383). CONCLUSION: Both selective techniques resulted in better tumour response. As for improving tolerance, our study suggests that the main technical factor is the use of selective lipiodol-chemotherapy injection.
AIMS: To compare selective and non-selective TACE techniques in the treatment of HCC with a special emphasis on clinical and liver tolerance, tumour response and survival. METHODS: 184 patients with advanced HCC were retrospectively included. Three different TACE techniques were compared: non selective lipiodol-chemotherapy + non selective embolisation (TACE-technique group 1), non selective lipiodol-chemotherapy + selective embolisation (group 2), and selective lipiodol-chemotherapy + selective embolisation (group 3). RESULTS: In multivariate analysis TACE-technique group is an independently significant prognostic factor for poor clinical tolerance, poor liver tolerance and tumour response. The rate of patients with poor clinical tolerance was lower in group 3 (27.0%) than in groups 1 (64.1%, p < 10(-3)) or 2 (66.7%, p < 10(-3)). The rate of patients with poor liver tolerance was higher in group 2 (34.0%) than in groups 1 (17.6%, p = 0.050) or 3 (6.9%, p = 0.011). The rate of patients with tumour response was higher when embolisation was selective versus non-selective, i.e., group 2 + 3 (78.7%) versus group 1 (62.5%, p = 0.054). Overall survival was not significantly different between the three groups (p = 0.383). CONCLUSION: Both selective techniques resulted in better tumour response. As for improving tolerance, our study suggests that the main technical factor is the use of selective lipiodol-chemotherapy injection.
Authors: J Bruix; M Sherman; J M Llovet; M Beaugrand; R Lencioni; A K Burroughs; E Christensen; L Pagliaro; M Colombo; J Rodés Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: G Otto; M Heise; C Moench; S Herber; F Bittinger; M Schuchmann; M Hoppe-Lotichius; M Pitton Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: O Matsui; M Kadoya; J Yoshikawa; T Gabata; K Arai; H Demachi; S Miyayama; T Takashima; M Unoura; K Kogayashi Journal: Radiology Date: 1993-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Suk Kyeong Ji; Yun Ku Cho; Yong Sik Ahn; Mi Young Kim; Yoon Ok Park; Jae Kyun Kim; Wan Tae Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.500