Literature DB >> 23380737

Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting bead chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of small-versus medium-size particles.

Siddharth A Padia1, Giri Shivaram, Sarah Bastawrous, Puneet Bhargava, Nghia J Vo, Sandeep Vaidya, Karim Valji, William P Harris, Daniel S Hippe, Matthew J Kogut.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare safety and imaging response with 100-300 μm and 300-500 μm doxorubicin drug-eluting bead (DEBs) to determine optimal particle size for chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: DEB chemoembolization using 100-300 μm (n = 39) or 300-500 μm (n = 22) LC beads loaded with 50 mg of doxorubicin was performed in 61 patients with HCC. Patient age, sex, etiology of liver disease, degree of underlying liver disease, tumor burden, and performance status were similar between the groups. All treatments were performed in a single session and represented the patient's first treatment. Toxicities and imaging response in a single index tumor were analyzed using World Health Organization (WHO) and European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria.
RESULTS: There was a significantly lower incidence of postembolization syndrome and fatigue after treatment in the 100-300 μm group (8% and 36%) versus the 300-500 μm group (40% and 70%) (100-300 μm group, P = .011; 300-500 μm group, P = .025). Mean change in tumor size was similar between the two groups based on WHO and EASL criteria and similar rates of objective response, but there was a trend toward a higher incidence of EASL complete response with 100-300 μm beads versus 300-500 μm beads (59% vs 36%; P = .114).
CONCLUSIONS: In DEB chemoembolization for treatment of HCC, 100-300 μm doxorubicin DEBs are favored over 300-500 μm doxorubicin DEBs because of lower rates of toxicity after treatment and a trend toward more complete imaging response at initial follow-up.
Copyright © 2013 SIR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23380737     DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2012.11.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol        ISSN: 1051-0443            Impact factor:   3.464


  26 in total

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

Authors:  Sieh-Yang Lee; Hsin-You Ou; Chun-Yen Yu; Tung-Liang Huang; Leo Leung-Chit Tsang; Yu-Fan Cheng
Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 2.630

Review 2.  Role of Transcatheter Intra-arterial Therapies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Authors:  Shashi B Paul; Hanish Sharma
Journal:  J Clin Exp Hepatol       Date:  2014-05-24

Review 3.  Advances in transarterial therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma: is novel technology leading to better outcomes?

Authors:  Thierry de Baere; Lambros Tselikas; Frederic Deschamps; Valerie Boige; Michel Ducreux; Antoine Hollebecque
Journal:  Hepat Oncol       Date:  2016-03-23

Review 4.  Chemoembolization with DC Bead™ for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update.

Authors:  Katerina Malagari; Emmanouil Emmanouil; Maria Pomoni; Dimitrios Kelekis
Journal:  Hepat Oncol       Date:  2014-03-20

5.  Characterization of a novel intrinsically radiopaque Drug-eluting Bead for image-guided therapy: DC Bead LUMI™.

Authors:  Koorosh Ashrafi; Yiqing Tang; Hugh Britton; Orianne Domenge; Delphine Blino; Andrew J Bushby; Kseniya Shuturminska; Mark den Hartog; Alessandro Radaelli; Ayele H Negussie; Andrew S Mikhail; David L Woods; Venkatesh Krishnasamy; Elliot B Levy; Bradford J Wood; Sean L Willis; Matthew R Dreher; Andrew L Lewis
Journal:  J Control Release       Date:  2017-02-08       Impact factor: 9.776

6.  Transarterial hepatic chemoembolization with 70-150 µm drug-eluting beads: assessment of clinical safety and liver toxicity profile.

Authors:  Bruno C Odisio; Aaron Ashton; Yuanqing Yan; Wei Wei; Ahmed Kaseb; Michael J Wallace; Jean N Vauthey; Sanjay Gupta; Alda L Tam
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2015-06-05       Impact factor: 3.464

Review 7.  The Indian National Association for Study of the Liver (INASL) Consensus on Prevention, Diagnosis and Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in India: The Puri Recommendations.

Authors:  Ashish Kumar; Subrat K Acharya; Shivaram P Singh; Vivek A Saraswat; Anil Arora; Ajay Duseja; Mahesh K Goenka; Deepali Jain; Premashish Kar; Manoj Kumar; Vinay Kumaran; Kunisshery M Mohandas; Dipanjan Panda; Shashi B Paul; Jeyamani Ramachandran; Hariharan Ramesh; Padaki N Rao; Samir R Shah; Hanish Sharma; Ragesh B Thandassery
Journal:  J Clin Exp Hepatol       Date:  2014-05-22

Review 8.  Management of people with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: an attempted network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Davide Roccarina; Avik Majumdar; Douglas Thorburn; Brian R Davidson; Emmanuel Tsochatzis; Kurinchi Selvan Gurusamy
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-03-10

9.  A comparative study between Embosphere(®) and conventional transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for treatment of unresectable liver metastasis from GIST.

Authors:  Guang Cao; Xu Zhu; Jian Li; Lin Shen; Renjie Yang; Hui Chen; Xiaodong Wang; Song Gao; Haifeng Xu; Linzhong Zhu; Peng Liu; Jianhai Guo
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 5.087

10.  Direct Quantification and Comparison of Intratumoral Hypoxia following Transcatheter Arterial Embolization of VX2 Liver Tumors with Different Diameter Microspheres.

Authors:  Elliot B Levy; Carmen Gacchina Johnson; Genevieve Jacobs; David L Woods; Karun V Sharma; John D Bacher; Andrew L Lewis; Matthew R Dreher; Bradford J Wood
Journal:  J Vasc Interv Radiol       Date:  2015-07-29       Impact factor: 3.464

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.