AIM: To evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) using miriplatin emulsion in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The efficacy of TACE was evaluated by dynamic computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging three months after TACE, according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Cancer Study Group of Japan (RECICL). Adverse events were assessed using Common Terminology Criteria, version 4.0. RESULTS: Eighteen patients with 48 lesions received TACE with miriplatin-lipiodol (LPD) suspension (miriplatin suspension) and 53 patients with 114 HCC tumors received TACE with miriplatin-LPD water-soluble contrast agent emulsion (miriplatin emulsion). TACE with miriplatin emulsion enabled for administration of a higher dose of miriplatin compared to TACE with miriplatin suspension (p=0.016), although there were no significant differences in the frequency of adverse events between the two groups. The treatment effect per tumor was significantly higher in the emulsion group than in the suspension group (p=0.001). The time-to-progression per tumor was significantly shorter in the suspension group than in the emulsion group (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: TACE with miriplatin emulsion is more effective than that with miriplatin suspension.
AIM: To evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) using miriplatin emulsion in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The efficacy of TACE was evaluated by dynamic computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging three months after TACE, according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Cancer Study Group of Japan (RECICL). Adverse events were assessed using Common Terminology Criteria, version 4.0. RESULTS: Eighteen patients with 48 lesions received TACE with miriplatin-lipiodol (LPD) suspension (miriplatin suspension) and 53 patients with 114 HCC tumors received TACE with miriplatin-LPDwater-soluble contrast agent emulsion (miriplatin emulsion). TACE with miriplatin emulsion enabled for administration of a higher dose of miriplatin compared to TACE with miriplatin suspension (p=0.016), although there were no significant differences in the frequency of adverse events between the two groups. The treatment effect per tumor was significantly higher in the emulsion group than in the suspension group (p=0.001). The time-to-progression per tumor was significantly shorter in the suspension group than in the emulsion group (p=0.001). CONCLUSION:TACE with miriplatin emulsion is more effective than that with miriplatin suspension.