PURPOSE: To compare the feasibility, safety, and efficacy with small and large irinotecan drug-eluting beads (DEBIRI) for treating hepatic colorectal metastases. METHODS: Using our prospectively maintained, multi-center, intra-arterial therapy registry, we identified 196 patients treated with a combination of large beads (100-300 to 500-700 μm) and patients treated with a combination of small beads (70-150 to 100-300 μm). To minimize selection bias, a propensity score analysis was performed to compare both groups. RESULTS: Unadjusted analysis consisted of 196 and 30 patients treated with large and small beads, respectively. The adjusted analysis consisted of 19 patients each. Unadjusted analysis showed decreased all-grade (p = <0.001) and high-grade adverse effects (p = 0.02) in the small bead group, with a persisting trend toward decreased overall side effects in the adjusted analysis favoring small beads (p = 0.09) The adjusted analysis showed the percentage dose delivered (delivered dose/intended dose) was significantly greater in the small bead group compared to the large bead group (96 vs 79 %; p = 0.005). There were also a lower percentage of treatments terminating in complete stasis in the adjusted analysis (0.0035). Adjusted analysis also showed increased objective response rate (ORR) at 12 months (p = 0.04), with a corresponding trend also seen in the unadjusted analysis (0.09). CONCLUSION: Smaller beads result in increased dose delivery probably due to less propensity to reach complete stasis. It may also lead to more durable long-term efficacy. Smaller beads also demonstrate similarly low toxicity compared to large-sized beads with a trend toward less toxicity.
PURPOSE: To compare the feasibility, safety, and efficacy with small and large irinotecan drug-eluting beads (DEBIRI) for treating hepatic colorectal metastases. METHODS: Using our prospectively maintained, multi-center, intra-arterial therapy registry, we identified 196 patients treated with a combination of large beads (100-300 to 500-700 μm) and patients treated with a combination of small beads (70-150 to 100-300 μm). To minimize selection bias, a propensity score analysis was performed to compare both groups. RESULTS: Unadjusted analysis consisted of 196 and 30 patients treated with large and small beads, respectively. The adjusted analysis consisted of 19 patients each. Unadjusted analysis showed decreased all-grade (p = <0.001) and high-grade adverse effects (p = 0.02) in the small bead group, with a persisting trend toward decreased overall side effects in the adjusted analysis favoring small beads (p = 0.09) The adjusted analysis showed the percentage dose delivered (delivered dose/intended dose) was significantly greater in the small bead group compared to the large bead group (96 vs 79 %; p = 0.005). There were also a lower percentage of treatments terminating in complete stasis in the adjusted analysis (0.0035). Adjusted analysis also showed increased objective response rate (ORR) at 12 months (p = 0.04), with a corresponding trend also seen in the unadjusted analysis (0.09). CONCLUSION: Smaller beads result in increased dose delivery probably due to less propensity to reach complete stasis. It may also lead to more durable long-term efficacy. Smaller beads also demonstrate similarly low toxicity compared to large-sized beads with a trend toward less toxicity.
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
Authors: Alexander Massmann; Thomas Rodt; Steffen Marquardt; Roland Seidel; Katrina Thomas; Frank Wacker; Götz M Richter; Hans U Kauczor; Arno Bücker; Philippe L Pereira; Christof M Sommer Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2015-06-19 Impact factor: 3.445
Authors: Malgorzata M Bala; Robert P Riemsma; Robert Wolff; Michal Pedziwiatr; Jerzy W Mitus; Dawid Storman; Mateusz J Swierz; Jos Kleijnen Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-07-10
Authors: Andrew L Lewis; Matthew R Dreher; Vincent O'Byrne; David Grey; Marcus Caine; Anthony Dunn; Yiqing Tang; Brenda Hall; Kirk D Fowers; Carmen Gacchina Johnson; Karun V Sharma; Bradford J Wood Journal: J Mater Sci Mater Med Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 3.896
Authors: Nicolas Voizard; Tiffany Ni; Alex Kiss; Robyn Pugash; Michael Jonathon Raphael; Natalie Coburn; Elizabeth David Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 3.677