BACKGROUND/AIM: We examined tumor marker levels to assess in more detail transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE)-refractory hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We enrolled patients treated from 2000 to 2011 for HCC beyond the Milan criteria who had good hepatic reserve function (Child-Pugh A) and no portal vein thrombosis or metastases (n = 154). The modified criteria for being TACE-refractory according to the Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan (m-LCSGJ), from which the tumor marker item was excluded, and the Assessment for Retreatment with TACE (ART) score were used for determining whether the HCC was TACE refractory. α-Fetoprotein ≥ 100 ng/ml, fucosylated α-fetoprotein ≥ 10%, and des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin ≥ 100 mAU/ml were used to define whether tumor markers were positive. We added up the number of positive tumor markers as a prognostic score to assess in more detail the evaluation of TACE-refractory HCC. RESULTS: In order to divide the patients into a refractory and nonrefractory group, the m-LCSGJ criteria [mean survival time (MST) 27.1 vs. 49.9 months; p < 0.001] were superior to the ART score (MST 22.0 vs. 35.1 months; p = 0.051). In the refractory group according to the m-LCSGJ criteria, the patients with a low score of positive tumor markers (<2) after 2 sessions of TACE (n = 36) showed a better prognosis than the others (n = 72) (MST 37.7 vs. 23.2 months; p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: Patients being nonrefractory according to the m-LCSGJ criteria had a better response, and using the number of tumor markers (≥ 2) is an easy method for predicting the response to TACE and for a more detailed evaluation of TACE-refractory HCC.
BACKGROUND/AIM: We examined tumor marker levels to assess in more detail transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE)-refractory hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We enrolled patients treated from 2000 to 2011 for HCC beyond the Milan criteria who had good hepatic reserve function (Child-Pugh A) and no portal vein thrombosis or metastases (n = 154). The modified criteria for being TACE-refractory according to the Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan (m-LCSGJ), from which the tumor marker item was excluded, and the Assessment for Retreatment with TACE (ART) score were used for determining whether the HCC was TACE refractory. α-Fetoprotein ≥ 100 ng/ml, fucosylated α-fetoprotein ≥ 10%, and des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin ≥ 100 mAU/ml were used to define whether tumor markers were positive. We added up the number of positive tumor markers as a prognostic score to assess in more detail the evaluation of TACE-refractory HCC. RESULTS: In order to divide the patients into a refractory and nonrefractory group, the m-LCSGJ criteria [mean survival time (MST) 27.1 vs. 49.9 months; p < 0.001] were superior to the ART score (MST 22.0 vs. 35.1 months; p = 0.051). In the refractory group according to the m-LCSGJ criteria, the patients with a low score of positive tumor markers (<2) after 2 sessions of TACE (n = 36) showed a better prognosis than the others (n = 72) (MST 37.7 vs. 23.2 months; p = 0.014). CONCLUSION:Patients being nonrefractory according to the m-LCSGJ criteria had a better response, and using the number of tumor markers (≥ 2) is an easy method for predicting the response to TACE and for a more detailed evaluation of TACE-refractory HCC.