| Literature DB >> 26769845 |
Cheng-Shi Chen1, Fang-Kun Li1, Chen-Yang Guo1, Jin-Cheng Xiao1, Hong-Tao Hu1, Hong-Tao Cheng1, Lin Zheng1, Deng-Wei Zong1, Jun-Li Ma1, Li Jiang1, Hai-Liang Li1.
Abstract
This study evaluated the factors impacting overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who received transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). HCC patients were grouped based on tumor vascularity and lipidiol deposition after TACE. Tumor vascularity was classified based on contrast enhancement on arterial phase baseline CT scans. Lipiodol deposition was evaluated using CT scans. The progression-free rate was significantly higher in patients with good blood supply + good lipiodol deposition compared to those with good blood supply + poor lipiodol deposition. In patients with poor lipidiol deposition, risk of death was significantly positively correlated with stage, and negatively correlated with number of TACE procedures and degree of lipidiol deposition after the first TACE. Risk of disease progression in these patients was positively correlated with tumor size, and negatively correlated with number of TACE procedures and degree of lipidiol deposition after the first TACE. Our data showed that tumor vascularity and lipiodol deposition can be used as early radiological markers to identify patients who do not respond to TACE, and who can be considered earlier for alternative combination treatment strategies. Our data also indicated that poor lipiodol retention may predict a poor TTP and OS despite the blood supply status.Entities:
Keywords: hepatocellular carcinoma; lipiodol; overall survival; transarterial chemoembolization; tumor vascularity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26769845 PMCID: PMC4872782 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.6892
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Baseline characteristics of subjects with good blood supply and with poor lipiodol deposition
| Subjects with good blood supply ( | Subjects with poor lipiodol deposition ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 88(87.13%) | 62(84.93%) |
| Female | 13(12.87%) | 11(15.07%) |
| Age (years) | 57.35±11.71 | 57.01±12.01 |
| Tumor size (cm) | 8.2±4.63 | 8.41±5.11 |
| Number of nodules | 3.05±3.66 | 3±2.75 |
| Child Pugh score | 5.54±0.88 | 5.44±0.86 |
| AFP | 614.74±561.79 | 598.82±534.36 |
| ECOG performance status | 0.45±0.5 | 0.52±0.5 |
| No. of TACE procedures | 2.74±1.19 | 2.49±0.97 |
| BCLC stage | ||
| B | 63(62.38%) | 40(54.79%) |
| C | 38(37.62%) | 33(45.21%) |
| Degree of lipiodol deposition after 1st TACE (%) | 58.32±25.92 | 26.15±12.93 |
| Good lipiodol deposition (≥50%) | 59(58.42%) | |
| Poor lipiodol deposition (< 50 %) | 42(41.58%) | |
| Tumor blood supply | ||
| poor blood supply | 31(42.47%) | |
| good blood supply | 42(57.53%) | |
| Survival time (months) | 31.44±25.91 | 28.68±30.57 |
| Disease progression time (months) | 11.8±11.67 | 9.34±12.96 |
Univariate and multivariate analysis to determine factors associated with OS and disease progression in subjects with good blood supply
| Univariate | Multivariate | Multivariate 2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95%CI) | HR (95%CI) | HR (95%CI) | ||||
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 1.45(0.58-3.63) | 0.432 | ||||
| Female | ref | |||||
| Age | 0.999(0.98-1.02) | 0.943 | ||||
| Tumor size | 1.05(1.01-1.09) | 0.017 | 1.02(0.97-1.08) | 0.432 | ||
| Number of nodules | 1.05(0.997-1.11) | 0.062 | ||||
| Child Pugh score | 1.14(0.88-1.49) | 0.324 | ||||
| AFP | 1.0004(1.00002-1.001) | 0.041 | 1.0003(0.9998-1.001) | 0.244 | ||
| ECOG performance status | 1.36(0.87-2.13) | 0.184 | ||||
| TACE times | 0.65(0.51-0.82) | <0.001 | 0.62(0.46-0.83) | 0.002 | ||
| BCLC stage | ||||||
| B | ref | ref | ||||
| C | 3.23(1.91-5.45) | <0.001 | 2.6(1.49-4.52) | 0.001 | ||
| Degree of lipiodol deposition after 1st TACE (%) | 0.99(0.98-0.999) | 0.024 | 0.997(0.99-1.01) | 0.555 | ||
| Good lipiodol deposition (≥50%) | 0.91(0.54-1.53) | 0.713 | ||||
| Poor lipiodol deposition (<50 %) | ref | |||||
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 0.48(0.26-0.88) | 0.017 | 0.66(0.35-1.25) | 0.206 | 0.64(0.34-1.2) | 0.164 |
| Female | ref | ref | ref | |||
| Age | 0.99(0.97-1.01) | 0.39 | ||||
| Tumor size | 1.03(0.99-1.07) | 0.204 | ||||
| Number of nodules | 1.12(1.06-1.19) | <0.001 | 1.12(1.05-1.19) | 0.001 | 1.13(1.06-1.2) | <0.001 |
| Child Pugh score | 1.19(0.96-1.49) | 0.119 | ||||
| AFP | 1.0002(0.9999-1.001) | 0.241 | ||||
| ECOG performance status | 1.94(1.29-2.92) | 0.002 | 1.59(1.03-2.44) | 0.036 | 1.65(1.07-2.53) | 0.022 |
| TACE times | 0.97(0.82-1.15) | 0.763 | ||||
| BCLC stage | ||||||
| B | ref | |||||
| C | 1.1(0.73-1.65) | 0.662 | ||||
| Degree of lipiodol deposition after 1st TACE (%) | 0.99(0.98-0.99) | 0.001 | 0.99(0.98-0.999) | 0.025 | ||
| Good lipiodol deposition (≥50%) | 0.65(0.44-0.98) | 0.037 | 0.73(0.48-1.11) | 0.139 | ||
| Poor lipiodol deposition (<50%) | ref | ref | ||||
p < 0.05, significant associated with OS or disease progression
OS, Overall Survival
Figure 1Overall survival curves in subjects from the good blood supply group who had different degrees of lipiodol deposition
Figure 2Progression-free curves in subjects from the good blood supply group who had different degrees of lipiodol deposition
Univariate and multivariate analysis to determine factors associated with OS and disease progression in subjects with poor lipiodol deposition
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95%CI) | HR (95%CI) | |||
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 1.08(0.45-2.56) | 0.863 | ||
| Female | ref | |||
| Age | 1.02(0.99-1.05) | 0.154 | ||
| Tumor size | 1.05(1.0003-1.1) | 0.049 | 1.02(0.96-1.1) | 0.506 |
| Number of nodules | 0.999(0.89-1.12) | 0.981 | ||
| Child Pugh score | 1.03(0.69-1.54) | 0.878 | ||
| AFP | 1.001(0.9999-1.001) | 0.078 | ||
| ECOG performance status | 1.2(0.66-2.19) | 0.549 | ||
| TACE times | 0.49(0.32-0.77) | 0.002 | 0.52(0.34-0.79) | 0.002 |
| BCLC stage | ||||
| B | ref | ref | ||
| C | 3.74(1.93-7.25) | <0.001 | 3.56(1.69-7.52) | 0.001 |
| Degree of lipiodol deposition after 1st TACE (%) | 0.97(0.95-0.995) | 0.019 | 0.97(0.94-0.99) | 0.015 |
| Tumor blood supply | ||||
| poor blood supply | ref | |||
| good blood supply | 0.999(0.55-1.83) | 0.997 | ||
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 0.72(0.37-1.39) | 0.331 | ||
| Female | ref | |||
| Age | 1.01(0.99-1.03) | 0.209 | ||
| Tumor size | 1.04(1.004-1.08) | 0.032 | 1.05(1.01-1.1) | 0.023 |
| Number of nodules | 1.04(0.95-1.13) | 0.386 | ||
| Child Pugh score | 1.39(1.07-1.8) | 0.015 | 1.22(0.93-1.6) | 0.154 |
| AFP | 1.0003(0.9998-1.001) | 0.266 | ||
| ECOG performance status | 1.61(0.99-2.6) | 0.053 | ||
| TACE times | 0.75(0.58-0.98) | 0.034 | 0.76(0.59-0.99) | 0.040 |
| BCLC stage | ||||
| B | ref | |||
| C | 1.02(0.63-1.66) | 0.928 | ||
| Degree of lipiodol deposition after 1st TACE (%) | 0.97(0.95-0.99) | 0.005 | 0.97(0.95-0.996) | 0.018 |
| Tumor blood supply | ||||
| poor blood supply | ref | |||
| good blood supply | 0.96(0.6-1.55) | 0.874 | ||
p < 0.05, significantly associated with OS or disease progression
OS, Overall Survival
Figure 3Overall survival curves in subjects from the poor lipiodol deposition group who had different blood supplies
Figure 4Progression-free curves in subjects from the poor lipiodol deposition group who had different blood supplies