Boris Gorodetski1,2, Julius Chapiro1,2, Ruediger Schernthaner1, Rafael Duran1, MingDe Lin1,3, Howard Lee1, David Lenis4, Elizabeth A Stuart4, Bareng Aletta Sanny Nonyane4, Vasily Pekurovsky1, Anobel Tamrazi1, Bernhard Gebauer2, Todd Schlachter1,5, Timothy M Pawlik6, Jean-Francois Geschwind7,8. 1. Russel H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. 2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353, Berlin, Germany. 3. U/S Imaging and Interventions (UII), Philips Research North America, Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA. 4. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, 330 Cedar Street, TE 2-230, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA. 6. Department of Surgery, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA. 7. Russel H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. jeff.geschwind@yale.edu. 8. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, 330 Cedar Street, TE 2-230, New Haven, CT, 06520, USA. jeff.geschwind@yale.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our study sought to compare the overall survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal venous thrombosis (PVT), treated with either conventional trans-arterial chemoembolization (cTACE) or drug-eluting beads (DEB) TACE. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included a total of 133 patients, treated without cross-over and compared head-to-head by means or propensity score weighting. Mortality was compared using survival analysis upon propensity score weighting. Adverse events and liver toxicity grade ≥3 were recorded and reported for each TACE. In order to compare with historical sorafenib studies, a sub-group analysis was performed and included patients who fulfilled the SHARP inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The median overall survival (MOS) of the entire cohort was 4.53 months (95 % CI, 3.63-6.03). MOS was similar across treatment arms, no significant difference between cTACE (N = 95) and DEB-TACE (N = 38) was observed (MOS of 5.0 vs. 3.33 months, respectively; p = 0.157). The most common adverse events after cTACE and DEB- TACE, respectively, were as follows: post-embolization syndrome [N = 57 (30.0 %) and N = 38 (61.3 %)], diarrhea [N = 3 (1.6 %) and N = 3 (4.8 %)], and encephalopathy [N = 11 (5.8 %) and N = 2 (3.2 %)]. CONCLUSION: Our retrospective study could not reveal a difference in toxicity and efficiency between cTACE and DEB-TACE for treatment of advanced stage HCC with PVT. KEY POINTS: • Conventional TACE (cTACE) and drug-eluting-beads TACE (DEB-TACE) demonstrated equal safety profiles. • Survival rates after TACE are similar to patients treated with sorafenib. • Child-Pugh class and tumor burden are reliable predictors of survival.
OBJECTIVES: Our study sought to compare the overall survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal venous thrombosis (PVT), treated with either conventional trans-arterial chemoembolization (cTACE) or drug-eluting beads (DEB) TACE. METHODS: This retrospective analysis included a total of 133 patients, treated without cross-over and compared head-to-head by means or propensity score weighting. Mortality was compared using survival analysis upon propensity score weighting. Adverse events and liver toxicity grade ≥3 were recorded and reported for each TACE. In order to compare with historical sorafenib studies, a sub-group analysis was performed and included patients who fulfilled the SHARP inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The median overall survival (MOS) of the entire cohort was 4.53 months (95 % CI, 3.63-6.03). MOS was similar across treatment arms, no significant difference between cTACE (N = 95) and DEB-TACE (N = 38) was observed (MOS of 5.0 vs. 3.33 months, respectively; p = 0.157). The most common adverse events after cTACE and DEB- TACE, respectively, were as follows: post-embolization syndrome [N = 57 (30.0 %) and N = 38 (61.3 %)], diarrhea [N = 3 (1.6 %) and N = 3 (4.8 %)], and encephalopathy [N = 11 (5.8 %) and N = 2 (3.2 %)]. CONCLUSION: Our retrospective study could not reveal a difference in toxicity and efficiency between cTACE and DEB-TACE for treatment of advanced stage HCC with PVT. KEY POINTS: • Conventional TACE (cTACE) and drug-eluting-beads TACE (DEB-TACE) demonstrated equal safety profiles. • Survival rates after TACE are similar to patients treated with sorafenib. • Child-Pugh class and tumor burden are reliable predictors of survival.
Authors: Kent Sato; Robert J Lewandowski; James T Bui; Reed Omary; Russell D Hunter; Laura Kulik; Mary Mulcahy; David Liu; Howard Chrisman; Scott Resnick; Albert A Nemcek; Robert Vogelzang; Riad Salem Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2006 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Laura M Kulik; Brian I Carr; Mary F Mulcahy; Robert J Lewandowski; Bassel Atassi; Robert K Ryu; Kent T Sato; Al Benson; Albert A Nemcek; Vanessa L Gates; Michael Abecassis; Reed A Omary; Riad Salem Journal: Hepatology Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Johannes Lammer; Katarina Malagari; Thomas Vogl; Frank Pilleul; Alban Denys; Anthony Watkinson; Michael Pitton; Geraldine Sergent; Thomas Pfammatter; Sylvain Terraz; Yves Benhamou; Yves Avajon; Thomas Gruenberger; Maria Pomoni; Herbert Langenberger; Marcus Schuchmann; Jerome Dumortier; Christian Mueller; Patrick Chevallier; Riccardo Lencioni Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2009-11-12 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Weihua Zhang; Lei Chen; Yanyan Cao; Bo Sun; Yanqiao Ren; Tao Sun; Chuansheng Zheng Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 3.989