| Literature DB >> 29378532 |
Biao Yang1, Chun-Lin Li1, Wen-Hao Guo1, Tian-Qiang Qin2, He Jiao3, Ze-Jun Fei3, Xuan Zhou3, Lin-Jia Duan3, Zheng-Yin Liao4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus remains extremely poor. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the technical feasibility, effectiveness and safety of transcatheter chemoembolization for tumors in the liver parenchyma plus intra-arterial ethanol embolization for portal vein tumor thrombus.Entities:
Keywords: Cone-beam computed tomography; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Portal vein tumor thrombus; Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29378532 PMCID: PMC5789611 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-018-3989-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1Study flow chart
Fig. 2Intra-arterial ethanol embolization procedure for different types of PVTT. (A1) A microcatheter was inserted into place: (1) epirubicin injection followed by a gelatin sponge. (A2-A3) The microcatheter was withdrawn from its location: (2) lipiodol-ethanol mixture injection (1 ml/s), followed by a gelatin sponge. (B1) Same method as described in A1. (B2) A microcatheter was placed to permit the gelatin sponge to block the draining vessel. (B3) Lipiodol-ethanol mixture injection followed by gelatin sponge is shown
Fig. 3Intraarterial ethanol embolization with TACE in a 64-year-old male with HCC and PVTT (Vp3). (A1, A2) CT scan in the portal venous phase highlighting PVTT in the right portal vein (arrow) is shown; (A3) PVTT-feeding artery identified on CT. (B1) PVTT-feeding artery identified on DSA by superselective catheterization of the feeding artery using a microcatheter; (B2, B3) enhanced C-arm CT was performed to further confirm the PVTT-feeding artery; (C1-C3) axial CT showing lipiodol-ethanol mixture deposition within PVTT. (D1-D3) Follow-up images showing stable lipiodol-ethanol mixture deposition within PVTT at 3, 6, and 12 months after the operation
Baseline patient characteristics
| Variable | Treatment group ( | Control group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agea (year) | 54.29 ± 11.87 | 54.16 ± 13.42 | 0.96 |
| Genderb | 0.52 | ||
| Male | 25 (80.6) | 49 (86) | |
| Female | 6 (19.4) | 8 (14) | |
| Classification of PVTTb | 0.37 | ||
| Vp3 | 10 (32.3) | 24 (42.1) | |
| Vp4 | 21 (67.7) | 33 (57.9) | |
| ECOG performanceb | 0.43 | ||
| 0 | 17 (54.8) | 34 (59.6) | |
| 1 | 9 (29.1) | 20 (35.1) | |
| 2 | 5(16.1) | 3(5.3) | |
| Cause of liver diseaseb | 1.00 | ||
| HBV | 31 (100) | 57 (100) | |
| Other | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Liver Cirrhosisb | 0.75 | ||
| Absent | 8 (25.8) | 13 (22.8) | |
| Present | 23 (74.2) | 44 (77.2) | |
| Distant metastasisb | 0.53 | ||
| Lung | 2 (6.5) | 2 (3.5) | |
| Others | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Ascitesb | 0.71 | ||
| Absent | 26 (83.9) | 46 (80.7) | |
| Mild | 1(3.2) | 3(5.3) | |
| Moderate | 3(9.7) | 7(12.3) | |
| Massive | 1(3.2) | 1(1.7) | |
| Child-Pugh scoreb | 0.03 | ||
| A | 25 (80.6) | 33 (57.9) | |
| B | 6 (19.4) | 24 (42.1) | |
| Tumor descriptionb | 0.83 | ||
| Number of tumors | |||
| 1 | 6 (19.4) | 11(19.3) | |
| 2 | 4 (12.9) | 9(15.8) | |
| ≥ 3 | 21 (67.7) | 37 (64.9) | |
| Size of largest tumor, median (cm) | 7.00 | 8.5 | 0.34 |
| Angiography of PVTT feeding-artery | |||
| Timea (seconds) | 8.65 ± 1.74 | – | |
| Pressurea (MPa) | 243.55 ± 92.86 | – | |
| Speeda (ml/s) | 1.63 ± 0.43 | – | |
| Procedure | |||
| Total procedure Timea (hour) | 1.92 ± 0.62 | 0.62 ± 0.18 | < 0.001 |
| Alcohola (ml) | 7.77 ± 3.95 | – | |
| Epirubicina (mg) | 50.00 | 50.00 | |
| Number of sessions | 2.42 ± 1.71 | 1.89 ± 0.98 | 0.18 |
| Laboratory Tests | |||
| Total bilirubin levela (μmol/L) | 22.15 ± 12.63 | 20.91 ± 9.19 | 0.60 |
| Albumin levela (g/L) | 39.22 ± 8.12 | 41.68 ± 5.91 | 0.11 |
| α-Fetoproteinb (ng/mL) | 0.34 | ||
| < 200 | 10 (23.8) | 22 (38.6) | |
| 200–1000 | 4 (29) | 11 (19.3) | |
| > 1000 | 17 (42.9) | 24 (42.1) | |
| Prothrombin timea (seconds) | 12.86 ± 1.66 | 13.01 ± 1.17 | 0.42 |
| Thrombin timea (seconds) | 19.41 ± 2.35 | 19.71 ± 1.23 | 0.63 |
aMean ± standard deviation (SD); bn (%)
Comparison of primary and secondary outcomes between the treatment and control groups
| Outcome | Treatment group | Control group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor responseb | 0.61 | ||
| Complete response | 2 (7) | 6 (11.3) | |
| Partial response | 9 (31) | 5 (9.4) | |
| Stable disease | 12 (41.3) | 35 (66.1) | |
| Progressive disease | 6 (20.7) | 7 (13.2) | |
| Portal vein tumor thrombus responseb | < 0.001 | ||
| Grade 3 | 6 (20.7) | 1 (1.9) | |
| Grade 2 | 15 (51.7) | 6 (11.3) | |
| Grade 1 | 6(20.7) | 10 (18.9) | |
| Grade 0 | 2 (6.9) | 36 (67.9) | |
| Overall survival (%) | 0.001 | ||
| At 3-months | 90.3 | 59.6 | |
| At 6-months | 64.5 | 29.8 | |
| At 12-months | 41.9 | 10.6 |
Values are depicted as n (%)
bBefore the statistics were performed, two patients died in treatment group and control group, respectively
Fig. 4A graphical representation of the overall survival of patients in the two groups by the Kaplan-Meier method. a The total overall survival curve in the two groups. b The overall survival of patients diagnosed with Vp3 in the two groups. c The overall survival of patients with Vp4 in the two groups
Comparison of adverse events related to the procedure
| Adverse event | Treatment group | Control group |
|---|---|---|
| Fatigue | 16 | 18 |
| Gastrointestinal hemorrhage | 2 | 1 |
| Fever | 14 | 19 |
| Abdominal pain | 31 | 56 |
| Vomiting | 8 | 15 |
| Chest pain | 2 | 0 |
| Per procedure vomiting | 3 | 1 |
| Back pain | 12 | 7 |
| Loss of appetite | 2 | 8 |
| Total | 90 | 125 |