| Literature DB >> 33967266 |
Zhi-Juan Wu1, Yin-Fa Xie2, Xu Chang2, Lin Zhang2, Hui-Yong Wu2, Ji-Bing Liu2, Jian-Xin Zhang2, Peng Sun2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common tumors. Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the first choice of treatment for intermediate HCC and an important treatment option for advanced HCC. This retrospective study compared the prognosis between patients showing coagulative necrosis and patients showing liquefactive necrosis after the first TACE procedure. MATERIAL AND METHODS We divided 171 patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) Stage B or C HCC into 2 groups; a coagulative necrosis group (79 patients) and a liquefactive necrosis group (92 patients). The coagulative and liquefactive necroses were identified by computed tomography after the first TACE procedure. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to identify the differences in the overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between the 2 groups, and the associated risk factors and safety of TACE were analyzed. RESULTS The median OS durations were 23.27±1.40 months and 8.83±2.15 months (P=0.004) and the median PFS durations were 9.33±0.96 months and 3.70±0.44 months (P=0.002) in the coagulative necrosis and liquefactive necrosis groups, respectively. Intrahepatic in situ progression, new intrahepatic metastasis, and extrahepatic progression occurred significantly earlier in the liquefactive necrosis group (P<0.05). Univariate analysis and multivariate analyses showed liquefactive necrosis was the main risk factor for OS. There was no significant difference in the hepatic function impairment or post-embolism syndrome after TACE. CONCLUSIONS After the first TACE procedure, the patients with liquefactive necrosis experienced recurrence and metastasis earlier and had a worse prognosis. Therefore, these patients should be considered for earlier administration of targeted therapies or immunotherapies after TACE.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33967266 PMCID: PMC8120908 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.929884
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Figure 1Flowchart for patient selection.
Figure 2Coagulative necrosis: a compact deposition of the iodized oil is seen; coagulative necrosis is seen in >70% of the total necrotic area in the plane of the largest tumor.
Figure 3Liquefactive necrosis: liquefactive necrosis is seen in >30% of the total necrotic area in the plane of the largest tumor.
Baseline characteristics of the study population.
| Coagulative necrosis | Liquefactive necrosis | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| No. of patients | 79 (46.2%) | 92 (53.8%) | |
| Men | 73 (92.4%) | 79 (85.9%) | 0.225 |
| Women | 6 (7.6%) | 13 (14.1%) | |
| >60 years | 32 (40.5%) | 27 (29.3%) | 0.148 |
| <60 years | 47 (59.5%) | 65 (70.7%) | |
| >400 ng/ml | 47 (59.5%) | 50 (54.3%) | 0.538 |
| <400 ng/ml | 32 (40.5%) | 42 (45.7%) | |
| HBV or HCV | 69 (87.3%) | 75 (81.5%) | 0.401 |
| Liver cirrhosis | 38 (48.1%) | 45 (48.9%) | 1.00 |
| Class B (7–9) | 13 (16.5%) | 17 (18.5%) | 0.841 |
| Class A (5–6) | 66 (83.5%) | 75 (81.5%) | |
| Total bilirubin (umol/L) | 22.63±24.08 | 23.06±27.73 | 0.913 |
| Albumin (g/L) | 36.71±4.63 | 36.13±4.02 | 0.382 |
| Prothrombin time (s) | 11.62±1.37 | 11.42±1.31 | 0.342 |
| Ascites | 0.13±0.34 | 0.10±0.30 | 0.554 |
| Hepatic encephalopathy | 0 | 0 | - |
| Stage B | 18 (22.8%) | 11 (12.0%) | 0.068 |
| Stage C | 61 (77.2%) | 81 (88.0%) | |
| Extrahepatic metastasis | 14 (17.7%) | 26 (28.3%) | 0.147 |
| Intrahepatic vessel invasion | 53 (67.1%) | 73 (79.3%) | 0.082 |
| TACE frequency | 8.68±3.97 | 5.63±3.59 | 0.000 |
| Systemic therapy | 8 (10.1%) | 13 (14.1%) | 0.513 |
| Local therapy | 9 (11.4%) | 8 (8.7%) | |
| Dead | 70 (88.6%) | 79 (85.9%) | 0.652 |
| Censored | 9 (11.4%) | 13 (14.1%) | |
HBV – hepatitis B virus; HCV – hepatitis C virus; TACE – transarterial chemoembolization. P<0.05 was considered a statistically significant difference.
Baseline characteristics of the target lesions.
| Coagulative necrosis (n=79) | Liquefactive necrosis (n=92) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Location | |||
| Left lobe | 19 (24.1%) | 25 (27.2%) | 0.727 |
| Right lobe | 60 (75.9%) | 67 (72.8%) | |
| Maximum diameter | |||
| >10 cm | 34 (43.0%) | 53 (57.6%) | 0.067 |
| <10 cm | 45 (57.0%) | 39 (42.4%) | |
| Pseudocapsule | 54 (68.4%) | 60 (65.2%) | 0.745 |
| Portal vein tumor thrombus | 44 (55.7%) | 64 (69.6%) | 0.08 |
| Arteriovenous fistula | 14 (17.7%) | 22 (23.9%) | 0.352 |
P<0.05 was considered a statistically significant difference.
Figure 4Kaplan-Meier estimates of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).
Comparison of the prognosis for the coagulative necrosis and liquefactive necrosis groups.
| Coagulative necrosis group (months) (median±SD) | Liquefactive necrosis group (months) (median±SD) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall survival | 23.27±1.40 | 8.83±2.15 | 0.004 |
| Progression-free survival | 9.33±0.96 | 3.70±0.44 | 0.002 |
| Intrahepatic in situ progression | 12.23±1.74 | 5.53±1.29 | 0.008 |
| New intrahepatic metastasis | 14.33±1.32 | 7.20±0.66 | 0.009 |
| Extrahepatic progression | 15.27±3.24 | 6.67±1.29 | 0.011 |
SD – standard deviation. P<0.05 was considered a statistically significant difference.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of the factors affecting overall survival.
| Parameter | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hazard ratio | 95% CI | Hazard ratio | 95% CI | |||
| Necrosis type (liquefactive/coagulative) | 0.623 | 0.450–0.863 | 0.004 | 0.596 | 0.426–0.834 | 0.003 |
| Sex (Male/Female) | 1.354 | 0.823–2.226 | 0.231 | |||
| Age (>60 years/<60 years) | 1.232 | 0.879–1.727 | 0.226 | |||
| Hepatitis (present/absent) | 0.944 | 0.604–1.474 | 0.799 | |||
| Liver cirrhosis (present/absent) | 0.607 | 0.439–0.840 | 0.002 | 0.664 | 0.471–0.936 | 0.019 |
| Child-Pugh classification (B/A) | 0.194 | 0.126–0.300 | 0.000 | 0.210 | 0.134–0.329 | 0.000 |
| Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (stage C/stage B) | 0.780 | 0.510–1.193 | 0.250 | |||
| Maximum diameter (>10 cm/<10 cm) | 0.942 | 0.683–1.299 | 0.715 | |||
| Pseudocapsule (present/absent) | 0.994 | 0.702–1.408 | 0.972 | |||
| Alpha-fetoprotein (>400 ng/ml/<400 ng/ml) | 0.793 | 0.571–1.099 | 0.163 | |||
| Location (left lobe/right lobe) | 0.698 | 0.486–1.005 | 0.052 | 0.675 | 0.461–0.989 | 0.044 |
| Portal vein tumor thrombus (present/absent) | 0.700 | 0.501–0.978 | 0.036 | 0.910 | 0.629–1.315 | 0.615 |
| Arteriovenous fistula (present/absent) | 0.624 | 0.421–0.925 | 0.018 | 0.729 | 0.481–1.104 | 0.136 |
| Other treatments (present/absent) | 0.757 | 0.512–1.121 | 0.163 | |||
CI – confidence interval. P<0.05 was considered a statistically significant difference.
Treatment-related toxicities.
| Coagulative necrosis group (n=79) | Liquefactive necrosis group (n=92) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| ALT elevation | 29 (36.7%) | 27 (29.3%) | 0.330 |
| AST elevation | 28 (35.4%) | 37 (40.2%) | 0.532 |
| TB elevation | 16 (20.3%) | 22 (23.9%) | 0.586 |
| Nausea/vomiting | 11 (13.9%) | 8 (8.7%) | 0.333 |
| Abdominal pain | 19 (24.1%) | 17 (18.5%) | 0.452 |
| Fever | 4 (5.1%) | 11 (12.0%) | 0.174 |
ALT – alanine transaminase; AST – aspartate transaminase; TB – total bilirubin. P value <0.05 was considered a statistically significant difference.
Logistic regression analysis for factors affecting the type of necrosis.
| r | OR | OR 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tumor location | −0.137 | 0.872 | 0.418–1.819 | 0.715 |
| Tumor diameter | −0.653 | 0.521 | 0.268–1.010 | 0.54 |
| Pseudocapsule | 0.155 | 1.167 | 0.570–2.392 | 0.672 |
| Portal vein tumor thrombus | −0.622 | 0.141 | 0.235–1.228 | 0.141 |
| Liver cirrhosis | −0.006 | 0.994 | 0.513–1.927 | 0.987 |
| Arteriovenous fistula | −0.140 | 0.870 | 0.378–1.999 | 0.742 |
| Hepatitis | 0.305 | 1.357 | 0.518–3.554 | 0.534 |
| Alpha-fetoprotein | 0.436 | 1.547 | 0.784–3.053 | 0.209 |
| Gender | 1.069 | 2.913 | 0.939–9.029 | 0.064 |
| Age | 0.523 | 1.687 | 0.846–3.367 | 0.138 |
| Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging | −0.171 | 0.842 | 0.296–2.396 | 0.748 |
CI – confidence interval; OR – odds ratio; r – correlation coefficient. P<0.05 was considered a statistically significant difference.