| Literature DB >> 35342396 |
Shaohua Li1,2, Min Deng1,2, Qiaoxuan Wang2,3, Jie Mei1,2, Jingwen Zou1,2, Wenping Lin1,2, Ming Shi1,2, Minshan Chen1,2, Wei Wei1,2, Rongping Guo1,2.
Abstract
Background: Transarterial infusion (TAI) chemotherapy with the FOLFOX regimen has shown good efficacy and safety in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, it has not been reported in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC).Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35342396 PMCID: PMC8941539 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2724476
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oncol ISSN: 1687-8450 Impact factor: 4.375
Clinical characteristics of patients.
|
| |
|---|---|
| Age (year) | 51.4 (28.0 – 67.0) |
| Sex | |
| Male | 21 (72.4%) |
| Female | 8 (27.6%) |
| WBC count (×109/L) | 7.8 ± 0.5 |
| NE count (×109/L) | 5.4 ± 0.5 |
| Hgb (g/L) | 133.6 ± 4.0 |
| PLT count (×109/L) | 258.6 ± 21.1 |
| ALT (U/L) | 25.15 (7.2 – 64.2) |
| ALB (g/L) | 42.3 ± 0.8 |
| TBil (umol/L) | 13.0 ± 1.0 |
| PT (s) | 12.1 ± 0.1 |
| CRE (umol/L) | 68.7 ± 3.1 |
| AFP (ng/ml) | 4.5 (1.14 – 18,596.0) |
| CA19-9 (U/ml) | 58.9 (0.6 – 20,000.0) |
| CEA (ng/ml) | 3.9 (1.02 – 169.8) |
| HBsAg | |
| Negative | 10 (34.5%) |
| Positive | 19 (65.5%) |
| Anti-HCV | |
| Negative | 29 (100.0%) |
| Positive | 0 (0.0%) |
| HBV-DNA | |
| ≤1 × 103 copies | 15 (51.7%) |
| >1 × 103 copies | 14 (48.3%) |
| Child–Pugh score | |
| 5 | 28 (96.6%) |
| 6 | 1 (3.4%) |
| Maximum diameter of tumor (cm) | 8.4 ± 0.6 |
| Tumor numbers | |
| Single | 12 (41.4%) |
| Multiple | 17 (58.6%) |
| Tumor distribution | |
| Unilobe | 18 (62.1%) |
| Bilobe | 11 (37.9%) |
| Macrovascular invasion | |
| Absent | 20 (69.0%) |
| Present | 9 (31.0%) |
| Distant metastasis | |
| Absent | 18 (62.1%) |
| Present | 11 (37.9%) |
Figure 1Survival analysis of patients. (a) OS of patients. (b) PFS of patients.
Figure 2Efficacy analysis of the 27 patients. The histograms show the rate of change of maximum tumor diameter according to mRECIST during FOLFOX chemotherapy.
Clinical characteristics of patients with tumor response and nonresponders.
| Responders ( | Nonresponder ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (year) | 56 (28.0 – 67.0) | 52 (32.0 – 60.0) | 0.269 |
| Sex | 0.204 | ||
| Male | 9 (90.0%) | 11 (64.7%) | |
| Female | 1 (10.0%) | 6 (35.3%) | |
| WBC count (×109/L) | 7.5 ± 0.5 | 7.9 ± 0.7 | 0.093 |
| NE count (×109/L) | 5.2 ± 0.5 | 5.5 ± 0.7 | 0.033 |
| Hgb (g/L) | 131.1 ± 5.6 | 136.4 ± 5.6 | 0.629 |
| PLT count (×109/L) | 260.9 ± 35.0 | 253.1 ± 29.6 | 0.483 |
| ALT (U/L) | 25.2 (14.8 – 53.8) | 23.3 (11.0 – 64.2) | 0.514 |
| ALB (g/L) | 41.6 ± 1.7 | 42.7 ± 0.9 | 0.250 |
| TBil (umol/L) | 13.8 ± 1.8 | 13.5 ± 1.4 | 0.999 |
| PT (s) | 12.4 ± 0.3 | 12.1 ± 0.2 | 0.156 |
| CRE (umol/L) | 75.6 ± 4.9 | 65.2 ± 3.7 | 0.967 |
| AFP (ng/ml) | 9.5 (2.7 – 18,596.0) | 4.2 (1.1 – 91.7) | 0.035 |
| CA19-9 (U/ml) | 17.85 (0.6 – 384.2) | 154.0 (0.7 – 20,000.0) | 0.016 |
| CEA (ng/ml) | 3.0 (1.0 – 169.8) | 5.4 (1.1 – 63.3) | 0.874 |
| HBsAg | 0.406 | ||
| Negative | 2 (20.0%) | 7 (41.2%) | |
| Positive | 8 (80.0%) | 10 (58.8%) | |
| HBV-DNA | 0.018 | ||
| ≤1 × 103 copies | 2 (20.0%) | 12 (70.6%) | |
| >1 × 103 copies | 8 (80.0%) | 5 (29.4%) | |
| Child–Pugh score | 0.370 | ||
| 5 | 9 (90.0%) | 17 (100.0%) | |
| 6 | 1 (10.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| Maximum diameter of tumor (cm) | 9.1 ± 1.1 | 8.0 ± 0.7 | 0.460 |
| Tumor numbers | 0.257 | ||
| Single | 6 (60.0%) | 6 (35.3%) | |
| Multiple | 4 (40.0%) | 11 (64.7%) | |
| Tumor distribution | 0.219 | ||
| Unilobe | 5 (50.0%) | 13 (76.5%) | |
| Bilobe | 5 (50.0%) | 4 (23.5%) | |
| Macrovascular invasion | 0.415 | ||
| Absent | 6 (60.0%) | 13 (76.5%) | |
| Present | 4 (40.0%) | 4 (23.5%) | |
| Distant metastasis | 0.230 | ||
| Absent | 8 (80.0%) | 9 (52.9%) | |
| Present | 2 (20.0%) | 8 (47.1%) | |
Figure 3Survival analysis of patients with tumor response and nonresponders. (a) OS of patients with tumor response and nonresponders. (b) PFS of patients with tumor response and nonresponders.