| Literature DB >> 35463654 |
Sipan Chen1, Yaobo Yang1, Yang Jiao1, Lei Hou2, Hulin Chang3, Sida Liu4, Zhaoyong Yan1.
Abstract
We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE) in the treatment of colorectal cancer liver metastasis. A total of 120 patients with colorectal cancer liver metastasis were divided into the TACE group (receiving TACE treatment, n = 60) and the DEB-TACE group (receiving DEB-TACE treatment, n = 60). At 1 month after treatment, the objective response rate (ORR) in the TACE group and DEB-TACE group were 65.0% (39/60) and 78.3% (47/60), respectively, and the disease control rate (DCR) was 78.3% (47/60) and 85.0% (51/60), respectively. Three months later, the ORRs in TACE and DEB-TACE groups were 63.3% (38/60) and 75.0% (45/60), and the DCRs were 76.7% (46/60) and 81.7% (49/60). We showed that the 1-year overall survival (OS) in TACE and DEB-TACE groups were 100% (60/60) and 88.3% (53/60), respectively, and the 2-year OS were 78.3% (47/60) and 61.7% (37/60). Further analysis indicated that the OS in the DEB-TACE group was significantly longer than that in the TACE group (P = 0.045). DEB-TACE is effective, safe, and feasible in the treatment of colorectal cancer liver metastasis, which can effectively improve the survival of patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35463654 PMCID: PMC9020930 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4930047
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 3.822
Demographics and general clinical data of all studied patients.
| Parameters | TACE group | DEB-TACE group |
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||
| Gender (male/female) | 37/23 | 32/28 | 0.460 |
| Age (years) | 51.59 ± 9.47 | 53.18 ± 9.84 | 0.369 |
| Primary tumor | 0.574 | ||
| Colon | 35 (58.3%) | 39 (65.0%) | |
| Rectum | 25 (41.7%) | 21 (35.0%) | |
| Number of liver tumors | 0.447 | ||
| Single | 19 (31.7%) | 24 (40.0%) | |
| Multiple | 41 (68.3%) | 36 (60.0%) | |
| Largest tumor diameter (cm) | 10.28 ± 2.56 | 10.56 ± 2.61 | 0.554 |
| Child–Pugh grading | 0.562 | ||
| A | 42 (70.0%) | 38 (63.3%) | |
| B | 18 (30.0%) | 22 (36.7%) | |
| ECOG (points) | 0.693 | ||
| 0 | 17 (28.3%) | 20 (33.3%) | |
| 1 | 43 (71.7%) | 40 (66.7%) |
Analyses of clinical efficacy.
| TACE group | DEB-TACE group |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 month postoperative | |||
| CR | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.7%) | |
| PR | 39 (65.0%) | 46 (76.7%) | |
| SD | 8 (13.3%) | 4 (6.7%) | |
| PD | 13 (21.7%) | 9 (15.0%) | |
| ORR | 39 (65.0%) | 47 (78.3%) | 0.156 |
| DCR | 47 (78.3%) | 51 (85.0%) | 0.480 |
| 3 months postoperative | |||
| CR | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.7%) | |
| PR | 38 (63.3%) | 44 (73.3%) | |
| SD | 8 (13.3%) | 5 (8.3%) | |
| PD | 14 (23.3%) | 11 (18.3%) | |
| ORR | 38 (63.3%) | 45 (75.0%) | 0.235 |
| DCR | 46 (76.7%) | 49 (81.7%) | 0.654 |
Analyses of side effects.
| TACE group | DEB-TACE group |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abdominal pain | 31 (51.7%) | 18 (30.0%) | 0.025 |
| Fever | 19 (31.7%) | 15 (25.0%) | 0.517 |
| Nausea and vomiting | 23 (38.3%) | 20 (33.3%) | 0.416 |
| Diarrhea | 24 (40.0%) | 14 (23.3%) | 0.077 |
| Fatigue | 25 (41.7%) | 15 (25.0%) | 0.081 |
| Leukopenia | 17 (28.3%) | 5 (8.3%) | 0.008 |
| Anemia | 26 (43.3%) | 11 (18.3%) | 0.005 |
| Thrombocytopenia | 22 (33.3%) | 6 (10.0%) | 0.001 |
| Liver function damage | 33 (55.0%) | 16 (26.7%) | 0.003 |
Figure 1The survival analysis of the patients in the 2 groups. The overall survival rate in the DEB-TACE group was superior to that in the TACE group (P = 0.045).