4.8 Article

Transarterial chemotherapy alone versus transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: A randomized phase III trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
卷 51, 期 6, 页码 1030-1036

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2009.09.004

关键词

Zinostatin stimalamer; Survival benefit; Overall survival; Lipiodol emulsion; Gelatin sponge

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare of Japan [11-15]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Aims: Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) is a combination of transarterial infusion chemotherapy (TAI) and embolization, and has been widely used to treat patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, since the impact of adding embolization on the survival of patients treated with TAI had never been evaluated in a phase III study, we conducted a multi-center, open-label trial comparing TACE and TAI to assess the effect of adding embolization on survival. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed unresectable HCC were randomly assigned to either a TACE group or a TAI group. Zinostatin stimalamer was injected into the hepatic artery, together with gelatin sponge in the TACE group and without gelatin sponge in the TAI group. Treatment was repeated when follow-up computed tomography showed the appearance of new lesions in the liver or re-growth of previously treated tumors. Results: Seventy-nine patients were assigned to the TACE group, and 82 were assigned to the TAI group. The two groups were comparable with respect to their baseline characteristics. At the time of the analysis, 51 patients in the TACE group and 58 in the TAI group had died. The median overall survival time was 646 days in the TACE group and 679 days in the TAI group (p = 0.383). Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that treatment intensification by adding embolization did not increase survival over TAI with zinostatin stimalamer alone in patients with HCC. (C) 2009 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据