4.7 Article

BCLC stage B hepatocellular carcinoma and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization: a 20-year survey by the Italian Liver Cancer group

期刊

LIVER INTERNATIONAL
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 223-231

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/liv.12649

关键词

BCLC algorithm; hepatocellular carcinoma; transcatheter arterial chemoembolization; treatment choice

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background & AimsSignificant proportion of Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) cases are diagnosed in stage B of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) algorithm, in which the standard of care is Transcatheter Arterial ChemoEmbolization (TACE). We aimed to ascertain adherence to current guidelines, survival and prognostic factors in BCLC stage B patients. MethodsFrom 3027 HCC cases recruited from 1986 to 2008 by the Italian Liver Cancer group (2430 with data allowing a correct allocation in the BCLC system), a retrospective analysis was conducted on those diagnosed in BCLC stage B (405 patients, 17%). Statistics were performed with Kaplan-Meier (log rank) method and Cox multivariate analysis. ResultsMedian overall survival in BCLC stage B patients was 25months (Confidence Interval - C.I. - 22-28months) with a 5-year survival of 18%. Child-Pugh class, oesophageal varices and Alpha-foetoprotein (AFP) were the independent predictors of survival. TACE was applied in 40% of cases and did not offer the longest survival in comparison with surgical or percutaneous treatments (median 27months vs. 37 and 36months, respectively) (P<0.001). BCLC stage B patients undergoing radical treatments were more frequently in Child-Pugh class A and had a significantly lower number of lesions; patients undergoing best supportive care were frequently in Child-Pugh class B and had a multifocal disease. Survival after TACE did not significantly increase over time. ConclusionsIn clinical practice, TACE cannot be considered the best approach for BCLC stage B patients who represent a heterogeneous population and are often suitable for more aggressive therapies, which lead to a better survival.

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

4.7
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