4.3 Article

Outcomes After Transarterial Embolization of Neuroendocrine Tumor Liver Metastases Using Spherical Particles of Different Sizes

期刊

CARDIOVASCULAR AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY
卷 42, 期 4, 页码 569-576

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00270-018-02160-y

关键词

Neuroendocrine tumor; Carcinoid; Transarterial embolization; Particle size

资金

  1. NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant [P30 CA008748]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeTo evaluate initial response and overall survival of neuroendocrine tumor (NET) liver metastases initially treated with transarterial embolization (TAE) using spherical particles of different sizes.MethodsA single-institution retrospective review was performed of 160 patients with NET liver metastases initially treated with TAE using <100 mu m (n=77) or only100 mu m (n=83) spherical particles. For each patient, we evaluated: initial response by mRECIST, time to progression, overall survival, complications, primary site, tumor grade and degree of differentiation, volume of liver disease, extrahepatic disease, NET-related symptoms, comorbidities, Child-Pugh score, performance status, lobar versus selective embolization, and arteriovenous shunting.ResultsInitial response was higher for TAE using particles <100 versus TAE using only particles 100m (64 vs 42%, p=0.007). Multivariate logistic regression showed that use of particles <100m and liver <50% replaced with tumor were independent predictors of a better initial response rate. There was no difference in major or minor complications between the two particle size groups. Median overall survival after TAE was 55months for well- to moderately differentiated NET and 13months for poorly differentiated or undifferentiated NET. There was no significant difference in survival between TAE patients treated with <100 versus only 100-m particles.ConclusionNET patients treated with TAE using particles <100m had better initial response, but the same overall survival, compared to TAE using only particles 100m.

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

4.3
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