Retrospective analysis of the efficacy and survival associated with cTACE and DEB-TACE in the palliative treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: experience of a tertiary care hospital in southern Brazil.

Q3 Medicine
Radiologia Brasileira Pub Date : 2024-05-07 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1590/0100-3984.2023.0105
Priscila Cavedon Fontana, Gabriela Perdomo Coral, Alex Finger Horbe, Raquel de Freitas Jotz, Beatriz Garcia de Morais, Angelo Alves de Mattos
{"title":"Retrospective analysis of the efficacy and survival associated with cTACE and DEB-TACE in the palliative treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: experience of a tertiary care hospital in southern Brazil.","authors":"Priscila Cavedon Fontana, Gabriela Perdomo Coral, Alex Finger Horbe, Raquel de Freitas Jotz, Beatriz Garcia de Morais, Angelo Alves de Mattos","doi":"10.1590/0100-3984.2023.0105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) and drug-eluting bead TACE (DEB-TACE) in terms of efficacy, survival, and adverse effects in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who are not candidates for curative therapy.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This was a retrospective study of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent cTACE or DEB-TACE for palliative treatment between January 2009 and December 2021. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis. Values of <i>p</i> < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We evaluated 268 patients, of whom 70 underwent DEB-TACE and 198 underwent cTACE. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding sex, age, or etiology of cirrhosis. The proportion of patients achieving a complete response on imaging examinations was higher in the cTACE group (31.8% vs. 16.1%), whereas that of patients achieving a partial response was higher in the DEB-TACE group (33.9% vs.19.7%), and the differences were significant (<i>p</i> = 0.014). The mortality rate was similar between the groups. The survival rate in the DEB-TACE and cTACE groups, respectively, was 87.0% and 87.9% at one year, 35.1% and 32.9% at three years, and 20.5% and 18.1% at five years (<i>p</i> = 0.661). There was no significant difference between the DEB-TACE and cTACE groups in terms of the frequency of adverse events (7.1% vs. 17.8%; <i>p</i> = 0.052). The most common complication in both groups was post-embolization syndrome.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although a complete response was more common among the patients who underwent cTACE, there was no difference in survival between the groups and the frequency of adverse events was similar.</p>","PeriodicalId":20842,"journal":{"name":"Radiologia Brasileira","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11235059/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiologia Brasileira","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-3984.2023.0105","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) and drug-eluting bead TACE (DEB-TACE) in terms of efficacy, survival, and adverse effects in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who are not candidates for curative therapy.

Materials and methods: This was a retrospective study of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent cTACE or DEB-TACE for palliative treatment between January 2009 and December 2021. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis. Values of p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results: We evaluated 268 patients, of whom 70 underwent DEB-TACE and 198 underwent cTACE. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding sex, age, or etiology of cirrhosis. The proportion of patients achieving a complete response on imaging examinations was higher in the cTACE group (31.8% vs. 16.1%), whereas that of patients achieving a partial response was higher in the DEB-TACE group (33.9% vs.19.7%), and the differences were significant (p = 0.014). The mortality rate was similar between the groups. The survival rate in the DEB-TACE and cTACE groups, respectively, was 87.0% and 87.9% at one year, 35.1% and 32.9% at three years, and 20.5% and 18.1% at five years (p = 0.661). There was no significant difference between the DEB-TACE and cTACE groups in terms of the frequency of adverse events (7.1% vs. 17.8%; p = 0.052). The most common complication in both groups was post-embolization syndrome.

Conclusion: Although a complete response was more common among the patients who underwent cTACE, there was no difference in survival between the groups and the frequency of adverse events was similar.

回顾性分析 cTACE 和 DEB-TACE 在肝细胞癌姑息治疗中的疗效和生存率:巴西南部一家三级医院的经验。
研究目的比较传统经动脉化疗栓塞术(cTACE)和药物洗脱珠TACE(DEB-TACE)对不适合根治性治疗的肝细胞癌患者的疗效、生存率和不良反应:这是一项回顾性研究,研究对象为2009年1月至2021年12月期间接受cTACE或DEB-TACE姑息治疗的肝细胞癌患者。采用 Kaplan-Meier 法进行生存分析。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义:我们对 268 名患者进行了评估,其中 70 人接受了 DEB-TACE 治疗,198 人接受了 cTACE 治疗。两组患者在性别、年龄和肝硬化病因方面无明显差异。cTACE 组在影像学检查中获得完全应答的患者比例更高(31.8% 对 16.1%),而 DEB-TACE 组获得部分应答的患者比例更高(33.9% 对 19.7%),且差异显著(P = 0.014)。两组的死亡率相似。DEB-TACE 组和 cTACE 组的一年生存率分别为 87.0% 和 87.9%,三年生存率分别为 35.1% 和 32.9%,五年生存率分别为 20.5% 和 18.1%(p = 0.661)。在不良事件发生频率方面,DEB-TACE 组和 cTACE 组没有明显差异(7.1% 对 17.8%;p = 0.052)。两组最常见的并发症都是栓塞后综合征:结论:虽然完全反应在接受cTACE治疗的患者中更为常见,但两组患者的存活率并无差异,不良反应发生率也相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Radiologia Brasileira
Radiologia Brasileira Medicine-Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
75
审稿时长
28 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信