Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus lenvatinib for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis: a propensity matching score analysis.

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Xiaoquan Ji, Aimin Zhang, Xuezhang Duan, Quan Wang
{"title":"Stereotactic body radiotherapy versus lenvatinib for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis: a propensity matching score analysis.","authors":"Xiaoquan Ji, Aimin Zhang, Xuezhang Duan, Quan Wang","doi":"10.1186/s13014-024-02527-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>The purpose of this study was to investigate the survival benefit of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) versus lenvatinib as first-line therapy in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>147 HCC patients with PVTT were included in this retrospective study, 70 were treated with SBRT and 77 of were treated with lenvatinib. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was employed to balance the differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) were compared between the two groups. In addition, the safety of patients in both groups was also evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After PSM, 38 patients were matched in each of the two groups. The median OS was 14.5 (95% CI: 10.1-18.9) and 11.1 (95% CI: 9.3-12.9) months in the SBRT and lenvatinib groups, respectively (P = 0.014). The median PFS was 6.8 (95% CI: 5.1-8.5) and 5.0 (95% CI: 3.0-7.0) months, respectively (P = 0.010). The 1-, 2-years OS rates in the two groups were 65.8% vs. 39.5% and 31.6% vs. 10.5%, respectively. The 6-, 12-months PFS rates in the two groups were 57.9% vs. 44.7% and 28.9% vs. 10.5%, respectively. In addition, the SBRT group had a better ORR than the lenvatinib group (52.6% vs. 23.7%, P = 0.009). Patients with good response to SBRT had better survival. Cox proportional hazard model showed that SBRT was an important prognostic factor for OS and PFS. The incidence of hypertension (34.2% vs. 0%) was higher in the LEN group, however, both treatment modalities were well tolerated in the two groups of patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In HCC patients with PVTT, SBRT had a better survival benefit than Lenvatinib treatment as first-line therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":49639,"journal":{"name":"Radiation Oncology","volume":"19 1","pages":"143"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11468427/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiation Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-024-02527-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the survival benefit of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) versus lenvatinib as first-line therapy in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT).

Materials and methods: 147 HCC patients with PVTT were included in this retrospective study, 70 were treated with SBRT and 77 of were treated with lenvatinib. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was employed to balance the differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) were compared between the two groups. In addition, the safety of patients in both groups was also evaluated.

Results: After PSM, 38 patients were matched in each of the two groups. The median OS was 14.5 (95% CI: 10.1-18.9) and 11.1 (95% CI: 9.3-12.9) months in the SBRT and lenvatinib groups, respectively (P = 0.014). The median PFS was 6.8 (95% CI: 5.1-8.5) and 5.0 (95% CI: 3.0-7.0) months, respectively (P = 0.010). The 1-, 2-years OS rates in the two groups were 65.8% vs. 39.5% and 31.6% vs. 10.5%, respectively. The 6-, 12-months PFS rates in the two groups were 57.9% vs. 44.7% and 28.9% vs. 10.5%, respectively. In addition, the SBRT group had a better ORR than the lenvatinib group (52.6% vs. 23.7%, P = 0.009). Patients with good response to SBRT had better survival. Cox proportional hazard model showed that SBRT was an important prognostic factor for OS and PFS. The incidence of hypertension (34.2% vs. 0%) was higher in the LEN group, however, both treatment modalities were well tolerated in the two groups of patients.

Conclusion: In HCC patients with PVTT, SBRT had a better survival benefit than Lenvatinib treatment as first-line therapy.

立体定向体放射治疗与来伐替尼治疗伴有门静脉肿瘤血栓的肝细胞癌:倾向匹配评分分析。
背景和目的:本研究旨在探讨立体定向体外放射治疗(SBRT)与来伐替尼作为一线疗法治疗伴有门静脉肿瘤血栓形成(PVTT)的肝细胞癌(HCC)的生存获益。研究采用倾向评分匹配(PSM)分析法来平衡两组患者基线特征的差异。比较了两组患者的总生存期(OS)、无进展生存期(PFS)和客观反应率(ORR)。此外,还对两组患者的安全性进行了评估:PSM 后,两组各有 38 名患者配型成功。SBRT组和来伐替尼组的中位OS分别为14.5个月(95% CI:10.1-18.9)和11.1个月(95% CI:9.3-12.9)(P = 0.014)。中位PFS分别为6.8个月(95% CI:5.1-8.5)和5.0个月(95% CI:3.0-7.0)(P = 0.010)。两组患者的1年和2年OS率分别为65.8% vs. 39.5%和31.6% vs. 10.5%。两组的6个月和12个月PFS率分别为57.9%对44.7%和28.9%对10.5%。此外,SBRT组的ORR优于来伐替尼组(52.6% vs. 23.7%,P = 0.009)。对SBRT反应良好的患者生存率更高。Cox比例危险模型显示,SBRT是OS和PFS的重要预后因素。LEN组的高血压发生率更高(34.2% vs. 0%),但两组患者对两种治疗方式的耐受性都很好:结论:在PVTT的HCC患者中,SBRT作为一线疗法比伦伐替尼治疗的生存获益更好。
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
Radiation Oncology
Radiation Oncology ONCOLOGY-RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.80%
发文量
181
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Radiation Oncology encompasses all aspects of research that impacts on the treatment of cancer using radiation. It publishes findings in molecular and cellular radiation biology, radiation physics, radiation technology, and clinical oncology.
×
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