乙型肝炎病毒相关肝细胞癌和临床明显门脉高压症患者的部分肝切除术与介入治疗:随机比较临床试验。

IF 20.1 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Cancer Communications Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-25 DOI:10.1002/cac2.12614
Yichuan Yuan, Hong Peng, Wei He, Yun Zheng, Jiliang Qiu, Bin Chen, Ruhai Zou, Chenwei Wang, Wan Yee Lau, Binkui Li, Yunfei Yuan
{"title":"乙型肝炎病毒相关肝细胞癌和临床明显门脉高压症患者的部分肝切除术与介入治疗:随机比较临床试验。","authors":"Yichuan Yuan, Hong Peng, Wei He, Yun Zheng, Jiliang Qiu, Bin Chen, Ruhai Zou, Chenwei Wang, Wan Yee Lau, Binkui Li, Yunfei Yuan","doi":"10.1002/cac2.12614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The widely accepted view that portal hypertension (PHT) is a contraindication to hepatectomy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is being increasingly challenged. The long-term survival outcomes and safety of partial hepatectomy versus interventional treatment using ablation with or without pre-ablation transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with HBV-related HCC within the Milan criteria and with clinically significant PHT were compared in this study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted on consecutive patients with clinically PHT and hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related HCC with tumors which were within the Milan criteria. These patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either partial hepatectomy or interventional treatment between December 2012 and June 2018. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included recurrence-free survival (RFS) and therapeutic safety.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Each of the 2 groups had 80 patients. The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates in the partial hepatectomy group and the interventional treatment group were 95.0%, 86.2%, 69.5% versus 93.8%, 77.5%, 64.9%, respectively (P = 0.325). The corresponding RFS rates were 78.8%, 55.0%, 46.2% versus 71.3%, 52.5%, 45.0%, respectively (P = 0.783). The partial hepatectomy group had a higher complication rate compared to the interventional group (67.5% vs. 20%, P < 0.001). However, the differences were mainly in Clavien-Dindo Grade I complications (P < 0.001), while not significant in Grade II/III/IV/V (All P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study shows that partial hepatectomy treatment did not meet prespecified significance for improved OS and RFS compared to interventional treatment for patients with HBV-related HCC within the Milan criteria and with clinically significant PHT. However, partial hepatectomy is still a safe procedure and should be considered as a treatment option rather than a contraindication.</p>","PeriodicalId":9495,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Communications","volume":" ","pages":"1337-1349"},"PeriodicalIF":20.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cac2.12614","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Partial hepatectomy versus interventional treatment in patients with hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma and clinically significant portal hypertension: a randomized comparative clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Yichuan Yuan, Hong Peng, Wei He, Yun Zheng, Jiliang Qiu, Bin Chen, Ruhai Zou, Chenwei Wang, Wan Yee Lau, Binkui Li, Yunfei Yuan\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cac2.12614\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The widely accepted view that portal hypertension (PHT) is a contraindication to hepatectomy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is being increasingly challenged. The long-term survival outcomes and safety of partial hepatectomy versus interventional treatment using ablation with or without pre-ablation transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with HBV-related HCC within the Milan criteria and with clinically significant PHT were compared in this study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted on consecutive patients with clinically PHT and hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related HCC with tumors which were within the Milan criteria. These patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either partial hepatectomy or interventional treatment between December 2012 and June 2018. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included recurrence-free survival (RFS) and therapeutic safety.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Each of the 2 groups had 80 patients. The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates in the partial hepatectomy group and the interventional treatment group were 95.0%, 86.2%, 69.5% versus 93.8%, 77.5%, 64.9%, respectively (P = 0.325). The corresponding RFS rates were 78.8%, 55.0%, 46.2% versus 71.3%, 52.5%, 45.0%, respectively (P = 0.783). The partial hepatectomy group had a higher complication rate compared to the interventional group (67.5% vs. 20%, P < 0.001). However, the differences were mainly in Clavien-Dindo Grade I complications (P < 0.001), while not significant in Grade II/III/IV/V (All P > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study shows that partial hepatectomy treatment did not meet prespecified significance for improved OS and RFS compared to interventional treatment for patients with HBV-related HCC within the Milan criteria and with clinically significant PHT. However, partial hepatectomy is still a safe procedure and should be considered as a treatment option rather than a contraindication.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9495,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer Communications\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1337-1349\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":20.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cac2.12614\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer Communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/cac2.12614\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Communications","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cac2.12614","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:门静脉高压(PHT)是肝细胞癌(HCC)患者肝切除术的禁忌症,这一被广泛接受的观点正受到越来越多的质疑。本研究比较了对符合米兰标准的 HBV 相关 HCC 患者进行肝部分切除术与使用消融术(或不使用消融术前经动脉化疗栓塞术(TACE))进行介入治疗的长期生存效果和安全性:这项开放标签随机临床试验的对象是符合米兰标准的临床PHT和乙型肝炎病毒(HBV)相关HCC患者。这些患者在2012年12月至2018年6月期间以1:1的比例随机接受肝部分切除术或介入治疗。主要终点是总生存期(OS);次要终点包括无复发生存期(RFS)和治疗安全性:两组各有80名患者。肝部分切除术组和介入治疗组的1年、3年和5年OS率分别为95.0%、86.2%和69.5%,而介入治疗组分别为93.8%、77.5%和64.9%(P = 0.325)。相应的 RFS 率分别为 78.8%、55.0%、46.2% 与 71.3%、52.5%、45.0%(P = 0.783)。与介入治疗组相比,肝部分切除术组的并发症发生率更高(67.5% 对 20%,P < 0.001)。然而,差异主要体现在 Clavien-Dindo I 级并发症上(P < 0.001),而 II/III/IV/V 级并发症的差异并不显著(所有 P > 0.05):本研究表明,与介入治疗相比,对符合米兰标准的HBV相关HCC患者进行肝部分切除术治疗并不能显著改善OS和RFS。不过,肝部分切除术仍是一种安全的手术,应被视为一种治疗选择而非禁忌症。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Partial hepatectomy versus interventional treatment in patients with hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma and clinically significant portal hypertension: a randomized comparative clinical trial.

Partial hepatectomy versus interventional treatment in patients with hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma and clinically significant portal hypertension: a randomized comparative clinical trial.

Background: The widely accepted view that portal hypertension (PHT) is a contraindication to hepatectomy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is being increasingly challenged. The long-term survival outcomes and safety of partial hepatectomy versus interventional treatment using ablation with or without pre-ablation transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with HBV-related HCC within the Milan criteria and with clinically significant PHT were compared in this study.

Methods: This open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted on consecutive patients with clinically PHT and hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related HCC with tumors which were within the Milan criteria. These patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either partial hepatectomy or interventional treatment between December 2012 and June 2018. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included recurrence-free survival (RFS) and therapeutic safety.

Results: Each of the 2 groups had 80 patients. The 1-, 3- and 5-year OS rates in the partial hepatectomy group and the interventional treatment group were 95.0%, 86.2%, 69.5% versus 93.8%, 77.5%, 64.9%, respectively (P = 0.325). The corresponding RFS rates were 78.8%, 55.0%, 46.2% versus 71.3%, 52.5%, 45.0%, respectively (P = 0.783). The partial hepatectomy group had a higher complication rate compared to the interventional group (67.5% vs. 20%, P < 0.001). However, the differences were mainly in Clavien-Dindo Grade I complications (P < 0.001), while not significant in Grade II/III/IV/V (All P > 0.05).

Conclusions: This study shows that partial hepatectomy treatment did not meet prespecified significance for improved OS and RFS compared to interventional treatment for patients with HBV-related HCC within the Milan criteria and with clinically significant PHT. However, partial hepatectomy is still a safe procedure and should be considered as a treatment option rather than a contraindication.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cancer Communications
Cancer Communications Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Cancer Research
CiteScore
25.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
153
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊介绍: Cancer Communications is an open access, peer-reviewed online journal that encompasses basic, clinical, and translational cancer research. The journal welcomes submissions concerning clinical trials, epidemiology, molecular and cellular biology, and genetics.
×
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