Transarterial embolization is an acceptable bridging therapy to hepatocellular carcinoma prior to liver transplantation

G. Lazzarotto-da-Silva, L. Scaffaro, M. Farenzena, Lucas Prediger, R. K. Silva, F. Feier, T. Grezzana-Filho, Pablo D Rodrigues, Alexandre de Araujo, M. Álvares-da-Silva, Roberta C Marchiori, C. Kruel, M. Chedid
{"title":"Transarterial embolization is an acceptable bridging therapy to hepatocellular carcinoma prior to liver transplantation","authors":"G. Lazzarotto-da-Silva, L. Scaffaro, M. Farenzena, Lucas Prediger, R. K. Silva, F. Feier, T. Grezzana-Filho, Pablo D Rodrigues, Alexandre de Araujo, M. Álvares-da-Silva, Roberta C Marchiori, C. Kruel, M. Chedid","doi":"10.5500/wjt.v14.i2.90571","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\n Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an aggressive malignant neoplasm that requires liver transplantation (LT). Despite patients with HCC being prioritized by most organ allocation systems worldwide, they still have to wait for long periods. Locoregional therapies (LRTs) are employed as bridging therapies in patients with HCC awaiting LT. Although largely used in the past, transarterial embolization (TAE) has been replaced by transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). However, the superiority of TACE over TAE has not been consistently shown in the literature.\n AIM\n To compare the outcomes of TACE and TAE in patients with HCC awaiting LT.\n METHODS\n All consecutive patients with HCC awaiting LT between 2011 and 2020 at a single center were included. All patients underwent LRT with either TACE or TAE. Some patients also underwent percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI), concomitantly or in different treatment sessions. The choice of LRT for each HCC nodule was determined by a multidisciplinary consensus. The primary outcome was waitlist dropout due to tumor progression, and the secondary outcome was the occurrence of adverse events. In the subset of patients who underwent LT, complete pathological response and post-transplant recurrence-free survival were also assessed.\n RESULTS\n Twelve (18.5%) patients in the TACE group (only TACE and TACE + PEI; n = 65) and 3 (7.9%) patients in the TAE group (only TAE and TAE + PEI; n = 38) dropped out of the waitlist due to tumor progression (P log-rank test = 0.29). Adverse events occurred in 8 (12.3%) and 2 (5.3%) patients in the TACE and TAE groups, respectively (P = 0.316). Forty-eight (73.8%) of the 65 patients in the TACE group and 29 (76.3%) of the 38 patients in the TAE group underwent LT (P = 0.818). Among these patients, complete pathological response was detected in 7 (14.6%) and 9 (31%) patients in the TACE and TAE groups, respectively (P = 0.145). Post-LT, HCC recurred in 9 (18.8%) and 4 (13.8%) patients in the TACE and TAE groups, respectively (P = 0.756). Posttransplant recurrence-free survival was similar between the groups (P log-rank test = 0.71).\n CONCLUSION\n Dropout rates and posttransplant recurrence-free survival of TAE were similar to those of TACE in patients with HCC. Our study reinforces the hypothesis that TACE is not superior to TAE as a bridging therapy to LT in patients with HCC.","PeriodicalId":506536,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Transplantation","volume":"27 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Transplantation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5500/wjt.v14.i2.90571","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an aggressive malignant neoplasm that requires liver transplantation (LT). Despite patients with HCC being prioritized by most organ allocation systems worldwide, they still have to wait for long periods. Locoregional therapies (LRTs) are employed as bridging therapies in patients with HCC awaiting LT. Although largely used in the past, transarterial embolization (TAE) has been replaced by transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). However, the superiority of TACE over TAE has not been consistently shown in the literature. AIM To compare the outcomes of TACE and TAE in patients with HCC awaiting LT. METHODS All consecutive patients with HCC awaiting LT between 2011 and 2020 at a single center were included. All patients underwent LRT with either TACE or TAE. Some patients also underwent percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI), concomitantly or in different treatment sessions. The choice of LRT for each HCC nodule was determined by a multidisciplinary consensus. The primary outcome was waitlist dropout due to tumor progression, and the secondary outcome was the occurrence of adverse events. In the subset of patients who underwent LT, complete pathological response and post-transplant recurrence-free survival were also assessed. RESULTS Twelve (18.5%) patients in the TACE group (only TACE and TACE + PEI; n = 65) and 3 (7.9%) patients in the TAE group (only TAE and TAE + PEI; n = 38) dropped out of the waitlist due to tumor progression (P log-rank test = 0.29). Adverse events occurred in 8 (12.3%) and 2 (5.3%) patients in the TACE and TAE groups, respectively (P = 0.316). Forty-eight (73.8%) of the 65 patients in the TACE group and 29 (76.3%) of the 38 patients in the TAE group underwent LT (P = 0.818). Among these patients, complete pathological response was detected in 7 (14.6%) and 9 (31%) patients in the TACE and TAE groups, respectively (P = 0.145). Post-LT, HCC recurred in 9 (18.8%) and 4 (13.8%) patients in the TACE and TAE groups, respectively (P = 0.756). Posttransplant recurrence-free survival was similar between the groups (P log-rank test = 0.71). CONCLUSION Dropout rates and posttransplant recurrence-free survival of TAE were similar to those of TACE in patients with HCC. Our study reinforces the hypothesis that TACE is not superior to TAE as a bridging therapy to LT in patients with HCC.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经动脉栓塞是肝移植前可接受的肝细胞癌桥接疗法
背景 肝细胞癌(HCC)是一种需要进行肝移植(LT)的侵袭性恶性肿瘤。尽管全球大多数器官分配系统都优先考虑 HCC 患者,但他们仍需长期等待。局部疗法(LRT)被用作等待肝移植的 HCC 患者的过渡疗法。虽然经动脉栓塞(TAE)在过去被广泛使用,但现在已被经动脉化疗栓塞(TACE)所取代。然而,文献并未一致显示 TACE 优于 TAE。目的 比较 TACE 和 TAE 对等待 LT 的 HCC 患者的治疗效果。方法 纳入 2011 年至 2020 年期间在一个中心等待 LT 的所有连续 HCC 患者。所有患者均接受了 TACE 或 TAE LRT。部分患者还同时或在不同的治疗阶段接受了经皮乙醇注射(PEI)。每个 HCC 结节的 LRT 选择由多学科共识决定。主要结果是因肿瘤进展而退出候选名单,次要结果是发生不良事件。在接受LT治疗的患者中,还对完全病理反应和移植后无复发生存率进行了评估。结果 TACE 组(仅 TACE 和 TACE + PEI;n = 65)有 12 例(18.5%)患者因肿瘤进展退出候选名单,TAE 组(仅 TAE 和 TAE + PEI;n = 38)有 3 例(7.9%)患者因肿瘤进展退出候选名单(P log-rank 检验 = 0.29)。TACE组和TAE组分别有8名(12.3%)和2名(5.3%)患者发生不良事件(P = 0.316)。TACE组65名患者中有48名(73.8%)接受了LT治疗,TAE组38名患者中有29名(76.3%)接受了LT治疗(P = 0.818)。在这些患者中,TACE 组和 TAE 组分别有 7 例(14.6%)和 9 例(31%)患者检测到完全病理反应(P = 0.145)。LT后,TACE组和TAE组分别有9例(18.8%)和4例(13.8%)患者出现HCC复发(P = 0.756)。两组患者移植后无复发生存率相似(P log-rank 检验 = 0.71)。结论 在HCC患者中,TAE的辍学率和移植后无复发生存率与TACE相似。我们的研究证实了这样一个假设,即作为 HCC 患者通往 LT 的桥接疗法,TACE 并不优于 TAE。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Critical considerations for the management of acute abdomen in transplant patients Frequency of and reasons behind non-listing in adult patients referred for liver transplantation: Results from a retrospective study Impact of payment source, referral site, and place of residence on outcomes after allogeneic transplantation in Mexico Incidence, risk factors and clinical outcome of multidrug-resistant organisms after heart transplantation Whole-eye transplantation: Current challenges and future perspectives
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1