Proton beam radiotherapy versus transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: Results of a randomized clinical trial

IF 6.1 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Cancer Pub Date : 2023-07-28 DOI:10.1002/cncr.34965
David A. Bush MD, Michael Volk MD, Jason C. Smith MD, Mark E. Reeves MD, PhD, Samrat Sanghvi MD, Jerry D. Slater MD, Michael deVera MD
{"title":"Proton beam radiotherapy versus transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: Results of a randomized clinical trial","authors":"David A. Bush MD,&nbsp;Michael Volk MD,&nbsp;Jason C. Smith MD,&nbsp;Mark E. Reeves MD, PhD,&nbsp;Samrat Sanghvi MD,&nbsp;Jerry D. Slater MD,&nbsp;Michael deVera MD","doi":"10.1002/cncr.34965","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>This study compares survival rates, recurrence patterns, toxicity, and treatment cost in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with either transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) or proton beam radiotherapy (PBT).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Subjects with untreated HCC meeting Milan or San Francisco transplant criteria were recruited. Subjects were randomized to receive PBT (<i>n</i> = 36) or TACE (<i>n</i> = 40). Proton therapy was administered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks to a total dose of 70.2 Gy. TACE was repeated until complete or maximal response. The primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), local control (LC), toxicity, and cost.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Of the 76 randomized patients, 74 were assessed for outcome measures. The 2-year OS for PBT versus TACE was similar at 68%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.54–0.86, and 65%, 95% CI, 0.52–0.83 (<i>p</i> = .80), however, median PFS was improved for PBT versus TACE (not reached vs. 12 months, <i>p</i> = .002). LC was improved with PBT versus TACE (hazard ratio, 5.64; 95% CI, 1.78–17.9, <i>p</i> = .003). Days of posttreatment hospitalization were 24 for PBT and 166 for TACE (<i>p</i> &lt; .001). Total mean cost per patient for treatment and posttreatment care revealed a 28% cost savings for PBT.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>PBT and TACE yielded similar OS for treatment of HCC, but PFS and LC were improved with PBT compared to TACE. Patients treated with PBT required fewer courses of treatment, fewer posttreatment hospitalization days, and reduced cost of treatment compared to TACE. These data support the use of PBT as a viable treatment alternative to TACE for patients with HCC within transplant criteria.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":138,"journal":{"name":"Cancer","volume":"129 22","pages":"3554-3563"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.34965","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background

This study compares survival rates, recurrence patterns, toxicity, and treatment cost in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with either transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) or proton beam radiotherapy (PBT).

Methods

Subjects with untreated HCC meeting Milan or San Francisco transplant criteria were recruited. Subjects were randomized to receive PBT (n = 36) or TACE (n = 40). Proton therapy was administered in 15 fractions over 3 weeks to a total dose of 70.2 Gy. TACE was repeated until complete or maximal response. The primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), local control (LC), toxicity, and cost.

Results

Of the 76 randomized patients, 74 were assessed for outcome measures. The 2-year OS for PBT versus TACE was similar at 68%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.54–0.86, and 65%, 95% CI, 0.52–0.83 (p = .80), however, median PFS was improved for PBT versus TACE (not reached vs. 12 months, p = .002). LC was improved with PBT versus TACE (hazard ratio, 5.64; 95% CI, 1.78–17.9, p = .003). Days of posttreatment hospitalization were 24 for PBT and 166 for TACE (p < .001). Total mean cost per patient for treatment and posttreatment care revealed a 28% cost savings for PBT.

Conclusions

PBT and TACE yielded similar OS for treatment of HCC, but PFS and LC were improved with PBT compared to TACE. Patients treated with PBT required fewer courses of treatment, fewer posttreatment hospitalization days, and reduced cost of treatment compared to TACE. These data support the use of PBT as a viable treatment alternative to TACE for patients with HCC within transplant criteria.

Abstract Image

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
肝细胞癌的质子束放射治疗与动脉化疗栓塞治疗:一项随机临床试验的结果。
背景:本研究比较了肝细胞癌(HCC)经动脉化疗栓塞(TACE)或质子束放射治疗(PBT)患者的生存率、复发模式、毒性和治疗成本。方法:招募符合米兰或旧金山移植标准的未经治疗的HCC患者。受试者随机接受PBT(n=36)或TACE(n=40)治疗。质子治疗在3周内分15次进行,总剂量为70.2 Gy。重复TACE,直到完全或最大反应。主要的结果指标是总生存率(OS)。次要终点是无进展生存期(PFS)、局部控制(LC)、毒性和成本。结果:在76名随机患者中,有74名患者接受了疗效评估。PBT与TACE的2年OS相似,分别为68%、95%可信区间(CI)0.54-0.86和65%、95%置信区间0.52-0.83(p=.80),与TACE相比,PBT的中位PFS得到改善(与12个月相比未达到,p=0.002)。与TACE比较,PBT改善了LC(危险比,5.64;95%CI,1.78-17.9,p=0.003)。治疗后住院天数为24天,TACE为166天(p结论:PBT和TACE治疗HCC的OS相似,但与TACE相比,PBT可改善PFS和LC。与TACE治疗相比,接受PBT治疗的患者所需疗程更少,治疗后住院天数更少,治疗成本更低teria。
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
Cancer
Cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
3.20%
发文量
480
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: The CANCER site is a full-text, electronic implementation of CANCER, an Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society, and CANCER CYTOPATHOLOGY, a Journal of the American Cancer Society. CANCER publishes interdisciplinary oncologic information according to, but not limited to, the following disease sites and disciplines: blood/bone marrow; breast disease; endocrine disorders; epidemiology; gastrointestinal tract; genitourinary disease; gynecologic oncology; head and neck disease; hepatobiliary tract; integrated medicine; lung disease; medical oncology; neuro-oncology; pathology radiation oncology; translational research
期刊最新文献
A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-relevant outcomes in comprehensive cancer centers versus noncomprehensive cancer centers. American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline update on palliative care for patients with cancer: Addressing the reality gap. Embrace with caution: The limitations of generative artificial intelligence in responding to patient health care queries. Expression of Concern. Global disparities in cancer care: Bridging the gap in affordability and access to medications between high and low-income countries.
×
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