Su Ho Kim, Jung Suk Oh, Chang Ho Jeon, Ho Jong Chun, Byung Gil Choi
{"title":"动脉内灌注化疗联合脂肪碘与单纯动脉内灌注化疗治疗晚期肝细胞癌的临床效果和安全性对比。","authors":"Su Ho Kim, Jung Suk Oh, Chang Ho Jeon, Ho Jong Chun, Byung Gil Choi","doi":"10.1159/000541114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) in 2 groups of patients: those who receive lipiodol (referred to as the lipiodol group) and those who do not receive lipiodol (referred to as the control group).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From January 2016 through December 2023, 85 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma were enrolled in this retrospective study. In total, 40 patients received HAIC with lipiodol, while 45 patients were given HAIC without lipiodol. The modified response evaluation criteria for solid tumors were used to evaluate the tumor response, which was assessed through an imaging study. The two groups were compared regarding their overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The outcomes between the lipiodol group and control group demonstrated no significant difference: the objective response rates (p = 0.066) were 32.5% and 15.6%; the disease control rates (p = 0.556) were 67.5% and 73.3%; the median OS times (p = 0.339) were 224 days and 398 days; the median PFS (p = 0.334) times were 191 days and 286 days in the lipiodol group and the control group, respectively. Adverse events also showed no significant difference between the two groups: elevation of total bilirubin (p = 0.834) rates were 40.0% and 37.8%; elevation of alanine aminotransferase (p = 0.191) percentages were 35.0% and 22.2%; and elevation of aspartate aminotransferase values (p = 0.058) were 65.0% and 44.4% in the lipiodol group and the control group, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>HAIC without lipiodol was non-inferior to HAIC with lipiodol in the clinical outcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":19497,"journal":{"name":"Oncology","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Effects and Safety of Intra-Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy with Lipiodol versus Intra-Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy Alone for Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.\",\"authors\":\"Su Ho Kim, Jung Suk Oh, Chang Ho Jeon, Ho Jong Chun, Byung Gil Choi\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000541114\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) in 2 groups of patients: those who receive lipiodol (referred to as the lipiodol group) and those who do not receive lipiodol (referred to as the control group).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From January 2016 through December 2023, 85 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma were enrolled in this retrospective study. In total, 40 patients received HAIC with lipiodol, while 45 patients were given HAIC without lipiodol. The modified response evaluation criteria for solid tumors were used to evaluate the tumor response, which was assessed through an imaging study. The two groups were compared regarding their overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The outcomes between the lipiodol group and control group demonstrated no significant difference: the objective response rates (p = 0.066) were 32.5% and 15.6%; the disease control rates (p = 0.556) were 67.5% and 73.3%; the median OS times (p = 0.339) were 224 days and 398 days; the median PFS (p = 0.334) times were 191 days and 286 days in the lipiodol group and the control group, respectively. Adverse events also showed no significant difference between the two groups: elevation of total bilirubin (p = 0.834) rates were 40.0% and 37.8%; elevation of alanine aminotransferase (p = 0.191) percentages were 35.0% and 22.2%; and elevation of aspartate aminotransferase values (p = 0.058) were 65.0% and 44.4% in the lipiodol group and the control group, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>HAIC without lipiodol was non-inferior to HAIC with lipiodol in the clinical outcome.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19497,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oncology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000541114\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000541114","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Clinical Effects and Safety of Intra-Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy with Lipiodol versus Intra-Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy Alone for Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
Introduction: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) in 2 groups of patients: those who receive lipiodol (referred to as the lipiodol group) and those who do not receive lipiodol (referred to as the control group).
Methods: From January 2016 through December 2023, 85 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma were enrolled in this retrospective study. In total, 40 patients received HAIC with lipiodol, while 45 patients were given HAIC without lipiodol. The modified response evaluation criteria for solid tumors were used to evaluate the tumor response, which was assessed through an imaging study. The two groups were compared regarding their overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety.
Results: The outcomes between the lipiodol group and control group demonstrated no significant difference: the objective response rates (p = 0.066) were 32.5% and 15.6%; the disease control rates (p = 0.556) were 67.5% and 73.3%; the median OS times (p = 0.339) were 224 days and 398 days; the median PFS (p = 0.334) times were 191 days and 286 days in the lipiodol group and the control group, respectively. Adverse events also showed no significant difference between the two groups: elevation of total bilirubin (p = 0.834) rates were 40.0% and 37.8%; elevation of alanine aminotransferase (p = 0.191) percentages were 35.0% and 22.2%; and elevation of aspartate aminotransferase values (p = 0.058) were 65.0% and 44.4% in the lipiodol group and the control group, respectively.
Conclusions: HAIC without lipiodol was non-inferior to HAIC with lipiodol in the clinical outcome.
期刊介绍:
Although laboratory and clinical cancer research need to be closely linked, observations at the basic level often remain removed from medical applications. This journal works to accelerate the translation of experimental results into the clinic, and back again into the laboratory for further investigation. The fundamental purpose of this effort is to advance clinically-relevant knowledge of cancer, and improve the outcome of prevention, diagnosis and treatment of malignant disease. The journal publishes significant clinical studies from cancer programs around the world, along with important translational laboratory findings, mini-reviews (invited and submitted) and in-depth discussions of evolving and controversial topics in the oncology arena. A unique feature of the journal is a new section which focuses on rapid peer-review and subsequent publication of short reports of phase 1 and phase 2 clinical cancer trials, with a goal of insuring that high-quality clinical cancer research quickly enters the public domain, regardless of the trial’s ultimate conclusions regarding efficacy or toxicity.