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。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY Oncology Pub Date : 2024-09-13 DOI:10.1159/000541114
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言 本研究旨在评估肝动脉灌注化疗(HAIC)在两组患者中的有效性和安全性:接受脂肪碘醇治疗的患者(简称脂肪碘醇组)和未接受脂肪碘醇治疗的患者(简称对照组)。方法 从 2016 年 1 月到 2023 年 12 月,85 名晚期肝细胞癌患者被纳入这项回顾性研究。其中,40名患者接受了含脂肪碘的HAIC治疗,45名患者接受了不含脂肪碘的HAIC治疗。实体瘤的改良反应评估标准用于评估肿瘤反应,并通过影像学研究进行评估。比较了两组患者的总生存期、无进展生存期和安全性。结果脂肪碘醇组和对照组的结果无显著差异:客观反应率(P = 0.066)分别为32.5%和15.6%;疾病控制率(P = 0.556)分别为67.5%和73.3%;中位总生存时间(P = 0.339)分别为224天和398天;脂肪碘醇组和对照组的中位无进展生存时间(P = 0.334)分别为191天和286天。两组的不良反应也无明显差异:总胆红素升高(P = 0.834)率分别为 40.0% 和 37.8%;丙氨酸氨基转移酶升高(P = 0.191)率分别为 35.0% 和 22.2%;天冬氨酸氨基转移酶值升高(P = 0.058)率分别为 65.0% 和 44.4%。结论就临床结果而言,不使用脂肪碘醇的HAIC不劣于使用脂肪碘醇的HAIC。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
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.

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
Oncology
Oncology 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
2.90%
发文量
76
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Alternative palbociclib dosing schedules for hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Predicting High-Risk Patients with Lung Adenocarcinoma: The Power of Plasma Cell-Related Genes. Characteristics of HCC patients with portal vein thrombosis: albumin and survival. Comparing the efficacy of a triplet antiemetic regimen in patients with esophageal cancer patients and diabetes mellitus treated with cisplatin-based chemotherapy: A retrospective study. Survival outcomes of Durvalumab in combination to cisplatin and gemcitabine in advanced biliary tract cancer: real world results from a single Italian institution.
×
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