{"title":"质子束治疗与射频消融治疗幼稚单细胞肝癌的疗效:倾向性评分分析。","authors":"Yuta Sekino, Ryosuke Tateishi, Nobuyoshi Fukumitsu, Toshiyuki Okumura, Kazushi Maruo, Takashi Iizumi, Haruko Numajiri, Masashi Mizumoto, Tatsuya Minami, Ryo Nakagomi, Masaya Sato, Yoshinari Asaoka, Hayato Nakagawa, Yuki Hayata, Naoto Fujiwara, Shuichiro Shiina, Kazuhiko Koike, Hideyuki Sakurai","doi":"10.1159/000528537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Proton beam therapy (PBT) is known to be an effective locoregional treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, few comparative studies in treatment-naïve cases have been reported. The aim of this study was to compare the survival outcomes of PBT with those of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with treatment-naïve solitary HCC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety-five consecutive patients with treatment-naïve HCC, a single nodule measuring ≤5 cm in diameter, and a Child-Pugh score of ≤8 who were treated with PBT at the University of Tsukuba Hospital between 2001 and 2013 were enrolled in the study. In addition, 836 patients with treatment-naïve HCC treated by RFA at the University of Tokyo Hospital during the same period were analyzed as controls. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared in 83 patient pairs after propensity score matching.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year RFS rates were 86.6%, 49.5%, and 35.5%, respectively, in the PBT group and 59.5%, 34.0%, and 20.9% in the RFA group (<i>p</i> = 0.058); the respective OS rates were 97.6%, 77.8%, and 57.1% in the PBT group and 95.1%, 81.7%, and 67.7% in the RFA group (<i>p</i> = 0.16). Regarding adverse effects, no grade 3 or higher adverse events were noted in the PBT; however, two grade 3 adverse events occurred within 30 days of RFA in the RFA group: one hemoperitoneum and one hemothorax.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>After propensity score matching, PBT showed no significant difference in RFS and OS compared to RFA. PBT can be an alternative for patients with solitary treatment-naïve HCC.</p>","PeriodicalId":18156,"journal":{"name":"Liver Cancer","volume":"12 4","pages":"297-308"},"PeriodicalIF":11.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/9a/7a/lic-0012-0297.PMC10561322.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Proton Beam Therapy versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Patients with Treatment-Naïve Single Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Yuta Sekino, Ryosuke Tateishi, Nobuyoshi Fukumitsu, Toshiyuki Okumura, Kazushi Maruo, Takashi Iizumi, Haruko Numajiri, Masashi Mizumoto, Tatsuya Minami, Ryo Nakagomi, Masaya Sato, Yoshinari Asaoka, Hayato Nakagawa, Yuki Hayata, Naoto Fujiwara, Shuichiro Shiina, Kazuhiko Koike, Hideyuki Sakurai\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000528537\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Proton beam therapy (PBT) is known to be an effective locoregional treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, few comparative studies in treatment-naïve cases have been reported. The aim of this study was to compare the survival outcomes of PBT with those of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with treatment-naïve solitary HCC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety-five consecutive patients with treatment-naïve HCC, a single nodule measuring ≤5 cm in diameter, and a Child-Pugh score of ≤8 who were treated with PBT at the University of Tsukuba Hospital between 2001 and 2013 were enrolled in the study. In addition, 836 patients with treatment-naïve HCC treated by RFA at the University of Tokyo Hospital during the same period were analyzed as controls. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared in 83 patient pairs after propensity score matching.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year RFS rates were 86.6%, 49.5%, and 35.5%, respectively, in the PBT group and 59.5%, 34.0%, and 20.9% in the RFA group (<i>p</i> = 0.058); the respective OS rates were 97.6%, 77.8%, and 57.1% in the PBT group and 95.1%, 81.7%, and 67.7% in the RFA group (<i>p</i> = 0.16). Regarding adverse effects, no grade 3 or higher adverse events were noted in the PBT; however, two grade 3 adverse events occurred within 30 days of RFA in the RFA group: one hemoperitoneum and one hemothorax.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>After propensity score matching, PBT showed no significant difference in RFS and OS compared to RFA. PBT can be an alternative for patients with solitary treatment-naïve HCC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18156,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Liver Cancer\",\"volume\":\"12 4\",\"pages\":\"297-308\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/9a/7a/lic-0012-0297.PMC10561322.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Liver Cancer\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000528537\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Liver Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000528537","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Proton Beam Therapy versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Patients with Treatment-Naïve Single Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Analysis.
Introduction: Proton beam therapy (PBT) is known to be an effective locoregional treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, few comparative studies in treatment-naïve cases have been reported. The aim of this study was to compare the survival outcomes of PBT with those of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with treatment-naïve solitary HCC.
Methods: Ninety-five consecutive patients with treatment-naïve HCC, a single nodule measuring ≤5 cm in diameter, and a Child-Pugh score of ≤8 who were treated with PBT at the University of Tsukuba Hospital between 2001 and 2013 were enrolled in the study. In addition, 836 patients with treatment-naïve HCC treated by RFA at the University of Tokyo Hospital during the same period were analyzed as controls. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared in 83 patient pairs after propensity score matching.
Results: The 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year RFS rates were 86.6%, 49.5%, and 35.5%, respectively, in the PBT group and 59.5%, 34.0%, and 20.9% in the RFA group (p = 0.058); the respective OS rates were 97.6%, 77.8%, and 57.1% in the PBT group and 95.1%, 81.7%, and 67.7% in the RFA group (p = 0.16). Regarding adverse effects, no grade 3 or higher adverse events were noted in the PBT; however, two grade 3 adverse events occurred within 30 days of RFA in the RFA group: one hemoperitoneum and one hemothorax.
Discussion: After propensity score matching, PBT showed no significant difference in RFS and OS compared to RFA. PBT can be an alternative for patients with solitary treatment-naïve HCC.
期刊介绍:
Liver Cancer is a journal that serves the international community of researchers and clinicians by providing a platform for research results related to the causes, mechanisms, and therapy of liver cancer. It focuses on molecular carcinogenesis, prevention, surveillance, diagnosis, and treatment, including molecular targeted therapy. The journal publishes clinical and translational research in the field of liver cancer in both humans and experimental models. It publishes original and review articles and has an Impact Factor of 13.8. The journal is indexed and abstracted in various platforms including PubMed, PubMed Central, Web of Science, Science Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded, Google Scholar, DOAJ, Chemical Abstracts Service, Scopus, Embase, Pathway Studio, and WorldCat.