恒瑞医疗 网址: www.hrmedical.com.cn

专业文献

载药微球经动脉化疗栓塞(tace) vs. 常规tace治疗有多次常规tace治疗史的肝细胞癌患者的疗效和安全性比较-ag捕鱼平台

文字: 2019-11-13    浏览次数:550    

abstract

this study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization (deb-tace) vs conventional tace (ctace) in hepatocellular carcinoma (hcc) patients with multiple ctace treatments history.

本研究旨在比较载药微球经动脉化疗栓塞(deb-tace)与常规tace (ctace)治疗有多次ctace治疗史的肝细胞癌(hcc)患者的疗效和安全性。

 

eighty-one hcc patients with multiple ctace treatments history who underwent deb-tace (n=42) and ctace treatment (n=39) were included in this retrospective cohort study and allocated to deb-tace and ctace groups accordingly. multiple ctace treatments history was defined as history of three or more cycles ctace treatments. then treatment responses were assessed according to the criteria of modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (mrecist), and progression free survival (pfs), as well as overall survival (os), was calculated. in addition, adverse events and liver function related indexes were recorded.

本回顾性队列研究共纳入了81例有多次ctace治疗史的hcc患者,将其分为deb-tace组和ctace组,分别接受deb-tace治疗(n=42)callispheres载药微球300~500μmctace治疗(n=39)。多次ctace治疗史定义为有三次或三次以上ctace治疗史。根据改良的实体瘤反应评估标准(mrecist)评估治疗反应,并分析无进展生存期(pfs)和总生存(os)。记录不良事件及肝功能相关指标。

 

complete response (p=.167) was of no difference while objective response rate (orr) (p=.003) was increased in deb-tace group compared with ctace group. patients in deb-tace group presented with more favorable pfs (p=.028) and os (p=.037) compared with ctace group. further analysis revealed that deb-tace (vs ctace) was an independent predictive factor for better orr (p=.001), pfs (p=.006) and os (p=.001). the albumin (alb) level at first month after treatment was elevated (p=.015) while the other liver function indexes levels did not vary (all p>.05) in deb-tace group compared with ctace group. the incidences of pain (p=.327), fever (p=.171) and nausea/vomiting (p=.400) during hospitalization were similar between the 2 groups.

deb-tace组与ctace组的完全缓解率无差异(p=.167),而deb-tace组客观缓解率增加(orr) (p=.003)。与ctace组相比,deb-tace组患者的pfs (p=.028)os (p=.037)更佳。进一步的分析显示,deb-tace (vs. ctace)是更好的orr (p=.001)pfs (p=.006)os (p=.001)的独立预测因素。与ctace组相比,deb-tace组治疗后第一个月白蛋白(alb)水平升高(p=.015),其他肝功能指标水平无变化(p>.05)。两组住院期间疼痛(p=.327)、发热(p=.171)、恶心/呕吐(p=.400)的发生率相似。

 

deb-tace is more efficient and equally tolerant compared with ctace in hcc patients with multiple ctace treatments history.

在有多次ctace治疗史的hcc患者中,deb-tacectace治疗更有效,且耐受性相当。