醫學研究

Embolization efficacy and treatment effectiveness of transarterial therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a case-controlled comparison of transarterial ethanol ablation with lipiodol-ethanol mixture versus transcatheter arterial chemoembolization

Yu SC, Hui JW, Hui EP, Mo F, Lee PS, Wong J, Lee KF, Lai PB, Yeo W.  J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009 Mar;20(3):352-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2008.12.407. Epub 2009 Jan 23. PMID: 19167240.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the embolization efficacy and treatment effectiveness of transarterial ethanol ablation (TEA) versus those of chemoembolization and evaluate the correlation between embolization efficacy and treatment effectiveness of these treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Materials and methods: A case-controlled study was undertaken with 30 patients in each group matched based on Child-Pugh grade, tumor characteristics, and performance status. Primary endpoints were embolization efficacy (ie, Lipiodol retention within tumor at 2 months) and treatment effectiveness as evaluated by tumor response, disease progression, progression-free survival, and overall survival. The secondary endpoint was correlation between embolization efficacy and treatment effectiveness.

Results: Lipiodol retention was greater in the TEA group (89.5% +/- 10.7% vs 47.5% +/- 21.2%; P < .0001). The tumor progression rate at 1 year was higher in the chemoembolization group (five of 30 vs zero of 30; P = .0261). One- and 2-year overall survival rates were higher in the TEA group (93.3% and 80.0%, respectively, vs 73.3% and 43.3%, respectively; P = .0053). One- and 2-year extrahepatic disease progression rates were lower in the TEA group (P = .0002). There were no differences in progression-free survival and intrahepatic disease progression rates at 1 and 2 years. Patients with greater Lipiodol retention (ie, >60%) had better treatment outcomes at 1 year than those with lesser retention, with higher overall survival rates (88.9% vs 66.7%; P = .0192), lower intrahepatic disease progression rates (25.6% vs 59.4%; P = .0169), lower extrahepatic disease progression rates (0.31% vs 35.5%; P = .0047), and higher progression-free survival rates (72.1% vs 36.3%; P = .005).

Conclusion: The embolization efficacy and treatment effectiveness of TEA are probably superior to those of chemoembolization for HCC.

Citation:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19167240/