4.4 Article

Sorafenib in combination with transarterial chemoembolization improves the survival of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A propensity score matching study

Journal

JOURNAL OF DIGESTIVE DISEASES
Volume 14, Issue 4, Pages 181-190

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/1751-2980.12038

Keywords

hepatocellular carcinoma; sorafenib; survival; transarterial chemoembolization

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective This prospective non-randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the efficacy of sorafenib in combination with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) vsTACE alone for the treatment of patients with unresectable intermediate or advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods A total of 304 patients were enrolled, in which 82 received concurrent sorafenib (400mg orally twice daily, initiated within 14 days after TACE), and these patients were matched with 164 patients who received TACE alone at a 1:2 ratio using propensity score matching to minimize selection bias. The response to treatment, time-to-progression (TTP), overall survival (OS) as well as adverse events were compared between the two groups. Results During a median follow-up period of 21.4 weeks (range 0.5103 weeks), the addition of sorafenib prolonged TTP (6.3 vs 4.3 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.60, 95% CI 0.4220.853, P=0.004) and median survival (7.5 vs 5.1 months; HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.4230.884, P=0.009) compared with TACE alone. Significant prognostic factors for OS by multivariate analysis included the use of sorafenib, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage, metastasis/vascular invasion and Child-Pugh score. Conclusions The combined use of sorafenib and TACE was generally well tolerated and significantly improved OS and TTP compared with TACE alone in patients with intermediate or advanced HCC. Further studies are warranted to confirm the safety and efficacy of this combination therapy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available