4.2 Article

Transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma after transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt

Journal

ACTA RADIOLOGICA
Volume 53, Issue 5, Pages 545-550

Publisher

ROYAL SOC MEDICINE PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.1258/ar.2012.110476

Keywords

Liver; chemoembolization; interventional

Funding

  1. Asan Institute for Life Sciences [2010-482]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The decreased portal blood flow and the potential decrease in arterial nutrient hepatic blood flow after creation of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) makes the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) challenging. Purpose: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) after TIPS in patients with HCC. Material and Methods: From 1998 to 2009, 20 patients underwent selective (segmental or subsegmental) TACE for HCC after TIPS. Among 20 patients, seven patients had undergone one to three sessions of TACE for HCC before TIPS creation. TACE was performed using a mixture of iodized oil and cisplatin, and absorbable gelatin sponge particles. Tumor response, complications, and patient survival were evaluated after TACE. Results: After TACE, 14 of the 20 (70%) patients showed a tumor response, with only one (5%) experiencing a TACE-related major complication, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. None of the patients who underwent TACE after TIPS died within 30 days. During the follow-up period (range 2.2-107 months; mean 32.6 months), 18 patients died and two remained alive. The median survival period after TACE was 23 months. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that tumor stage was the only independent prognostic factor for patient survival (P = 0.049). Conclusion: Selective TACE may be safe and effective for the palliative treatment of HCC in patients with TIPS. Late tumor stage (>= III) was poor prognostic factor for determining the patient survival period after post-TIPS TACE.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available