4.5 Article

Antitumor efficacy of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization with warmed miriplatin in hepatocellular carcinoma

期刊

HEPATOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 43, 期 9, 页码 942-949

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/hepr.12041

关键词

hepatocellular carcinoma; miriplatin; transcatheter arterial chemoembolization

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: Patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) often undergo transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE). Miriplatin is a lipophilic cisplatin derivative used in TACE that is effective in HCC. However, the difference in antitumor efficacy between warmed versus room temperature miriplatin is unclear. Methods: Chemotherapy efficacy was evaluated by dynamic computed tomography 1-3 months after TACE, according to the Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. A total of 203 patients with HCC who received TACE with miriplatin for the first time were included in a follow-up study to retrospectively investigate its efficacy and safety. Overall, 45 patients underwent TACE with warmed (40 degrees C) miriplatin and 158 patients received TACE with room temperature miriplatin. Results: Seventy patients (44.3%) treated with room temperature miriplatin and 32 patients (71.1%) who received warmed miriplatin experienced complete or partial responses. Multivariate analysis identified miriplatin temperature (warmed miriplatin, risk ratio (RR)=2.26, P=0.047), tumor number (solitary, RR=3.48, P=0.007), -fetoprotein (AFP) level (<50ng/mL, RR=2.35, P=0.012) and history of TACE (no history, RR=2.22, P=0.041) as predictors of objective response following TACE with miriplatin, and no serious complications were observed. Conclusion: Warm temperature, solitary tumors, low AFP level and first TACE are significant and independent predictors of objective response after TACE using miriplatin. These results suggest that warmed miriplatin can be considered as one of the standard treatments for unresectable HCC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据