4.4 Article

Transcatheter arterial embolization with only particles for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2008.02.013

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To determine the survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with a standardized method of transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) with small embolic particles intended to impart terminal vessel blockade, and to evaluate prognostic factors that impact overall survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 322 patients with HCC who underwent 766 embolizations from January 1997 to December 2004 were retrospectively reviewed. Selective embolization of vessels feeding individual tumors was performed with small (50 mu m) polyvinyl alcohol or spherical embolic particles (40-120 mu M) intended to cause terminal vessel blockade. Repeat embolization was performed in cases of evidence of persistent viable tumor or development of new lesions. Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were prospectively recorded and tested for prognostic significance by univariate and multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The median survival time was 21 months, with 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival rates of 66%,46%, and 33%, respectively. In patients without extrahepatic disease or portal vein involvement by tumor, the overall 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival rates increased to 84%, 66%, and 51%, respectively. Okuda stage, extrahepatic disease, diffuse disease (>= 5 tumors), and tumor size were independent predictors of survival on multivariate analysis. There were 90 complications (11.9%) in 75 patients, including eight deaths (2.5%), within 30 days of embolization. CONCLUSIONS: Hepatic arterial embolization with small particles to cause terminal vessel blockade is an effective treatment method for patients with unresectable HCC. These data support our hypothesis that particles alone may be the critical component of catheter-directed embolotherapy.

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

4.4
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