4.4 Article

Salvage Therapy for Liver-dominant Colorectal Metastatic Adenocarcinoma: Comparison between Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization versus Yttrium-90 Radioembolization

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvir.2008.11.019

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: To compare transarterial chemoembolization (CE) versus yttrium-90 (Y-90) radioembolization (RE) for liver-dominant metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma as salvage therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 36 patients, 21 underwent CE (37 procedures; 11 men; mean age, 67 years; 16 with Child-Pugh class A disease) and 15 underwent Y-90 RE (19 procedures; 11 men; mean age, 64 years; 13 with Child-Pugh class A disease) for liver-dominant colorectal adenocarcinoma. Mean index dominant lesion sizes were 9.3 cm and 8.2 cm in the CE and RE groups, respectively. Multilobar disease was seen in 67% and 87% of the respective groups, and extrahepatic metastases were seen in 43% and 33%, respectively. Mean times from diagnosis of liver metastasis to CE or RE were 17.6 months and 22.6 months, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 37 CE procedures with cisplatin, doxorubicin, and mitomycin were performed, and 19 RE procedures with Y-90 were performed; 43% of patients in the CE group and 20% in the RE group received multiple treatment sessions, and 100% of procedures were technically successful. Median survival times were 7.7 months for the CE group and 6.9 months for the RE group (P = .27). The 1-, 2-, and 5-year survival rates were 43%, 10%, and 0%, respectively, in the CE group; and 34%,18%, and 0%, respectively, in the RE group. There was one major complication (2.7%) in the CE group (pulmonary embolism), with a 30-day mortality rate of 5.4% (n = 2). There were no major complications in the RE group, with a 30-day mortality rate of 5.2% (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with unresectable liver colorectal metastases that progress despite systemic chemotherapy can undergo palliative treatment with CE or RE with similar survival benefit.

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