4.6 Article

Beneficial Effect of Maintaining Hepatic Reserve during Chemotherapy on the Outcomes of Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

期刊

LIVER CANCER
卷 6, 期 3, 页码 236-249

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000472262

关键词

Hepatocellular carcinoma; Hepatic reserve; Child-Pugh score; Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy; Sorafenib

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15H04809, 17K15934, 17K09414, 17K09413, 16H04695] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) usually develops in chronically damaged liver. We investigated hepatic reserves during chemotherapy of patients with advanced HCC and compensated liver function to evaluate the effect on patients' outcomes of maintaining hepatic reserve after chemotherapy. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 190 patients with Child-Pugh A with advanced HCC who were treated with sorafenib or hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC). We investigated the Child-Pugh score and albumin-bilirubin grade for hepatic reserve, and evaluated the effect of the change in Child-Pugh scores on patients' outcomes. Subjects were treated with sorafenib (n = 59) or HAIC (n = 131). Of patients with Child-Pugh data, 66.7% maintained or improved their Child-Pugh score after 4 weeks. Treatment with HAIC was the only factor that significantly contributed to maintaining Child-Pugh scores after 4 weeks. The overall survival of patients with a higher Child-Pugh score after 4 weeks was shorter than that of patients whose Child-Pugh classification was unchanged. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that an increased Child-Pugh score after 4 weeks was one of the independent unfavorable prognostic factors. The change of hepatic reserve as a function of albumin-bilirubin grade did not significantly correlate with patients' outcomes. Maintaining the Child-Pugh score during chemotherapy benefits the outcomes of patients with advanced HCC, even those with sufficient hepatic reserve. (C) 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.6
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