4.7 Article

Phase III HEAT Study Adding Lyso-Thermosensitive Liposomal Doxorubicin to Radiofrequency Ablation in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Lesions

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 24, 期 1, 页码 73-83

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2433

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Celsion Corporation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Lyso-thermosensitive liposomal doxorubicin (LTLD) consists of doxorubicin contained within a heat-sensitive liposome. When heated to >= 40 degrees C, LTLD locally releases a high concentration of doxorubicin. We aimed to determine whether adding LTLD improves the efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) lesions with a maximum diameter (dmax) of 3 to 7 cm. Experimental Design: The HEAT Study was a randomized, double-blind, dummy-controlled trial of RFA +/- LTLD. The 701 enrolled patients had to have <= 4 unresectable HCC lesions, at least one of which had a dmax of 3 to 7 cm. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and a key secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Post hoc subset analyses investigated whether RFA duration was associated with efficacy. Results: The primary endpoint was not met; in intention-totreat analysis, the PFS HR of RFA thorn LTLD versus RFA alone was 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.79-1.18; P = 0.71], and the OS HR ratio was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.76-1.20; P = 0.67). Among 285 patients with a solitary HCC lesion who received >= 45 minutes RFA dwell time, theOSHRwas 0.63 (95% CI, 0.41-0.96; P < 0.05) in favor of combination therapy. RFA thorn LTLD had reversible myelosuppression similar to free doxorubicin. Conclusions: Adding LTLD to RFA was safe but did not increase PFS or OS in the overall study population. However, consistent with LTLD's heat-based mechanism of action, subgroup analysis suggested that RFA thorn LTLD efficacy is improved when RFA dwell time for a solitary lesion >= 45 minutes. (C) 2017 AACR.

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

4.7
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