4.3 Article

Cryotherapy is Associated with Improved Clinical Outcomes of Sorafenib Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

期刊

CELL BIOCHEMISTRY AND BIOPHYSICS
卷 63, 期 2, 页码 159-169

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12013-012-9353-2

关键词

Hepatocellular carcinoma; Sorafenib; Cryotherapy; Microvessel density; Efficacy; Safety

资金

  1. Key Scientific and Technological Research Foundation of the National Special-Purpose Program [2008ZX10002-018]
  2. Fund of Capital Medical Development and Research [2007-1021, 2009-2041]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We assessed the safety and efficacy of sorafenib with cryotherapy (cryoRx) in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). One hundred four HCC patients were enrolled, who met the following criteria: (i) Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C; (ii) HCC without distant metastasis; (iii) the presence of portal vein thrombosis (PVT); (iv) Child-Pugh class A or B; and (v) life expectancy of at least 12 weeks. The patients were randomly divided into sorafenib-cryoRx and sorafenib (control) groups. Primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP); secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and tolerability. Microvessel density (MVD) was assessed by CD34-immunostaining. After a median 10.5 (4-26) months follow-up, the data showed that median TTP was 9.5 (8.4-13.5) months in combinatorial therapy group vs. 5.3 (3.8-6.9) months in sorafenib group ( = 0.02). The median OS was 12.5 (95 % CI 10.6-16.4) months in combination therapy group vs. 8.6 (7.3-10.4) months in sorafenib group ( = 0.01). Low MVD patients in combination therapy exhibited significantly longer median TTP and OS than controls. High MVD was predictive of poor responses to sorafenib. CryoRx did not increase frequency/degree of sorafenib-related adverse events. Therefore, it was concluded that the addition of cryoRx significantly improved clinical outcomes of Sorafenib therapy in advanced HCC with acceptable tolerance and similar safety profiles as previously reported.

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

4.3
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