4.5 Article

Surgical resection improves the survival of selected hepatocellular carcinoma patients in Barcelona clinic liver cancer stage C

期刊

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
卷 45, 期 6, 页码 510-515

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2012.10.019

关键词

BCLC stage C; Child-Pugh class A; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Sorafenib; Surgical resection

资金

  1. Chang Gung Memorial Hospital [CMRPG:870581]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Sorafenib is the only approved agent recommended by the American Association Study of Liver Disease guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma patients in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C. Aims: To calculate and compare overall survival rates in hepatocellular carcinoma patients in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C treated with various therapies or supportive care alone. Methods: This was a retrospective study, in which medical data from 411 newly diagnosed hepatocellular carcinoma patients in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C and Child-Pugh class A were analyzed and compared. Results: Eighty-eight patients were treated with supportive care and 323 were treated with surgical resection (68/323, 21.1%), local ablation therapy (8/323, 2.5%), transarterial embolization (140/323, 43.3%), systemic chemotherapy or radiotherapy (96/323, 29.7%), and sorafenib (11/323, 3.4%). Median survival was 11 months (95% confidence interval, 9.0-13.1) in treated patients compared with 3.9 months in the supportive care group (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-0.59; p < 0.001). Patients who underwent surgical resection had the longest survival compared to patients undergoing other treatments (33.4 months versus 8.1 months, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Surgical resection resulted in excellent outcomes. Although sorafenib is currently recommended, oncologists should endeavour to select optimal candidates for surgical resection to gain more survival benefit. (c) 2012 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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