4.6 Article

Radiofrequency ablation after transarterial embolization as therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

期刊

EJSO
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 61-66

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2007.02.006

关键词

transarterial embolization (TAE); radiofrequency ablation (RFA); hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the usefulness of transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) followed by radiofrequency ablation (RFA) as combined treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Patients and methods: Thirty-six consecutive patients (cirrhosis, Child-Pugh class A or 13) with solitary or oligonodular HCC were treated (41 lesions; mean size, 58.9 mm; range, 30-120 mm). REA was performed after one TAE treatment. Local efficacy was evaluated with multiphasic computed tomography (CT) performed an average of two months after REA and once during later follow-up. Results: The mean follow-up period was 16 months (range, 2-45 months). Technical success (namely, complete tumor devascularization during the arterial phase) was achieved for 59% of lesions at the first CT evaluation and for 46% at the second evaluation. Among prognostic factors included in the analysis, only lesion diameter (<50 mm versus >= 50 mm) was statistically significant in terms of predicting local success (Fisher's exact test: 85% versus 43% at first CT, p < 0.01; 70% versus 36% during follow-up, p = 0.05). There were no major periprocedural complications. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed survival rates of 84% at 12 months and 57% at 24 months. Conclusions: Combined therapy - TAE then RFA - for unresectable HCC lesions in patients with cirrhosis produces a relatively high complete local response rate compared with TAE or RFA alone. Our results, considered with those from other case series, may help design prospective, randomized clinical trials to test combination therapy versus single-modality therapy in terms of risks and benefits. (c) 2007 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

4.6
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