Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: Is radio-embolization an alternative for chemo-embolization?

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 323-323
Author(s):  
Laila Lobo ◽  
Danny Yakoub ◽  
Omar Picado ◽  
Caroline Ripat ◽  
Fiorella Pendola ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Post Treatment ◽  
Safe Alternative ◽  
Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Patient Reported

323 Background: Transarterial Radio-embolization (TARE) has emerged as a newer regional technique to Transarterial Chemo-embolization (TACE) for treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this study is to evaluate clinical outcomes of both techniques. Methods: Online search for studies comparing TARE to TACE from 2005 to present was performed. Primary outcome was overall survival rate for up to 4 years. Secondary outcomes included post-treatment complications and treatment response. Quality of included studies was evaluated by STROBE criteria. Relative Risk (RR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated from pooled data. Results: The search strategy yielded 172 studies, 5 met our selection criteria and included 653 patients undergoing embolization for unresectable HCC. Of these patients, 284 underwent TACE and 269 underwent TARE. Median age was 63 and 64 years for TACE and TARE, respectively. Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in survival for up to 4 years between the two groups (HR = 1.06; 95% CI: 0.81-1.46, p = 0.567). TACE required at least one day of hospital stay compared to TARE which was mostly an outpatient procedure. TACE had more post-treatment pain than TARE (RR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.40-2.75, p < 0.01), but less subjective fatigue (RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.48-0.80, p < 0.01). There was no difference between the two groups in the incidence of post-treatment nausea, vomiting, fever or other complications. In addition, there was no difference in partial or complete response rates between the two groups. Conclusions: TARE appears to be a safe alternative treatment to TACE with similar complication profile and survival rates. Larger prospective randomized trials, focusing on patient-reported quality-of-life are required to consolidate these results, and to evaluate cost vs benefit for both techniques.

Is there a role for neoadjuvant radiation dose escalation in esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 102-102
Author(s):  
Laila Lobo ◽  
Danny Yakoub ◽  
Caroline Ripat ◽  
Rishika Sharma ◽  
Raphael Yechieli
Keyword(s):  
Overall Survival ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Radiation Dose ◽  
Esophageal Carcinoma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Fistula Formation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Patient Reported

102 Background: In treating esophageal cancer chemo-radiation is used in the definitive as well as neo-adjuvant setting. Optimal dosage of radiation for best outcome has been debated. The aim of this study is to evaluate clinical outcomes of lower radiation dosage compared to higher. Methods: Online search for studies comparing radiation dose from 1990 to present was performed. Primary outcome was overall-survival rates for up to 5 years. Secondary outcomes included post-treatment complications and treatment response. A cut point of 51 Gy and less was considered as lower dose and greater than 51 Gy was considered higher dose. Quality of included studies was evaluated by STROBE criteria. Relative Risk (RR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated from pooled data. Results: The search strategy yielded 142 studies, 12 met our selection criteria and included 1876 patients receiving radiation for resectable esophageal carcinoma. Of these patients, 1057 received lower and 819 were treated with greater than 51 Gy. Median age was 63 and 64 years for lower and higher radiation dose respectively. Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in survival and toxicities between the two groups. 1 year overall survival (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.84-1.13, p = 0.69), 2 year overall survival (RR = 1.29, 95% CI 0.76-2.19, p = 0.34), 3 year overall survival (RR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.83-1.68, p = 0.37), 4 year overall survival (RR = 1.37, 95% CI 0.64-2.94, p = 0.41), 5 year overall survival (RR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.72-1.69, p = 0.64), Esophagitis (RR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.39-1.50, p = 0.43), Dermatitis (RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.12-7.94, p = 0.99), Fistula formation (RR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.32-1.60, p = 0.42), Hematologic complications (RR = 1.10, 95% CI 0.20-6.02, p = 0.91), Stricture formation (RR = 1.39, 95% CI 0.54-3.58, p = 0.5). Conclusions: Lower radiation dose appears to be as effective as higher dose in esophageal carcinoma with similar toxicity profile and survival rates. Larger prospective randomized trials, focusing on patient-reported quality-of-life are required to consolidate these results.

Is transcatheter arterial chemoembolization plus sorafenib better than chemoembolization plus placebo in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma?

2020 ◽  
pp. 030089162094502
Author(s):  
Yong Xie ◽  
Huan Tian ◽  
Hua Xiang
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Arterial Chemoembolization

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus sorafenib compared with TACE plus placebo for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using meta-analytical techniques. Methods: A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were done from inception to December 27, 2019. Published trials including a treatment group receiving TACE + sorafenib and a control group receiving TACE + placebo with data for at least 1-year survival or tumor response or time to progression were included. Results: Our study suggested that there was no evidence that TACE plus sorafenib was associated with a lower risk of disease progression compared with TACE plus placebo for treatment of HCC (hazard ratio 0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84–1.05]), and no significant difference for treatment of HCC compared with TACE plus placebo in terms of 0.5-, 1-, 1.5-, and 2-year survival rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.01 [95% CI, 0.97–1.05]; RR 1.00 [95% CI, 0.92–1.08], RR 1.04 [95% CI, 0.89–1.23], RR 0.98 [95% CI, 0.72–1.34], respectively). The meta-analysis also showed that TACE + sorafenib seemed to have no significant difference for treatment of HCC compared with TACE + placebo in terms of complete response, partial response, stable disease, progressive disease, overall response rate, and disease control rate. There was an increased incidence of fatigue of grade 3/4 and elevation of aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase of grade 3/4 in patients receiving TACE plus sorafenib compared with those receiving TACE plus placebo. Conclusions: There is no additive benefit of TACE plus sorafenib compared to TACE plus placebo for HCC.

Efficacy and safety of anti-VEGF therapy in metastatic unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15632-e15632
Author(s):  
Lakshmi Manogna Chintalacheruvu ◽  
Avanija Buddam ◽  
Arun Kanmanthareddy ◽  
Apar Kishor Ganti
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Categorical Variables ◽  
Vegf Receptor ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Significant Difference

e15632 Background:Conventional chemotherapy has limited role in metastatic unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Sorafenib is currently approved for metastatic unresectable HCC. We wanted to assess the efficacy and safety of other tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor such as brivanib, linifanib and regorafenib in metastatic HCC. Methods: We have searched electronic databases Pubmed, Google scholar to identify published trials using brivanib, linifanib and regorafenib in HCC. The outcomes evaluated were overall survival, time to disease progression (TTDP) and adverse effects. Hazard ratios (HR) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) were then computed using the appropriate model for categorical variables. We used STATA 13.0 and Comprehensive Meta Analysis 2.0 software for all analyses. Results: We included seven randomized control studies. A combined analysis of these seven randomised control trials showed improved overall survival (OS) in VEGF-TKI group when compared to placebo HR - 0.79; (95% CI 0.62-1.00). However, there was no significant survival benefit of the newer VEGF receptor inhibitors when compared to sorafenib (HR - 1.05; 95% CI 0.95-1.17). The time to disease progression (TTDP) was significantly better in VEGF-TKI group as compared to placebo (HR - 0.61; 95% CI 0.39-0.97). However, there was no significant difference in TTDP between VEGF-TKI group and Sorafenib (HR - 0.88; 95% CI 0.66-1.16). Adverse effects were noted to be higher in VEGF-TKI group when compared to placebo (HR- 1.07; 95% CI 1.01-1.13). Conclusions: Treatment with TKI targeting VEGF receptor is associated with a significant improvement in OS and TTDP with tolerable side effect profile. Inhibiting the VEGF receptor pathway could lead to improved outcomes in HCC.

Association of treatment type with patient-reported quality of life in cancer distress screening.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 178-178
Author(s):  
Mohana Roy ◽  
Sarah Rosenthal ◽  
Manan P Shah ◽  
Ali Raza Khaki ◽  
Selen Bozkurt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Post Treatment ◽  
Disease Stage ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Treatment Type ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Us ◽  
Clinically Significant

178 Background: Routine distress screening is recommended for all patients with cancer. In 2015, Stanford Cancer Center implemented such screening using a modified PROMIS-GH questionnaire. With the recent growth of oncology drugs, novel medications have been perceived as better tolerated than chemotherapy. We analyzed patient reported quality of life with global mental health (GMH) and global physical health (GPH) scores for different medication classes. Methods: Patients who completed a questionnaire at our center between 6/1/2015 and 12/31/2020 were included. Medications were classified as chemotherapy, targeted therapy, endocrine therapy, or immunotherapy using guidance from SEER.Rx ontology. Baseline (B) and treatment (Tx) questionnaires were completed before any treatment initiation of each medication type and within 3 months of each treatment, respectively. GPH and GMH scores were calculated using PROMIS T-scores stratified by medication type for B and Tx questionnaires. We analyzed for differences based on demographics and diagnoses. Clinically significant differences were defined as a 3-point difference in T-scores, which then prompted statistical comparison with t-tests to compare the B and Tx scores to each other and to the US population mean of 50. Results: We analyzed 28,180 questionnaires from 11,644 patients (59% women, median age 64; 23% stage I and II, 12% stage III, 23% stage IV, 51% missing). B and Tx mean GMH scores did not differ clinically compared to the US mean or to each other (baseline: 49.03 +/- 9.16, post: 48.5 +/- 9.1). However, both mean GPH scores were statistically and clinically lower (baseline: 44.2+/- 10.38, post: 42.4 +/- 10.1,) compared to the US mean (p < 0.001). Changes in scores by treatment category are shown in the table below. There was a statistically significant difference in post-treatment GPH scores for chemo-immunotherapy patients when compared to both corresponding baseline scores (p < 0.001) and post treatment chemotherapy alone scores (p < 0.001). There was no clinically significant difference in scores when stratified by age, sex, primary language, insurance, disease stage or type. Conclusions: In this large retrospective study, we found that patients being treated for cancer did not report worse GMH scores compared to the US mean population, but do report lower GPH scores. While most scores varied little relative to other treatment types, those receiving chemo-immunotherapy had lower GPH scores when comparing baseline to treatment and to the US mean, warranting further investigation, given increasing use.[Table: see text]

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Combined with Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization versus Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Alone as the First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Chemotherapy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 248-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiani Zhao ◽  
Lianli Zeng ◽  
Qian Wu ◽  
Li Wang ◽  
Jun Lei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy ◽  
Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
First Line ◽  
Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Arterial Chemoembolization

Background: The superiority of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) compared to SBRT alone as the first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains unclear. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the efficiency and safety of SBRT combined with TACE (ST group) and SBRT alone (SA group). Methods: We searched PubMed, Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) for related studies. We analyzed overall survival (OS), local control survival (LCS), progression-free survival (PFS), the response rate and adverse effects (AEs) between the 2 groups. Results: Ten articles were included, with a total of 980 patients. The results showed that the ST (SBRT + TACE) group had a longer OS (95% CIs 0.60–0.85, p = 0.0002), a higher 5-year OS rate (95% CI 1.01–2.04, p = 0.04), a higher rate of complete response (95% CI 1.08–1.90, p = 0.01), and a higher disease control rate (95% CI 1.02–1.16, p = 0.02) than the SA (SBRT alone) group. No significant difference was found in LCS, PFS and total AEs of all grades and grades 3–5 AEs between the 2 groups. In the subgroup analysis, the patients with HCC + PVTT or treated with SBRT followed by TACE in the ST group had the same OS as those in the SA group, and the patients in the ST group had a higher incidence rate of leukopenia and fever than those in the SA group. Conclusion: SBRT + TACE appears to be more effective than SBRT alone in treating unresectable HCC. However, its higher incidence rate of leukopenia and fever need to be monitored.

scholarly journals Meta-analysis of Percutaneous vs. Surgical Approaches Radiofrequency Ablation in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

2022 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaozhun Huang ◽  
Yibin Liu ◽  
Lin Xu ◽  
Teng Ma ◽  
Xin Yin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Radiofrequency Ablation ◽  
Perioperative Complications ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Disease Free Survival ◽  
Analysis Data ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Surgical Approaches ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a curative modality for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who are not suitable for resection. It remains controversial whether a surgical or percutaneous approach is more appropriate for HCC.Method: A search was performed on the PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from the date of database inception until April 17, 2021. Studies reporting outcomes of comparisons between surgical RFA (SRFA) and percutaneous RFA (PRFA) were included in this study. The meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0 software.Result: A total of 10 retrospective studies containing 12 cohorts, involving 740 patients in the PRFA group and 512 patients in the SRFA group, were selected. Although the tumor size in PRFA group was smaller than the SRFA group (p = 0.007), there was no significant difference in complete ablation rate between the SRFA and PRFA groups (95.63% and 97.33%, respectively; Odds ratio [OR], 0.56; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.26–1.24; p = 0.15). However, the SRFA group showed a significantly lower local tumor recurrence than the PRFA group in the sensitivity analysis (28.7% in the PRFA group and 21.79% in the SRFA group, respectively; OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.14–2.95; p = 0.01). Pooled analysis data showed that the rate of severe perioperative complications did not differ significantly between the PRFA and SRFA groups (14.28% and 12.11%, respectively; OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.67-2.53; p = 0.44). There was no significant difference in the 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates, as well as the 1- and 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) between the PRFA and SRFA groups. The 5-year DFS of the PRFA group was significantly lower than the SRFA group (hazard ratio 0.73; 95% CI 0.54–0.99).Conclusion: Based on our meta-analysis, the surgical route was superior to PRFA in terms of local control rate. Furthermore, the surgical approach did not increase the risk of major complications.

Superselective Radioembolization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: 5-Year Results of a Prospective Study

1994 ◽  
Vol 33 (05) ◽  
pp. 206-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Triller ◽  
H. U. Baer ◽  
Livia Geiger ◽  
H. F. Beer ◽  
C. Becker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Absorbed Dose ◽  
Pulmonary Complications ◽  
Pulmonary Shunt ◽  
Recurrent Tumour ◽  
Activity Distribution ◽  
A Prospective Study ◽  
Overall Survival Rates

SummaryTwenty patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were followed up to 5 years after transarterial radiotherapy with 90Y-resin particles. Diagnostic radioembolizations of 99mTc-macroaggregates facilitated scintigraphic assessment of activity distribution, dose evaluation and final procedural verification. The overall survival rates were 56, 38 and 14% (after 1, 2 and 3 years, resp.). Patients with unifocal HCC and a single feeding artery (n = 7) even presented 83, 67 and 40% (2 alive after 2.75 and 4 years). With multiple arteries (n = 7), the longest survival was 26 months. Patients with multifocal HCC survived up to 33 months after selective radioembolization. Quality of life was improved in all. Survival was positively correlated with absorbed dose but residual/recurrent tumour occurred even after ≥300 Gy. Post-treatment symptoms were minimal (35 applications), pulmonary shunt rates were correctly predicted and pulmonary complications avoided.

349 Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Insomnia in Patients with Chronic Pain - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

SLEEP ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 44 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. A139-A140
Author(s):  
Janannii Selvanathan ◽  
Chi Pham ◽  
Mahesh Nagappa ◽  
Philip Peng ◽  
Marina Englesakis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Behavioral Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Post Treatment ◽  
Cognitive Behavioral ◽  
Comorbid Insomnia ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Introduction Patients with chronic non-cancer pain often report insomnia as a significant comorbidity. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is recommended as the first line of treatment for insomnia, and several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the efficacy of CBT-I on various health outcomes in patients with comorbid insomnia and chronic non-cancer pain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of CBT-I on sleep, pain, depression, anxiety and fatigue in adults with comorbid insomnia and chronic non-cancer pain. Methods A systematic search was conducted using ten electronic databases. The duration of the search was set between database inception to April 2020. Included studies must be RCTs assessing the effects of CBT-I on at least patient-reported sleep outcomes in adults with chronic non-cancer pain. Quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment and Yates quality rating scale. Continuous data were extracted and summarized using standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results The literature search resulted in 7,772 articles, of which 14 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of these articles were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis comprised 762 participants. CBT-I demonstrated a large significant effect on patient-reported sleep (SMD = 0.87, 95% CI [0.55–1.20], p &lt; 0.00001) at post-treatment and final follow-up (up to 9 months) (0.59 [0.31–0.86], p &lt; 0.0001); and moderate effects on pain (SMD = 0.20 [0.06, 0.34], p = 0.006) and depression (0.44 [0.09–0.79], p= 0.01) at post-treatment. The probability of improving sleep and pain following CBT-I at post-treatment was 81% and 58%, respectively. The probability of improving sleep and pain at final follow-up was 73% and 57%, respectively. There were no statistically significant effects on anxiety and fatigue. Conclusion This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that CBT-I is effective for improving sleep in adults with comorbid insomnia and chronic non-cancer pain. Further, CBT-I may lead to short-term moderate improvements in pain and depression. However, there is a need for further RCTs with adequate power, longer follow-up periods, CBT for both insomnia and pain, and consistent scoring systems for assessing patient outcomes. Support (if any):

scholarly journals Simultaneous implant placement with autogenous onlay bone grafts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Guoqiang Ma ◽  
Chaoan Wu ◽  
Miaoting Shao
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Bone Grafts ◽  
Implant Survival ◽  
Analysis Model ◽  
Implant Placement ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Delayed Implant Placement ◽  
Onlay Grafts

AbstractSeveral authors have suggested that implants can be placed simultaneously with onlay bone grafts without affecting outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to answer the following clinical questions: (1) What are the outcomes of implants placed simultaneously with autogenous onlay bone grafts? And (2) is there a difference in outcomes between simultaneous vs delayed placement of implants with autogenous onlay bone grafts? Databases of PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched up to 15 November 2020. Data on implant survival was extracted from all the included studies (single arm and comparative) to calculate point estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and pooled using the DerSimonian–Laird meta-analysis model. We also compared implant survival rates between the simultaneous and delayed placement of implants with data from comparative studies. Nineteen studies were included. Five of them compared simultaneous and delayed placement of implants. Dividing the studies based on follow-up duration, the pooled survival of implant placed simultaneously with onlay grafts after <2.5 years of follow-up was 93.1% (95% CI 82.6 to 97.4%) and after 2.5–5 years was 86% (95% CI 78.6 to 91.1%). Implant survival was found to be 85.8% (95% CI 79.6 to 90.3%) with iliac crest grafts and 95.7% (95% CI 83.9 to 93.0%) with intra-oral grafts. Our results indicated no statistically significant difference in implant survival between simultaneous and delayed placement (OR 0.43, 95% 0.07, 2.49, I2=59.04%). Data on implant success and bone loss were limited. Data indicates that implants placed simultaneously with autogenous onlay grafts have a survival rate of 93.1% and 86% after a follow-up of <2.5 years and 2.5–5years respectively. A limited number of studies indicate no significant difference in implant survival between the simultaneous and delayed placement of implants with onlay bone grafts. There is a need for randomized controlled trials comparing simultaneous and delayed implant placement to provide robust evidence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document