Comparison of Outcomes with Triple-Regimen versus Double-Regimen Transarterial Chemoembolization

Abstract

We sought to evaluate differences in outcomes between double versus triple transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). TACEs over a 1-year period were retrospectively reviewed and divided into two groups: double and triple. Imaging response and complications were made on a per-procedure basis. Student's t-test was used to calculate differences in continuous variables, and chi-square test was used to calculate differences in categorical values.Overall tumor response was similar between the two groups, and there were no significant differences in complications between groups. Outcomes are similar between double and triple conventional TACE, suggesting that adding a third drug may only contribute to cost.

Keywords

TACE - chemoembolization - regimen - dual therapy - triple therapy

Note

This work was presented at the Society of Interventional Oncology Annual Meeting 2021.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 20. Januar 2022

Angenommen: 09. August 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
12. September 2022

• References

• 1 Bruix J, Sherman M. American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 2011; 53 (03) 1020-1022
• 2 Llovet JM, Real MI, Montaña X. et al. Arterial embolisation or chemoembolisation versus symptomatic treatment in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002; 359 (9319): 1734-1739
• 3 Lo CM, Ngan H, Tso WK. et al. Randomized controlled trial of transarterial lipiodol chemoembolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2002; 35 (05) 1164-1171
• 4 Vogl TJ, Naguib NNN, Nour-Eldin NEA. et al. Retrospective study on the use of different protocols for repeated transarterial chemoembolization in the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Acad Radiol 2012; 19 (04) 434-439
• 5 Petruzzi NJ, Frangos AJ, Fenkel JM. et al. Single-center comparison of three chemoembolization regimens for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2013; 24 (02) 266-273
• 6 Shi M, Lu LG, Fang WQ. et al. Roles played by chemolipiodolization and embolization in chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: single-blind, randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013; 105 (01) 59-68
• 7 Brown DB, Pilgram TK, Darcy MD. et al. Hepatic arterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of survival rates with different embolic agents. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2005; 16 (12) 1661-1666
• 8 Liu B, Huang JW, Li Y. et al. Single-agent versus combination doxorubicin-based transarterial chemoembolization in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a single-blind, randomized, phase II trial. Oncology 2015; 89 (01) 23-30
• 9 Mouli SK, Hickey R, Thornburg B. et al. Single- versus triple-drug chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: comparing outcomes by toxicity, imaging response, and survival. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2016; 27 (09) 1279-1287
• 10 Miller RP, Tadagavadi RK, Ramesh G, Reeves WB. Mechanisms of cisplatin nephrotoxicity. Toxins (Basel) 2010; 2 (11) 2490-2518
• 11 Lencioni R, de Baere T, Soulen MC, Rilling WS, Geschwind JFH. Lipiodol transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review of efficacy and safety data. Hepatology 2016; 64 (01) 106-116