论文已发表
注册即可获取德孚的最新动态
IF 收录期刊
Authors Ni JY, Liu SS, Sun HL, Wang WD, Zhong ZL, Hou SN, Chen YT, Xu LF
Received 12 November 2017
Accepted for publication 6 July 2018
Published 6 November 2018 Volume 2018:11 Pages 7883—7894
DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S156844
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Amy Norman
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Dr Samir Farghaly
Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of transcatheter
hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) with those of sorafenib in the
treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) of Barcelona Clinic
Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage C.
Methods: Potentially relevant studies comparing the clinical efficacy and
safety of HAIC with those of sorafenib were searched using Medline, PubMed,
Embase, Cochrane Library, and Chinese databases (Wanfang Data and China
National Knowledge Infrastructure). Overall survival rate (OSR), tumor response
rate, disease control rate (DCR), and serious adverse events (SAEs) were
compared and analyzed. Pooled ORs with 95% CIs were calculated using either the
fixed-effects model or the random-effects model. All statistical analyses were
conducted using Review Manager (version 5.3) from the Cochrane Collaboration.
Results: A total of 1,264 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The
results of this study showed that HAIC was associated with significantly higher
1-, 2-, and 3-year OSRs than sorafenib (OR 1.88, 95% CI1-year: [1.27–2.78], P 1-year=0.002; OR 2.15, 95% CI2-year: [1.06–4.37], P 2-year=0.03; OR 7.90, 95% CI3-year: [2.12–29.42], P 3-year=0.002). Compared to sorafenib, HAIC was associated with superior
complete response (CR), partial response (PR), and objective response rate
(ORR) (OR 3.90, 95% CICR: [1.89–8.03], P CR =0.0002; OR 3.47, 95% CIPR: [2.31–5.24], P PR <0.00001; OR 3.02, 95% CIOR: [2.05–4.45], P OR <0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference
between HAIC and sorafenib in stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD),
DCR, and SAEs (OR 0.86, 95% CISD: [0.51–1.45], P SD =0.56; OR 0.62, 95% CIPD: [0.35–1.11], P PD =0.11; OR 0.53, 95% CISAE: [0.14–1.92], P SAE =0.33).
Conclusion: This study showed that HAIC was associated with better efficacy
than sorafenib in terms of OSR and tumor response. Therefore, HAIC can be
considered as an alternative treatment option for patients with HCCs of BCLC
stage C.
Keywords: HCC, HAIC, targeted therapy, BCLC, prognosis, meta-analysis