Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) offers a survival benefit to patients with intermediate hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A widely accepted TACE regimen includes administration of doxorubicin-oil emulsion followed by gelatine sponge—conventional TACE. Recently, a drug-eluting bead (DC Bead®) has been developed to enhance tumor drug delivery and reduce systemic availability. This randomized trial compares conventional TACE (cTACE) with TACE with DC Bead for the treatment of cirrhotic patients with HCC. Two hundred twelve patients with Child-Pugh A/B cirrhosis and large and/or multinodular, unresectable, N0, M0 HCCs were randomized to receive TACE with DC Bead loaded with doxorubicin or cTACE with doxorubicin. Randomization was stratified according to Child-Pugh status (A/B), performance status (ECOG 0/1), bilobar disease (yes/no), and prior curative treatment (yes/no). The primary endpoint was tumor response (EASL) at 6 months following independent, blinded review of MRI studies. The drug-eluting bead group showed higher rates of complete response, objective response, and disease control compared with the cTACE group (27% vs. 22%, 52% vs. 44%, and 63% vs. 52%, respectively). The hypothesis of superiority was not met (one-sided P = 0.11). However, patients with Child-Pugh B, ECOG 1, bilobar disease, and recurrent disease showed a significant increase in objective response (P = 0.038) compared to cTACE. DC Bead was associated with improved tolerability, with a significant reduction in serious liver toxicity (P < 0.001) and a significantly lower rate of doxorubicin-related side effects (P = 0.0001). TACE with DC Bead and doxorubicin is safe and effective in the treatment of HCC and offers a benefit to patients with more advanced disease.
SUMMARY BackgroundSorafenib increases median survival and time to radiological progression in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, but its benefit for ChildPugh B patients remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVETo investigate the influence of primary graft function (PGF) on graft survival and metabolic control after islet transplantation with the Edmonton protocol.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSA total of 14 consecutive patients with brittle type 1 diabetes were enrolled in this phase 2 study and received median 12,479 islet equivalents per kilogram of body weight (interquartile range 11,072–15,755) in two or three sequential infusions within 67 days (44–95). PGF was estimated 1 month after the last infusion by the β-score, a previously validated index (range 0–8) based on insulin or oral treatment requirements, plasma C-peptide, blood glucose, and A1C. Primary outcome was graft survival, defined as insulin independence with A1C ≤6.5%.RESULTSAll patients gained insulin independence within 12 days (6–23) after the last infusion. PGF was optimal (β-score ≥7) in nine patients and suboptimal (β-score ≤6) in five. At last follow-up, 3.3 years (2.8–4.0) after islet transplantation, eight patients (57%) remained insulin independent with A1C ≤6.5%, including seven patients with optimal PGF (78%) and one with suboptimal PGF (20%) (P = 0.01, log-rank test). Graft survival was not significantly influenced by HLA mismatches or by preexisting islet autoantibodies. A1C, mean glucose, glucose variability (assessed with continuous glucose monitoring system), and glucose tolerance (using an oral glucose tolerance test) were markedly improved when compared with baseline values and were significantly lower in patients with optimal PGF than in those with suboptimal PGF.CONCLUSIONSOptimal PGF was associated with prolonged graft survival and better metabolic control after islet transplantation. This early outcome may represent a valuable end point in future clinical trials.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.