Addition of Y-90 radioembolization increases tumor response and local disease control in hepatocellular carcinoma patients receiving sorafenib

Purpose To compare the treatment response and progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who received sorafenib treatment either alone or combined with radioembolization (RE). Methods Follow-up images of the patients treated within a multicenter phase II tria...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging 2022-11, Vol.49 (13), p.4716-4726
Hauptverfasser: Öcal, Osman, Schütte, Kerstin, Zech, Christoph J., Loewe, Christian, van Delden, Otto, Vandecaveye, Vincent, Verslype, Chris, Gebauer, Bernhard, Sengel, Christian, Bargellini, Irene, Iezzi, Roberto, Philipp, Alexander, Berg, Thomas, Klümpen, Heinz J., Benckert, Julia, Pech, Maciej, Gasbarrini, Antonio, Amthauer, Holger, Bartenstein, Peter, Sangro, Bruno, Malfertheiner, Peter, Ricke, Jens, Seidensticker, Max
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Purpose To compare the treatment response and progression-free survival (PFS) in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who received sorafenib treatment either alone or combined with radioembolization (RE). Methods Follow-up images of the patients treated within a multicenter phase II trial (SORAMIC) were assessed by mRECIST. A total of 177 patients (73 combination arm [RE + sorafenib] and 104 sorafenib arm) were included in this post-hoc analysis. Response and progression characteristics were compared between treatment arms. Survival analyses were done to compare PFS and post-progression survival between treatment arms. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to compare survival with factors known to influence PFS in patients with HCC. Results The combination arm had significantly higher objective response rate (61.6% vs. 29.8%, p  
ISSN:1619-7070
1619-7089
1619-7089
DOI:10.1007/s00259-022-05920-8