Dataset Information

Resection vs. Sorafenib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Macroscopic Vascular Invasion: A Real World, Propensity Score Matched Analytic Study.

ABSTRACT: Background: Macroscopic vascular invasion (MVI) commonly occurs in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for which resection and sorafenib are the common therapies prescribed. Here, we aimed to compare the survival outcomes of these two therapies in HCC patients with MVI. Methods: In total, 496 patients diagnosed with HCC and MVI without extrahepatic metastasis, treated with resection (resection-based group, n = 388) and sorafenib (sorafenib-based group, n = 108) were included in this study. A one-to-one propensity score-matching analysis (PSM) was performed to minimize the effect of potential confounders. Results: The median OS in the resection- and sorafenib-based group was 20.7 months (95% CI: 16.9-24.5) and 11.6 months (95% CI: 8.4-14.9) (p < 0.001), respectively. The median PFS was 4.7 months (95% CI: 3.8-5.5) in the resection-based group and 4.4 months (95% CI: 3.6-5.2) in the sorafenib-based group (p < 0.001). After PSM, 72 patients from each group were matched. The median OS was 27.2 months (95% CI: 16.4-38.0) in the resection-based group and 13.0 months (95% CI: 9.6-16.3) in the sorafenib-based group (p < 0.001). The median PFS was 5.3 months (95% CI: 3.2-7.4) in the resection-based group and 4.8 months (95% CI: 3.6-6.0) in the sorafenib-based group (p = 0.061). Conclusion: Findings from this study showed that, compared with sorafenib-based treatment, surgical resection might be associated with better survival benefits to HCC patients with MVI.

SUBMITTER: Mei J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7214621 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Resection vs. Sorafenib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Macroscopic Vascular Invasion: A Real World, Propensity Score Matched Analytic Study.

Mei Jie J Li Shao-Hua SH Wang Qiao-Xuan QX Lu Liang-He LH Ling Yi-Hong YH Zou Jing-Wen JW Lin Wen-Ping WP Wen Yu-Hua YH Wei Wei W Guo Rong-Ping RP

Frontiers in oncology 20200505

Background: Macroscopic vascular invasion (MVI) commonly occurs in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for which resection and sorafenib are the common therapies prescribed. Here, we aimed to compare the survival outcomes of these two therapies in HCC patients with MVI. Methods: In total, 496 patients diagnosed with HCC and MVI without extrahepatic metastasis, treated with resection (resection-based group, n = 388) and sorafenib (sorafenib-based group, n ...[more]

PMID: 32432036

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDistant recurrence following preoperative chemoradiotherapy and resection in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma is common. Adjuvant chemotherapy may improve survival.ObjectiveTo compare adjuvant chemotherapy with postoperative observation following preoperative chemoradiotherapy and resection in patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.Design, setting, and participantsPropensity score-matched analysis using the National Cancer Database. We included adult patients who received a diagnosis between 2006 and 2013 of clinical stage T1N1-3M0 or T2-4N0-3M0 adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus or gastric cardia who were treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy and curative-intent resection. Patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy were matched by propensity score to patients undergoing postoperative observation.ExposuresAdjuvant chemotherapy and postoperative observation.Main outcomes and measuresOverall survival.ResultsWe identified 10 086 patients (8840 [88%] male; mean [SD] age, 61 [9.5] years), 9272 in the postoperative observation group and 814 in the adjuvant chemotherapy group. Patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy were younger (18-54 years: 252 [31%] vs 1989 [21%]; P < .001) and were more likely to have advanced disease (ypT3/4: 458 [62%] vs 3531 [46%]; P < .001; ypN+: 572 [72%] vs 3428 [39%]; P < .001), as well as shorter postoperative inpatient stays (>2 weeks: 94 [13%] vs 1589 [20%]; P < .001). A total of 732 patients in the adjuvant chemotherapy group were matched by propensity score to 3660 patients in the postoperative observation group. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival compared with postoperative observation (median survival: 40 months; 95% CI, 36-46 months vs 34 months; 95% CI, 32-35 months; stratified log-rank P < .001; hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.88). Overall survival at 1, 3, and 5 years was 88%, 47%, and 34% in the observation group, and 94%, 54%, and 38% in the adjuvant chemotherapy group, respectively. Adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a survival benefit compared with postoperative observation in most patient subgroups.Conclusions and relevanceFor patients with locally advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma treated with preoperative chemoradiotherapy and resection, adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with improved overall survival. Our findings have important implications for the postoperative treatment of this patient group for which few data are available.

Project description:BackgroundCommunity-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide despite correct antibiotic use. Corticosteroids have long been evaluated as a treatment option, but heterogeneous effects on survival have precluded their widespread implementation. We aimed to evaluate whether corticosteroids might improve clinical outcomes in patients with severe CAP and high inflammatory responses.Study design and methodsWe analyzed two prospective observational cohorts of patients with CAP in Barcelona and Rome who were admitted to intensive care with a high inflammatory response. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to obtain balance among the baseline variables in both groups, and we excluded patients with viral pneumonia or who received hydrocortisone.ResultsOf the 610 patients admitted with severe CAP, 198 (32%) received corticosteroids and 387 had major criteria for severe CAP. All patients had a baseline serum C-reactive protein above 15 mg/dL. Patients who received corticosteroids were more commonly male, had more comorbidities (e.g., cancer or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), and presented with significantly higher sequential organ failure assessment scores. Eighty-nine patients met major severity criteria (invasive mechanical ventilation and/or septic shock) and were matched per group. Twenty-eight-day mortality was lower among patients receiving corticosteroids (16 patients, 18%) than among those not receiving them (28 patients, 31%; p = 0.037). After PS matching, corticosteroid therapy reduced the 28-day mortality risk in patients who met major severity criteria (hazard ratio (HR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29-0.98) (p = 0.043). In patients who did not meet major severity criteria, no benefits were observed with corticosteroid use (HR 0.88 (95%CI 0.32-2.36).ConclusionsCorticosteroid treatment may be of benefit for patients with CAP who have septic shock and/or a high inflammatory response and requirement for invasive mechanical ventilation. Corticosteroids appear to have no impact on mortality when these features are not present.

Project description:BackgroundSelected studies have reported improved outcomes in laparoscopic compared with open distal pancreatic resection. Concerns regarding failure to achieve proper oncological resection and compromised long-term outcomes remain. This study investigated whether postoperative outcomes and long-term survival after laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy are comparable to those after an open procedure.MethodsThis retrospective case-control study included patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma between 2010 and 2013, identified from the National Cancer Database. Propensity score nearest-neighbour 1 : 1 matching was performed between patients undergoing laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy based on all relevant co-variables. The primary outcome was overall survival.ResultsOf 1947 eligible patients, 605 (31·1 per cent) underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy. After propensity score matching, two well balanced groups of 563 patients each were analysed. There was no difference in overall survival at 3 years after laparoscopic versus open distal pancreatectomy (41·6 versus 36·0 per cent; hazard ratio 0·93, 95 per cent c.i. 0·77 to 1·12; P = 0·457). The overall conversion rate was 27·3 per cent (165 of 605). Patients who underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had outcomes comparable to those of patients who had an open procedure with regard to median time to chemotherapy (50 versus 50 days; P = 0·342), median number of nodes examined (12 versus 12; P = 0·759); 30-day mortality (1·2 versus 0·9 per cent; P = 0·562); 90-day mortality (2·8 versus 3·7 per cent; P = 0·403), 30-day readmission rate (9·6 versus 9·2 per cent; P = 0·838) and positive margin rate (14·9 versus 18·5 per cent; P = 0·110). However, median duration of hospital stay was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6 versus 7 days; P < 0·001).ConclusionLaparoscopic distal pancreatectomy is an acceptable alternative to open distal pancreatectomy with no detriment to survival.

Project description:BackgroundLenvatinib is approved for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) due to its non-inferiority to sorafenib of overall survival (OR) in clinical trials. This study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib and sorafenib in the real world.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated 338 patients with unresectable HCC who had undergone lenvatinib or sorafenib treatment between January 2018 and August 2020. Propensity-score matching analysis was performed with a 1:2 ratio to reduce the real-life baseline difference between the two groups.ResultsA total of 210 patients (Male/Female: 150/60, mean age: 65.8 years) were recruited including 70 patients in the Lenvatinib group and 140 patients in the Sorafenib group. Compared with sorafenib, lenvatinib had significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) (5.2 vs 3.3 months, p=0.019) but similar OR (13.3 vs 11.8 months, p=0.714). Additionally, lenvatinib had better disease control rates (62.3 vs 48.6%, p=0.029) and equivalent incidences of treatment-related adverse events over sorafenib. In multivariate analysis, lenvatinib was associated with better PFS over sorafenib (hazard ratio: 0.49, 95% confidence interval: 0.3-0.79, p=0.004) after adjustments of albumin-bilirubin grade and alpha-fetoprotein level; however, different agents using lenvatinib or sorafenib did not contribute to OS, whether in univariate or multivariate analysis. Patients who failed lenvatinib had a lower proportion of having sequential systemic therapies compared with the Sorafenib group (36.2 vs 47.8%, p=0.02). The most frequently used sequential therapy following lenvatinib and sorafenib was chemotherapy (n=9, 42.8%) and regorafenib (n=33, 50.8%), respectively.ConclusionsIn clinical real-life practice, lenvatinib illustrated promising survival benefits and acceptable safety for patients with unresectable HCC, while reducing the risk of progression disease compared with sorafenib. Additionally, lack of approved post-lenvatinib systemic therapies is a serious issue in the real world.

Dataset Information

Resection vs. Sorafenib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Macroscopic Vascular Invasion: A Real World, Propensity Score Matched Analytic Study.

Publications

Resection vs. Sorafenib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Macroscopic Vascular Invasion: A Real World, Propensity Score Matched Analytic Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets