Dataset Information

HIFU for the treatment of gastric cancer with liver metastases with unsuitable indications for hepatectomy and radiofrequency ablation: a prospective and propensity score-matched study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The purpose of this study was to explore the efficacy and safety of high intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in gastric cancer with liver metastasis (GCLM) patients who were contraindicated for either hepatectomy or radiofrequency ablation (RFA).

Methods

This is a prospective, observational study on GCLM patients with 1-3 liver metastases. The primary gastric lesions were thoroughly resected and any case that exhibited extra-hepatic metastasis was excluded. A 1:2:2 propensity score-matching analysis was performed using a logistic regression model on the HIFU group, best supportive care (BSC) group, and palliative chemotherapy (PC) group. The primary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Results

Forty patients were finally included, there were 8 cases in HIFU group, 16 cases in BSC group, and 16 cases in PC group. The median follow-up time for the entire cohort was 10 months. The median PFS was 16.5 months in HIFU group, 2 months in BSC group, and 5 months in PC group. The median OS was 27.5 months in the HIFU group, 7 months in the BSC group, and 11.5 months in the PC group. Additionally, no grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in the HIFU group.

Conclusion

The results of this study showed that HIFU treatment could improve the long-term prognosis of GCLM patients without a significant increase in the occurrence of adverse events. Compared with PC and BSC, HIFU is the preferred treatment option when GCLM patients without extra-hepatic metastasis are unable to undergo either surgery or RFA.

SUBMITTER: Zhou B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8273961 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe objective of this study was to compare the results of laparoscopic hepatectomy with those of open hepatectomy for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CCLM) using a propensity score matching (PSM) in two university hospital settings.MethodsA patient in the laparoscopic approach (LA) surgery group was randomly matched with another patient in the open approach (OA) group using a 1:1 allocated ratio with the nearest estimated propensity score. No patients of the LA group were excluded for the matching. Matching criteria included age, gender, body mass index (BMI), American society anesthesiologists score, potential co-morbidities, hepatopathies, synchronous or metachronous lesions, size and number of CCLM, preoperative chemotherapy, minor or major liver resections. Intraoperative, postoperative data, and survival were compared in both groups.ResultsFrom January 2012 to January 2015, a total of 242 hepatectomies were consecutively performed, of which 119 for CCLM, namely 101 in the OA group (84.9%) and 18 in the LA group (15.1%). The conversion rate was 5.6% (n=1). The mortality rate was 1% in the OA group and 0% in the LA group. Prior to PSM, there was a statistically significant difference favorable to the LA group regarding operative time, blood loss, length of hospital stay and the rate of medical complications. After PSM, there was no difference regarding operative time or length of hospital stay. However, there was a trend towards less blood loss (P=0.066) and fewer medical complications (44.4% vs.16.7%, P=0.07). The R0 resection rate was 94.4% (n=17) in the two groups. In addition, there was no difference regarding overall survival (P=0.358) and recurrence-free survival [HR =0.99 (0.1-12.7); P=0.99].ConclusionsLaparoscopic liver resections for CCLM seem to yield short- and long-term results, which are similar to open hepatectomies, and could well be considered an alternative to open surgery and become the gold standard in carefully selected patients.

Project description:ObjectivesWe aimed to compare the therapeutic outcomes of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA) as first-line therapies in patients with small single perivascular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).MethodsA total of 144 eligible patients with small (≤ 3 cm) single perivascular (proximity to hepatic and portal veins) HCC who underwent RFA (N = 70) or MWA (N = 74) as first-line treatment were included. The overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and local tumor progression (LTP) rates between the two ablation modalities were compared. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was used to reduce selection bias. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the type of hepatic vessels.ResultsAfter a median follow-up time of 38.2 months, there were no significant differences in OS (5-year OS: RFA 77.7% vs. MWA 74.6%; p = 0.600) and DFS (5-year DFS: RFA 24.7% vs. MWA 40.4%; p = 0.570). However, a significantly higher LTP rate was observed in the RFA group than the MWA group (5-year LTP: RFA 24.3% vs. MWA 8.4%; p = 0.030). IPTW-adjusted analyses revealed similar results. The treatment modality (RFA vs. MWA: HR 7.861, 95% CI 1.642-37.635, p = 0.010) was an independent prognostic factor for LTP. We observed a significant interaction effect of ablation modality and type of peritumoral vessel on LTP (p = 0.034). For patients with periportal HCC, the LTP rate was significantly higher in the RFA group than in the MWA group (p = 0.045). However, this difference was not observed in patients with perivenous HCC (p = 0.116).ConclusionsIn patients with a small single periportal HCC, MWA exhibited better tumor control than RFA.Key points• Microwave ablation exhibited better local tumor control than radiofrequency ablation for small single periportal hepatocellular carcinoma. • There was a significant interaction between the treatment effect of ablation modality and type of peritumoral vessel on local tumor progression. • The type of peritumoral vessel is vital in choosing ablation modalities for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Project description:Background: It remains unclear whether the short-term benefits of laparoscopic repeat hepatectomy (LRH) accrue to patients with recurrent liver tumors. The present study aimed to report our own center's experience and perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LRH in comparison with open repeat hepatectomy (ORH) for treating recurrent liver tumors. Patients and Methods: A propensity score-matched study was performed including 426 patients receiving LRH or ORH for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2017 and December 2018. Surgical outcomes and perioperative inflammation-based markers, including monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, and systemic immune-inflammation index were collected from medical records and analyzed. Additionally, a systematic literature review was performed to identify relevant studies in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases up to October 1, 2020. Information including patient demographics, pathologic characteristics, and short-term outcomes was extracted and analyzed using random- or fixed-effects models. Results: Of 68 LRHs, 57 were matched with an ORH finally. Our study demonstrated that LRH was significantly associated with less intraoperative blood loss (50 vs. 100 mL; P < 0.001), lower rate of hepatic inflow occlusion (10.52 vs. 33.3%; P = 0.003), and shorter postoperative hospital stay (5 vs. 6 days; P = 0.001) after 1:1 propensity score matching. The operation time, rate of blood transfusion, and postoperative complications were similar between the two groups. Moreover, all four inflammation-based markers were significantly lower in LRH group on postoperative day 1. In the meta-analysis, a total of 12 studies comprising 1,315 patients receiving repeat hepatectomy met the selection criteria. Similar to our own study, the meta-analysis showed shorter hospital stay [standard mean difference (SMD) = -0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.79 to -0.22, P < 0.001], less intraoperative blood loss (SMD = -0.79, 95% CI = -1.11 to -0.47, P < 0.001), and lower rate of major postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR) = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.19-0.66, P = 0.001] in the LRH group. There was no difference in the field of overall postoperative complication and operation time between LRH and ORH groups. Conclusion: Compared with ORH, LRH results in relatively better surgical outcomes and faster postoperative recovery. It could be considered a feasible and effective option for the treatment of recurrent liver tumors.