1.
Which is the best combination of TACE and Sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treatment? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Feng, F, Jiang, Q, Jia, H, Sun, H, Chai, Y, Li, X, Rong, G, Zhang, Y, Li, Z
Pharmacological research. 2018;:89-101
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of combination therapy with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and Sorafenib for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through a systematic review and network meta-analysis and identify the best combination of TACE and Sorafenib. We searched databases for publications prior to May 2018. The prespecified efficacy outcomes were the objective response rate, overall survival rate, and time to progression. adverse effects included dermatologic, gastrointestinal, and general disorders. Subgroup analyses, meta-regression, and a network meta-analysis regarding two types of outcomes by different chemotherapy agents in TACE (5-fluorouracil, Adriamycin, Platinum, mitomycin C, hydroxycamptothecin) were included. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018098541). For efficacy outcomes, subgroups which included 5-fluorouracil and hydroxycamptothecin ranked higher than other chemotherapy agents, while mitomycin C ranked the lowest. For advanced effects, the use of mitomycin C or 5-fluorouracil as the chemotherapy agent ranked higher, while hydroxycamptothecin ranked the lowest. Therefore, we excluded 5-Fu and Mitomycin C in subsequent studies. Additionally, in the evaluation of primary adverse effects by the network meta-analysis, Platinum ranked the highest while hydroxycamptothecin ranked the lowest. Therefore, we excluded Platinum this time. Furthermore, all types of Adriamycin are not same, and some studies included two types of Adriamycin. The network meta-analysis results showed that the TACE (hydroxycamptothecin + pirarubicin) +Sorafenib arm and TACE (hydroxycamptothecin + epirubicin) +Sorafenib arm had significant efficacy differences. In conclusion, for patients with advanced HCC, combination therapy with HCPT plus THP/EPI in TACE and Sorfenib may be used as a first-line treatment.
2.
Enhanced recovery care versus traditional care after laparoscopic liver resections: a randomized controlled trial.
Liang, X, Ying, H, Wang, H, Xu, H, Liu, M, Zhou, H, Ge, H, Jiang, W, Feng, L, Liu, H, et al
Surgical endoscopy. 2018;(6):2746-2757
Abstract
BACKGROUND Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), with several evidence-based elements, has been shown to shorten length of hospital stay and reduce perioperative hospital costs in many operations. This randomized clinical trial was performed to compare complications and hospital stay of laparoscopic liver resection between ERAS and traditional care. METHODS A randomized controlled trial was performed for laparoscopic liver resection from August 2015 to August 2016. Patients were randomly divided into ERAS group and traditional care group. The primary outcome was length of hospital stay (LOS) after surgery. Second outcomes included postoperative complications, hospital cost, and 30-day readmissions. Elements used in ERAS group included more perioperative education, nurse navigators, nutrition support for liver diseases, respiratory therapy, oral carbohydrate 2 h before operation, early mobilization and oral intake, goal-directed fluid therapy, less drainages, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis and multimodal analgesia. RESULTS The study included 58 (two conversion to laparotomy) patients in ERAS group and 61 (three conversion to laparotomy) patients in the traditional care group. Postoperative LOS was significantly shorter in the ERAS group than traditional care group (5 vs. 8 days; p < 0.001). ERAS program significantly reduced the hospital costs (CNY 45413.1 vs. 55794.1; p = 0.006) and complications (36.2 vs. 55.7%; p = 0.033). Duration till first flatus and PONV were significantly reduced in ERAS group. Pain control was better in ERAS (Visual analogue scale (VAS) POD1 (≥ 4) 19.0 vs. 39.3%, p = 0.017; VAS POD1 2.5 vs. 3.1, p = 0.010). There was no difference in the rate of 30-day readmissions (6.9 vs. 8.2%; p = 1.000). CONCLUSION ERAS protocol is feasible and safe for laparoscopic liver resection. Patients in ERAS group have less pain and complications.
3.
Significant efficacy and well safety of apatinib in an advanced liver cancer patient: a case report and literature review.
Kou, P, Zhang, Y, Shao, W, Zhu, H, Zhang, J, Wang, H, Kong, L, Yu, J
Oncotarget. 2017;(12):20510-20515
Abstract
Apatinib is a novel and highly selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2. Previous studies have suggested that apatinib is safe and effective in some solid tumors. We report one case with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), who received apatinib combined with transhepatic arterial chemotherapy and embolization (TACE), and chemotherapy respectively. TACE was administered three times once a month, using lipiodol 10ml, oxaliplatin 150mg, and tegafur 1g. The dose of apatinib was 500 mg/d from day 4 to 24. After TACE, the patient received chemotherapy of regimen FOLFOX4, oxaliplatin intravenously at 85 mg/m2 on day 1, calcium levofolinate 200 mg/m2 on day 1 and 2, 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 intravenously and 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m2 intravenously pumped for 22h on day 1 and 2, cycled every two weeks for seven cycles. He took concurrently apatinib with a dose of 500mg daily from 1 to 10 days per cycle. He was confirmed as partial response (PR) by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). The level of serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) decreased from 60500 ng/ml to 12.7 ng/ml, and the progression free survival (PFS) time was more than eight months. It indicated that apatinib may be a superior choice for HCC patients.