研究动态
Articles below are published ahead of final publication in an issue. Please cite articles in the following format: authors, (year), title, journal, DOI.

质子束治疗与射频消融治疗初治单一肝细胞癌患者:倾向评分分析。

Proton Beam Therapy versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Patients with Treatment-Naïve Single Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Analysis.

发表日期:2023 Sep
作者: Yuta Sekino, Ryosuke Tateishi, Nobuyoshi Fukumitsu, Toshiyuki Okumura, Kazushi Maruo, Takashi Iizumi, Haruko Numajiri, Masashi Mizumoto, Tatsuya Minami, Ryo Nakagomi, Masaya Sato, Yoshinari Asaoka, Hayato Nakagawa, Yuki Hayata, Naoto Fujiwara, Shuichiro Shiina, Kazuhiko Koike, Hideyuki Sakurai
来源: Liver Cancer

摘要:

质子束治疗 (PBT) 被认为是治疗肝细胞癌 (HCC) 的有效局部治疗方法。然而,关于未接受治疗的病例的比较研究却很少报道。本研究的目的是比较 PBT 与射频消融 (RFA) 治疗初治孤立性 HCC 患者的生存结果。连续 95 名初治 HCC 患者,单个结节直径≤5 cm ,且Child-Pugh评分≤8的2001年至2013年间在筑波大学医院接受PBT治疗的患者被纳入该研究。此外,还分析了同期在东京大学医院接受 RFA 治疗的 836 例初治 HCC 患者作为对照。倾向评分匹配后比较83对患者的无复发生存率(RFS)和总生存率(OS)。1年、3年和5年RFS率分别为86.6%、49.5%和35.5%, PBT 组和 RFA 组分别为 59.5%、34.0% 和 20.9% (p = 0.058); PBT 组的 OS 率分别为 97.6%、77.8% 和 57.1%,RFA 组的 OS 率分别为 95.1%、81.7% 和 67.7%(p = 0.16)。关于不良反应,PBT 中未发现 3 级或以上不良事件;然而,RFA 组在 RFA 30 天内发生了 2 例 3 级不良事件:1 例腹腔积血和 1 例血胸。倾向评分匹配后,PBT 与 RFA 相比,RFS 和 OS 没有显着差异。 PBT 可以成为未经单独治疗的 HCC 患者的替代方案。作者版权所有 © 2022。由巴塞尔 S. Karger AG 出版。
Proton beam therapy (PBT) is known to be an effective locoregional treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, few comparative studies in treatment-naïve cases have been reported. The aim of this study was to compare the survival outcomes of PBT with those of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with treatment-naïve solitary HCC.Ninety-five consecutive patients with treatment-naïve HCC, a single nodule measuring ≤5 cm in diameter, and a Child-Pugh score of ≤8 who were treated with PBT at the University of Tsukuba Hospital between 2001 and 2013 were enrolled in the study. In addition, 836 patients with treatment-naïve HCC treated by RFA at the University of Tokyo Hospital during the same period were analyzed as controls. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared in 83 patient pairs after propensity score matching.The 1-year, 3-year, and 5-year RFS rates were 86.6%, 49.5%, and 35.5%, respectively, in the PBT group and 59.5%, 34.0%, and 20.9% in the RFA group (p = 0.058); the respective OS rates were 97.6%, 77.8%, and 57.1% in the PBT group and 95.1%, 81.7%, and 67.7% in the RFA group (p = 0.16). Regarding adverse effects, no grade 3 or higher adverse events were noted in the PBT; however, two grade 3 adverse events occurred within 30 days of RFA in the RFA group: one hemoperitoneum and one hemothorax.After propensity score matching, PBT showed no significant difference in RFS and OS compared to RFA. PBT can be an alternative for patients with solitary treatment-naïve HCC.Copyright © 2022 by The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.