Randomised controlled trial of lipiodol transarterial chemoembolisation with or without amiodarone for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.
Fiche publication
Date publication
novembre 2011
Auteurs
Membres identifiés du Cancéropôle Est :
Pr BEDENNE Laurent, Pr HILLON Patrick, Dr JOUVE Jean-Louis, Pr LEPAGE Côme, Dr MINELLO Anne
Tous les auteurs :
Boulin M, Ciboulet A, Guiu B, Maillard E, Bonnetain F, Minello A, Gagnaire A, Lepage C, Krause D, Hillon P, Bedenne L, Cercueil JP, Chauffert B, Jouve JL
Lien Pubmed
Résumé
BACKGROUND: There is no consensus about the most effective method for transarterial chemoembolisation of hepatocellular carcinoma. AIM: The aim of this phase II trial was to compare the efficacy and toxicity of lipiodol transarterial chemoembolisation with amiodarone in association with pirarubicin or doxorubicin versus lipiodol transarterial chemoembolisation with anthracycline alone in a control group. METHODS: Patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh A/B7 were considered eligible for the trial. transarterial chemoembolisation was repeated every 6 weeks for a maximum of 4 sessions. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were randomised in the amiodarone group, and 14 were randomised in the control group. The two groups were comparable with respect to their baseline characteristics. The objective response rate according to the EASL criteria was 62% (95% CI 35-88) in the amiodarone group and 50% (95% CI 24-76) in the control group. At 1 and 2 years, survival rates were 77% (95% CI 44-92) and 52% (95% CI 22-75) in the amiodarone group, and 57% (95% CI 28-78) and 40% (95% CI 15-65) in the control group, respectively. There was no difference between the two groups in terms of toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that lipiodol transarterial chemoembolisation with anthracycline and amiodarone was safe but did not increase survival compared with lipiodol transarterial chemoembolisation with anthracycline alone in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
Référence
Dig Liver Dis. 2011 Nov;43(11):905-11