HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association · 2020
Assessment of lenvatinib treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with liver cirrhosis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Komatsu Shohei, Yano Yoshihiko, Sofue Keitaro, Kido Masahiro, Tanaka Motofumi, Kuramitsu Kaori, Awazu Masahide, Gon Hidetoshi, Yamamoto Atsushi, Yanagimoto Hiroaki, Toyama Hirochika, Kodama Yuzo, Murakami Takamichi, Fukumoto Takumi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to assess the clinical features of patients who received lenvatinib treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
METHODS: The clinical characteristics, adverse events, and radiological responses were evaluated for 51 consecutive patients.
RESULTS: Of the study subjects, 37 patients had Child-Pugh class A (CPA) liver function, and 14 patients had Child-Pugh class B (CPB) liver function. The overall response rates in the CPA and CPB groups were 42.9% and 25.0%, respectively, and disease control rates were 82.9% and 83.3%, respectively, without significant difference (p = 0.2621 and 0.9697). There was no significant difference between CPA and CPB groups regarding the incidence of adverse events, except for hepatic coma. No significant difference was observed in the relative dose intensity between the CPA and CPB groups, for the first month, 1-2 months, or 2-3 months (p = 0.2368, 0.9368, and 0.9293).
CONCLUSION: The comparable outcomes between the CPA and CPB groups suggest the acceptability of lenvatinib treatment in patients with impaired liver function, at least in the acute phase. With careful follow-up, the dose can be relatively intensified, even in patients with impaired liver function and this may contribute to offering comparable treatment.
METHODS: The clinical characteristics, adverse events, and radiological responses were evaluated for 51 consecutive patients.
RESULTS: Of the study subjects, 37 patients had Child-Pugh class A (CPA) liver function, and 14 patients had Child-Pugh class B (CPB) liver function. The overall response rates in the CPA and CPB groups were 42.9% and 25.0%, respectively, and disease control rates were 82.9% and 83.3%, respectively, without significant difference (p = 0.2621 and 0.9697). There was no significant difference between CPA and CPB groups regarding the incidence of adverse events, except for hepatic coma. No significant difference was observed in the relative dose intensity between the CPA and CPB groups, for the first month, 1-2 months, or 2-3 months (p = 0.2368, 0.9368, and 0.9293).
CONCLUSION: The comparable outcomes between the CPA and CPB groups suggest the acceptability of lenvatinib treatment in patients with impaired liver function, at least in the acute phase. With careful follow-up, the dose can be relatively intensified, even in patients with impaired liver function and this may contribute to offering comparable treatment.