The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Original Article
PreviousPrevious
Volume 332:1256-1261 May 11, 1995 Number 19
NextNext

A Comparison of Lipiodol Chemoembolization and Conservative Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Groupe d'Etude et de Traitement du Carcinome Hépatocellulaire

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text
- PDF

Commentary
-Letters

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-PubMed Citation
ABSTRACT

Background Chemoembolization with Lipiodol (iodized oil) is widely used to treat patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Severe side effects have been reported, and improved survival has not been clearly demonstrated.

Methods Patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who did not have severe liver disease and who met additional entry criteria were randomly assigned to receive either Lipiodol chemoembolization (70 mg of cisplatin, 10 ml of Lipiodol, and gelatin-sponge [Gelfoam] particles delivered through the hepatic artery) or conservative management involving treatment of complications and pain. Courses of treatment were to be given every two months for a maximum of four courses. The main end point was survival.

Results The study was stopped in December 1992, after a sequential analysis showed the lack of the expected benefit from chemoembolization. As of October 1, 1994, 39 of the 50 patients assigned to chemoembolization and 40 of the 46 patients assigned to conservative management had died. Twenty-six patients assigned to chemoembolization received all four courses of treatment. There was no significant difference in survival between the two groups, although there was a trend favoring the chemoembolization group (estimated relative risk of death in the control group, 1.4; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.9 to 2.2; P = 0.13). The comparison of survival between the two groups was not substantially changed by adjustments for differences in base-line and prognostic characteristics (adjusted relative risk, 1.3; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.8 to 2.1; P = 0.31). At one year, the estimated survival rates were 62 percent in the chemoembolization group (95 percent confidence interval, 48.6 to 75.4 percent) and 43.5 percent in the conservative-management group (95 percent confidence interval, 29.2 to 57.8 percent). In the chemoembolization group, tumor growth, as assessed by tumor size and serum alpha-fetoprotein concentration, was reduced and the incidence of portal obstruction was lower than in the conservative-management group. Liver failure occurred after 47 courses of treatment in 30 patients assigned to chemoembolization.

Conclusions In a group of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma but without severe liver disease, Lipiodol chemoembolization reduced tumor growth, often caused acute liver failure, and did not significantly improve survival.


Source Information

Address reprint requests to Dr. Jean-Claude Trinchet at the Service d'Hépato-gastroentérologie, Hôpital Jean Verdier, Ave. du 14 juillet, 93143 Bondy CEDEX, France.

Full Text of this Article


Related Letters:

Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Stuart K., Vauthey J. N., Marsh R. d. W., Davis G. L., Rees C. R., Bismuth H., Samuel D., Engerran L., Trinchet J.-C., Chevret S., Mathieu D., The Groupe d'Etude et de Traitement du Carcinome Hepatocéllulaire
Extract | Full Text  
N Engl J Med 1995; 333:877-878, Sep 28, 1995. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.