Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization after percutaneous microwave ablation and portal vein embolization for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Cheng, Jian; Hong, Defei; Zhang, Chengwu; Fan, Xiao-Ming; Luo, Zhen; Yao, Weifeng; Jin, Liming

doi:10.1016/j.hbpd.2022.06.013

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, PALPP blocks the portal vein communicating branch through PVE. PALPP exhibits better safety, a lower complication rate, less impact on liver injury, increased opportunities for remedial treatment, controlled tumor progression, and prolonged survival 32 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of percutaneous microwave/radiofrequency ablation liver partition and portal vein embolization versus transarterial chemoembolization and portal vein embolization for planned hepatectomy with insufficient future liver remnant

Ye,

Fu,

et al. 2024

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In China, both percutaneous microwave/radiofrequency ablation liver partition plus portal vein embolization (PALPP) and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus portal vein embolization (PVE) have been utilized in planned hepatectomy. However, there is a lack of comparative studies on the effectiveness of these two techniques for cases with insufficient future liver remnant (FLR). Methods Patients were categorized into either the PALPP group or the TACE + PVE group. Clinical data, including FLR growth rate, complications, secondary resection rate, and overall survival rate, were compared and analyzed for both groups. Results Between December 2014 and October 2021, a total of 29 patients underwent TACE + PVE (n = 12) and PALPP (n = 17). In the TACE + PVE group, 7 patients successfully underwent two-stage hepatectomy, while in the PALPP group, 13 patients underwent the procedure (two-stage resection rate: 58.3% vs. 76.5%, P = 0.42). There were no significant differences in postoperative complications of one-stage procedures (17.6% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.62) and overall survival (14.0 months vs. 20.1 months, P = 0.85) between the TACE + PVE and PALPP groups. However, the PALPP group demonstrated a shorter time to FLR volume growth for second-stage resection (18.5 days vs. 66 days, P = 0.001) and a higher weekly rate of FLR volume growth (58.5 ml/week vs. 7.7 ml/week, P = 0.001). Conclusions Compared with TACE + PVE, PALPP results in a more significant increase in FLR volume and a higher rate of two-stage resection without increasing postoperative complications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%