FOLFOX-肝动脉灌注化疗联合靶向及免疫治疗巴塞罗那临床肝癌C期肝细胞癌

目的 观察以FOLFOX方案为核心的肝动脉灌注化疗(HAIC)联合靶向及免疫治疗巴塞罗那临床肝癌(BCLC)-C期肝细胞癌(HCC)的效果和安全性。方法 回顾性分析21例接受HAIC联合靶向及免疫治疗的BCLC-C期HCC患者,记录患者总生存期(OS)及无进展生存期(PFS),计算总缓解率(ORR)和疾病控制率(DCR),以及治疗及随访期间不良事件。结果 治疗后ORR、DCR分别为57.14%(12/21)和95.24%(20/21)。随访4~33个月、中位时间15个月,期间13例死于肿瘤进展;中位OS为11.0[95%CI(6.47,15.52)]个月,中位PFS为5.0[95%CI(4.23,5.76)]个月。不良事件中,1~2级较为常见;治疗期间16例出现3级不良事件,其中1例死于免疫相关性肺炎,15例均于下一治疗周期前恢复。结论 FOLFOX-HAIC联合靶向及免疫治疗BCLC-C期HCC安全、有效。     

肝动脉灌注化疗与经动脉化疗栓塞/栓塞治疗不可切除肝细胞癌疗效与安全性系统评价和Meta分析

背景与目的 肝细胞癌（HCC）是常见的恶性肿瘤之一。经动脉化疗栓塞（TACE）和经动脉栓塞（TAE）是不可切除HCC的常见治疗选择。近年来，肝动脉灌注化疗（HAIC）已用于治疗晚期HCC，并且取得了良好的治疗效果。但是，很少有研究直接将HAIC与TACE/TAE进行比较。因此，本研究旨在评估HAIC与TACE/TAE治疗不可切除HCC的疗效和安全性。方法 检索PubMed、OvidSP、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、万方数据库、中国知网及维普中文期刊数据库中截至2021年8月14日发表的有关HAIC和TACE/TAE治疗不可切除HCC的文献；提取总生存期（OS），无病生存期（PFS），客观反应率（ORR），疾病控制率（DCR）和不良事件等结局指标的相关数据，用Review Manager 5.4软件进行Meta分析。结果 最终共纳入5篇文献。Meta分析结果显示，HAIC组在OS（HR=0.39，95% CI=0.18~0.86，P= 0.02），ORR（RR=3.82，95% CI=2.41~6.04，P<0.000 01）和DCR（RR=1.52，95% CI=1.12~2.05，P=0.006）方面优于TACE/TAE组。并且，敏感度分析排除可能的异质性来源后，结果仍一致。HAIC组与TACE/TAE组之间PFS差异无统计学意义（HR=0.34，95% CI =0.11~1.04，P =0.06），但排除可能的异质性来源后，HAIC组的PFS优于TACE/TAE组（HR=0.56，95% CI=0.43~0.73，P<0.000 1）。对于任何等级的不良事件，HAIC组发生血小板减少症（RR=1.59，95% CI=1.04~2.44，P=0.03）和腹泻（RR=4.57，95% CI=2.01~10.37，P=0.003）的风险高于TACE/TAE组，而发生丙氨酸氨基转移酶升高（RR=0.57，95% CI=0.35~0.92，P=0.02）、高胆红素血症（RR=0.37，95% CI=0.26~0.53，P<0.000 01）的风险低于TACE/TAE组；对于3~4级不良事件，HAIC组发生白细胞减少症的风险高于TACE/TAE组（RR=6.32，95% CI=1.71~23.28，P=0.006）；无论是3~4级或任何等级的不良事件，HAIC组发生发热的风险低于TACE/TAE组（P<0.05）；两组的贫血、中性粒细胞减少症、低蛋白血症、腹痛、呕吐等发生情况差异均无统计学意义（均P>0.05）。结论 与TACE/TAE相比，HAIC具有更好的肿瘤反应、更长的生存期以及可接受的不良反应，是不可切除HCC患者更好的治疗选择。     

肝动脉灌注化疗联合仑伐替尼治疗巴塞罗那临床肝癌B或C期肝细胞癌

目的 观察肝动脉灌注化疗（HAIC）联合仑伐替尼治疗巴塞罗那临床肝癌（BCLC）B或C期肝细胞癌（HCC）效果,分析影响患者生存时间的因素。方法 回顾性分析104例BCLC B或C期HCC患者资料,根据治疗方案将其归入观察组（46例,接受HAIC联合仑伐替尼治疗）及对照组（58例,仅接受HAIC）;比较2组疗效、不良反应及患者总生存期（OS）和无进展生存期（PFS）,以Cox回归分析评估OS影响因素。结果 治疗后3、6个月,观察组改良实体瘤疗效评价标准（mRECIST）评估结果均优于对照组（P均＜0.05）;治疗后1年,组间mRECIST评估结果差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。观察组患者总生存率高于对照组（P＜0.05）,而组间无进展生存率差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。观察组皮疹发生率高于对照组（P＜0.05）。多因素Cox回归分析结果显示,相比单一HAIC,HAIC联合仑伐替尼［风险比（HR）=0.425,95%CI（0.255,0.791）］可延长患者OS;相比治疗前美国东部肿瘤协作组（ECOG）评分 1、AFP≥400 μg/ml、瘤灶数目≥3及BCLC C期,治疗前ECOG评分 0、AFP＜400 μg/ml、瘤灶数目≤2及BCLC B期均为HCC患者OS独立保护因素（P均＜0.05）。结论 HAIC联合仑伐替尼治疗BCLC B期或C期HCC安全、有效;治疗前ECOG评分、血清AFP水平、瘤灶数目及BCLC分期均为OS影响因素。     

FOLFOX-肝动脉灌注化疗联合程序性死亡受体-1抑制剂和靶向药物治疗中国肝癌分期Ⅲa期肝细胞癌

目的 观察FOLFOX-肝动脉灌注化疗（HAIC）联合程序性死亡受体-1（PD-1）抑制剂和靶向药物治疗中国肝癌分期（CNLC）Ⅲa期肝细胞癌（HCC）的价值。方法 回顾性分析61例接受PD-1抑制剂+靶向药物治疗的CNLC Ⅲa期HCC患者,根据是否接受联合FOLFOX-HAIC治疗将其归入观察组（n=30）及对照组（n=31）;比较组间一般资料、治疗方案、不良反应及疗效,分析观察组方案的治疗价值。结果 组间患者一般资料及PD-1抑制剂+靶向药物方案差异均无统计学意义（P均＞0.05）;1～2级不良反应中,观察组恶心、呕吐及腹痛发生率均高于对照组（P均＜0.05）,而其余1～2级及3级不良反应组间发生率差异均无统计学意义（P均＞0.05）。观察组客观缓解率（ORR）、无进展生存期（PFS）及总生存期（OS）均高于对照组（P均＜0.05）。结论 FOLFOX-HAIC联合PD-1抑制剂+靶向药物治疗CNLC Ⅲa期HCC疗效较佳而安全性尚可。     

TACE联合栓塞治疗中晚期肝癌合并肝动脉-门静脉瘘

目的 探讨TACE联合瘘口栓塞对中晚期原发性肝癌（PHC）合并肝动脉-门静脉瘘（HAPF）的干预效果。方法 回顾性分析65例伴HAPF的中晚期PHC患者,根据肝动脉造影中门静脉显影时间将HAPF分为低流量型（<1 s,31例）、中流量型（1~3 s,25例）及高流量型（>3 s,9例）,均给予TACE联合瘘口栓塞治疗。统计术后1个月瘘口封堵情况和临床疗效,及术后3、6、12、24个月患者生存率。结果 48例（73.85%,48/65）HAPF患者经一次性完全封堵,包括26例（26/31,83.87%）低流量型、18例（18/25,72.00%）中流量型及4例（4/9,44.44%）高流量型（P=0.046）。治疗后肿瘤进展11例,稳定19例,缓解35例,其中低流量型HAPF患者肿瘤进展2例、稳定3例、缓解26例,中流量型、高流量型HAPF患者分别为2、14、9例及7、2、0例（P=0.001）。术后3个月患者生存率为87.69%（57/65）,6个月67.69%（44/65）,12个月43.08%（28/65）,24个月6.15%（4/65）;低、中、高流量型患者生存率差异有统计学意义（P<0.001）。结论 TACE联合瘘口栓塞可有效治疗PHC合并HAPF,且对低流量型HAPF治疗效果更佳。     

比较TACE+微波消融+程序性死亡受体-1与TACE+微波消融治疗原发性肝癌

目的 比较TACE+微波消融（MWA）+程序性死亡受体-1（PD-1）与TACE+MWA治疗原发性肝癌（PHC）的价值。方法 回顾性纳入接受TACE+MWA+PD-1（观察组）或TACE+MWA治疗（对照组）的PHC患者各40例,比较组间基线资料、疗效和并发症。结果 2组患者基线资料差异均无统计学意义（P均>0.05）。观察组与对照组客观缓解率（ORR）分别为90.00%和72.50%,疾病控制率（DCR）分别为97.50%和95.00%;组间差异均无统计学意义（P均>0.05）。观察组与对照组中位总生存期（OS）分别为30.80个月和15.70个月,中位无进展生存期（PFS）分别为23.35个月和6.80个月;观察组OS和PFS均长于对照组（P均<0.05）。组间并发症发生率差异均无统计学意义（P均>0.05）,且均经相关对症治疗后好转。结论 TACE+MWA+PD-1联合治疗PHC效果优于TACE+MWA。     

临床模型预测经导管动脉栓塞治疗急性非静脉曲张性上消化道出血术后30天内再出血

目的 根据急性非静脉曲张性上消化道出血（ANVUGIB）患者临床资料建立logistic模型,观察其预测经导管动脉栓塞（TAE）治疗后30天内再出血的价值。方法 纳入139例接受TAE的ANVUGIB患者,记录TAE成功率及术后30天内再出血率;基于临床资料行单因素及多因素分析,筛选再出血的影响因素,建立临床logistic模型,分析其预测TAE后再出血的价值。结果 TAE技术成功率为95.68%（133/139）。对133例TAE技术成功患者随访30天,其中29例再出血,再出血率21.80%（29/133）。术前凝血功能障碍（OR=3.74,P=0.045）及术前高Rockall评分（OR=1.97,P=0.005）为TAE治疗ANVUGIB后30天内再出血的危险因素,男性（OR=0.19,P=0.007）及术前CT阳性（OR=0.06,P=0.047）为其保护因素。基于上述4个因素建立的logistic模型预测ANVUGIB患者TAE后30天内再出血的敏感度和特异度分别为82.80%和75.00%,曲线下面积为0.817,高于Rockall评分、Blatchford评分及澳洲医药科学家协会65评分（P均<0.05）。结论 基于性别、术前凝血功能障碍情况、Rockall评分及CT表现建立的临床模型有助于预测TAE治疗ANVUGIB后30天内再出血。     

TACE联合索拉非尼治疗BCLC-C期肝癌的有效性及安全性

目的 观察TACE联合索拉非尼（Sorafenib）治疗巴塞罗那临床肝癌（BCLC）-C期肝细胞癌（HCC）的有效性和安全性。方法 回顾性分析73例BCLC-C期HCC患者,其中35例接受TACE联合索拉菲尼治疗（TACE+Sorafenib组）,38例单纯接受TACE治疗（TACE组）。比较2组治疗1个月后的疗效和不良反应,统计总生存期（OS）及疾病进展时间（TTP）。结果 术后1个月,TACE+Sorafenib组疾病控制率（DCR）高于TACE组（P=0.04）,2组客观缓解率（ORR）差异无统计学意义（P=0.32）。2组主要不良反应包括胃肠道反应、骨髓抑制、皮肤反应及肝功能异常,均无严重不良反应发生;TACE+Sorafenib组皮肤反应、口腔黏膜炎、高血压发生率高于TACE组（P均<0.05）。TACE+Sorafenib组中位OS为13.6个月,中位TTP为6.5个月,均高于TACE组（分别为6.5、3.3个月,P=0.004、0.007）。结论 TACE联合索拉非尼治疗BCLC-C期HCC安全、有效,可改善患者预后。     

肝切除联合血管切除重建治疗肝内胆管癌并血管侵犯疗效与安全性的多中心回顾性研究

背景与目的 在过去,大血管（门静脉、下腔静脉等）侵犯被认为是肝内胆管癌（ICC）根治性切除的禁忌证,随着手术技术的进步,目前肝切除联合血管切除重建的安全性逐渐被认可,但其疗效如何尚无定论。因此,本研究通过国内多中心数据探讨ICC并血管侵犯患者肝切除联合血管切除重建的安全性和疗效,以及术后辅助治疗的价值。方法 回顾性收集2010年1月—2021年6月国内12家三甲医院收治的1 040例行根治性切除术的ICC患者临床病理资料,包括未发生血管侵犯872例,血管侵犯168例（其中行联合血管切除重建35例,行常规ICC根治术未行血管切除133例）。分析全组及不同类型患者的总生存（OS）时间;在血管侵犯的患者中,分析血管切除重建对患者的主要临床指标与OS时间的影响,以及术后辅助治疗对患者OS时间的影响。结果 全组患者中位OS时间为18（9.4~30.6）个月,无血管侵犯患者中位OS时间为18.51（10~32）个月,血管侵犯患者中,未血管切除患者中位OS时间为16.3（9.4~28）个月,血管切除患者中位OS时间为10（5.5~21.6）个月。生存分析结果显示,血管侵犯患者无论是否行血管切除,OS时间均低于无血管侵犯患者（均P<0.05）,血管切除重建对血管侵犯患者的OS无明显改善作用（P=0.662）;两两1∶1倾向评分匹配后分析显示,血管侵犯患者无论是否行血管切除,中位OS时间均低于无血管侵犯患者,但差异无统计学意义（无血管侵犯vs.血管切除：26个月vs. 21.8个月,P=0.087;无血管侵犯vs.未血管切除：27个月vs. 16个月,P=0.068）,血管切除重建对血管侵犯患者的OS无明显改善作用（P=0.293）。在血管侵犯的患者中,血管切除重建患者手术时间及术后住院时间均长于未血管切除患者（均P<0.05）,而术后并发症等其他临床指标均无明显差异（均P>0.05）;同种类型血管侵犯患者的亚组分析结果显示,血管切除重建对不同类型的血管侵犯患者的OS均无改善作用（均P>0.05）;无论是否行血管切除重建,术后辅助治疗对患者的OS均有一定的改善作用,但差异均无统计学意义（均P>0.05）。结论 血管侵犯是ICC患者预后的危险因素,血管切除重建不能明显改善患者预后,且可能增加患者手术时间及术后住院时间。对血管侵犯是ICC患者术后进行辅助治疗可能有助于改善预后。     

常规TACE与药物洗脱微球TACE治疗CNLC Ⅱb和Ⅲa期肝细胞癌效果及患者预后影响因素

目的 对比观察常规TACE(cTACE)与药物洗脱微球TACE(DEB-TACE)治疗中国肝癌分期(CNLC)Ⅱb和Ⅲa期肝细胞癌(HCC)效果,分析预后影响因素。方法 回顾性分析91例CNLC Ⅱb或Ⅲa期HCC患者,其中47例接受cTACE(cTACE组)、44例接受DEB-TACE(DEB-TACE组);比较治疗后组间不良反应发生率及短期疗效[肿瘤客观缓解率(ORR)及疾病控制率(DCR)],统计患者总生存期(OS)及无进展生存期(PFS),观察TACE治疗HCC后患者OS的影响因素。结果 治疗后组间不良反应发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。DEB-TACE组首次[84.09%(37/44) vs. 63.83%(30/47),90.91%(40/44) vs. 74.47%(35/47),P=0.028、0.040]及再次[75.00%(33/44) vs. 55.32%(26/47),86.36%(38/44) vs. 68.09%(32/47),P=0.049、0.039]TACE后ORR和DCR均高于cTACE组。Ⅲa期HCC患者首次DEB-TACE后ORR和DCR高于首次cTACE后(P=0.035、0.027);中等肿瘤负荷患者首次DEB-TACE后ORR高于首次cTACE后(P=0.017),但DCR差异无统计学意义(P=0.182)。随访期间(中位随访时间25.0个月)组间OS和PFS差异均有统计学意义(χ²=6.631、10.172,P=0.006、0.001)。门静脉癌栓、肿瘤最大径≥5 cm及肿瘤数目≥4个均为TACE治疗HCC后患者OS的独立影响因素。结论 DEB-TACE用于治疗CNLC Ⅱb和Ⅲa期HCC效果优于cTACE,治疗CNLC Ⅲa期和中等肿瘤负荷患者短期效果更佳;门静脉癌栓、肿瘤大小及数目为TACE治疗HCC后患者预后的影响因素。     

可切除或交界可切除胰腺癌新辅助治疗与优先手术疗效及安全性Meta分析

背景与目的：随着多学科治疗模式的发展及精准医学的兴起,新辅助治疗（NAT）可以改善非转移性胰腺癌的根治性切除率已基本达成共识,然而,由于缺乏结论性的随机对照试验,其在可切除及交界可切除患者中的作用仍有争议。因此,本研究通过Meta分析的方法比较可切除或交界可切除胰腺癌NAT后手术与优先手术两种治疗模式的有效性及安全性,为临床提供循证参考。方法：检索多个国内外数据库,搜集关于可切除或交界可切除胰腺癌NAT与优先手术的临床随机对照试验（RCT）,检索时限均从建库至2022年11月29日。应用Cochrane系统评价方法评价纳入研究,对同质研究采用RevMan 5.4软件进行Meta分析。结果：最终共纳入7个RCT研究,共计938例患者。其中NAT组466例,优先手术组472例。Meta分析结果显示,与优先手术组比较,NAT组R0切除率增加（RR=1.65,95%CI=1.35～2.02,P<0.000 01）,阳性淋巴结发生率降低（RR=0.67,95%CI=0.52～0.85,P=0.001）,手术切除率降低（RR=0.91,95%CI=0.84～0.98,P=0.02）,而中位生...     

原发性肝癌转化治疗及其维持治疗策略

肝癌首选治疗方法为手术治疗,也是惟一能使病人获得长期生存甚至治愈的方法.但我国绝大多数肝癌病人在确诊时已处于中晚期,失去了手术机会.转化治疗是将不可切除的晚期肝癌或者潜在可切除转化为可根治性切除,故成为晚期肝癌治疗研究的热点.转化治疗的常用方法如下:(1)局部治疗,如肝动脉栓塞化疗(TACE)、经肝动脉放疗栓塞(TAR...     

Meta‐analysis comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer

Background

Studies comparing upfront surgery with neoadjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer may report only patients who underwent resection and so survival will be skewed. The aim of this study was to report survival by intention to treat in a comparison of upfront surgery versus neoadjuvant treatment in resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

Methods

MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting median overall survival by intention to treat in patients with resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer treated with or without neoadjuvant treatment. Secondary outcomes included overall and R0 resection rate, pathological lymph node rate, reasons for unresectability and toxicity of neoadjuvant treatment.

Results

In total, 38 studies were included with 3484 patients, of whom 1738 (49·9 per cent) had neoadjuvant treatment. The weighted median overall survival by intention to treat was 18·8 months for neoadjuvant treatment and 14·8 months for upfront surgery; the difference was larger among patients whose tumours were resected (26·1 versus 15·0 months respectively). The overall resection rate was lower with neoadjuvant treatment than with upfront surgery (66·0 versus 81·3 per cent; P < 0·001), but the R0 rate was higher (86·8 (95 per cent c.i. 84·6 to 88·7) versus 66·9 (64·2 to 69·6) per cent; P < 0·001). Reported by intention to treat, the R0 rates were 58·0 and 54·9 per cent respectively (P = 0·088). The pathological lymph node rate was 43·8 per cent after neoadjuvant therapy and 64·8 per cent in the upfront surgery group (P < 0·001). Toxicity of at least grade III was reported in up to 64 per cent of the patients.

Conclusion

Neoadjuvant treatment appears to improve overall survival by intention to treat, despite lower overall resection rates for resectable or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42016049374.     

Outcomes after resection of locally advanced or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer after neoadjuvant therapy

BackgroundNeoadjuvant treatment frequently is performed in unresectable/borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study was to retrospectively compare postoperative outcomes and survival of patients who underwent pancreatectomy after neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced/borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (neoadjuvant treatment group) with those of patients with resectable disease who underwent upfront surgery.MethodsBetween 2000 and 2008, there were 403 patients who underwent pancreatic cancer resection, 41 (10.1%) patients after neoadjuvant treatment for initially unresectable tumors and 362 (89.9%) patients had upfront surgery. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed.ResultsMortality/morbidity rates were similar in the 2 groups. Nodal metastases were significantly lower in the neoadjuvant treatment group (31.7% vs 86.2%; P < .001). A complete pathologic response was observed in 13.6% after neoadjuvant treatment. Median disease-specific survival from resection was 35 and 27 months in the neoadjuvant treatment and upfront groups, respectively (P = .74). In the neoadjuvant treatment group survival rates were similar in N0/N1 patients.ConclusionsPostoperative mortality and morbidity do not significantly increase after neoadjuvant treatment. Neoadjuvant treatment in locally advanced pancreatic cancer can lead to an objective pathologic response, but this does not significantly improve survival after resection.     

气道内支架植入术序贯支气管动脉灌注化疗栓塞治疗肺癌合并气道严重狭窄所致呼吸困难

目的 观察气道自膨式金属支架(SEMS)植入术序贯支气管动脉灌注化疗栓塞(BACE)治疗肺癌合并中央气道严重狭窄所致呼吸困难的效果。方法 回顾性分析65例接受SEMS植入序贯BACE的肺癌合并中央气道严重狭窄致呼吸困难患者,统计植入SEMS临床成功率,记录治疗期间及治疗后相关不良反应。于BACE后3个月复查胸部CT,评估介入序贯治疗短期疗效,计算客观缓解率(ORR)及疾病控制率(DCR)。记录患者无病生存期(DFS)和总生存期(OS)。结果 对65例均植入SEMS,临床成功率100%。65例中,41例接受1次、17例2次、7例3次BACE。治疗期间及治疗后12例出现痰中带血,21例发生刺激性咳嗽,18例恶心/呕吐,均属1级不良反应并经对症处理后好转。BACE后3个月ORR为84.62%(55/65),DCR为95.38%(62/65)。中位随访时间11个月,患者中位DFS为10.00[95%CI(8.18,11.17)]个月,中位OS为13.00[95%CI(11.13,124.87)]个月。结论 SEMS植入术序贯BACE治疗肺癌合并中央气道严重狭窄所致呼吸困难安全、有效。     

Low lymphocyte monocyte ratio after neoadjuvant therapy predicts poor survival after pancreatectomy in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer

BackgroundThe impact of systemic immune inflammatory markers to predict survival in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy for borderline resectable pancreatic cancer has not been sufficiently investigated. This study aims to evaluate whether systemic immune inflammatory markers after neoadjuvant therapy followed by pancreatectomy become preoperative prognostic factors to predict survival in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 67 borderline resectable pancreatic cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy and 58 borderline resectable pancreatic cancer patients undergoing upfront surgery between 2010 and 2016. The association between survival and systemic immune inflammatory markers was evaluated by univariate and multivariate analysis. The neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio, and prognostic nutrition index were assessed as systemic immune inflammatory markers.ResultsIn univariate analysis, the postneoadjuvant neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio, and prognostic nutrition index are significantly associated with survival as systemic immune inflammatory markers. The optimal cutoff value of the postneoadjuvant neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio, and prognostic nutrition index were 2.5, 3.0, and 45, respectively. Patients with a lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio <3.0 had significantly poor survival compared with those who had a lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio ≥3.0 (14.9 months vs 31.7 months, P = .006). The multivariate analysis identified the following as predictors of poor prognosis: postneoadjuvant lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio <3.0 (HR 2.59; 95% CI 1.02–6.58; P = .045), T4 (HR 1.82; 95% CI 1.11–3.01; P = .029), lymph node status (HR 2.62; 95% CI 1.24–5.51; P = .012), and no completion of adjuvant therapy (HR 7.09; 95% CI 3.08–16.4; P < .001).ConclusionA low lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio after neoadjuvant therapy is useful prognostic information for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. This result might indicate a potential role of lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratios in stratification of treatment strategy in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer patients.     

对比雷替曲塞与氟尿嘧啶TACE治疗中晚期原发性肝癌疗效及安全性:Meta分析

目的通过Meta分析对比采用雷替曲塞与氟尿嘧啶行TACE治疗中晚期原发性肝癌的疗效及安全性。方法结合计算机及人工检索PubMed、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国生物医学文献数据库、万方数据库及中国知网收录的有关对比分析雷替曲塞与氟尿嘧啶TACE治疗中晚期原发性肝癌的文献,并从中提取相关资料。通过Meta分析方法对2种TACE的客观有效率(ORR)、疾病控制率(DCR)、患者总生存率(OS)及术后不良反应进行评价。结果最终8篇文献、共635例患者纳入分析。雷替曲塞TACE的ORR[相对危险度(RR)=1.25,95%CI(1.06,1.47),P=0.008]及DCR[RR=1.17,95%CI(1.08,1.26),P0.001]均高于氟尿嘧啶TACE,期间患者OS[RR=1.15,95%CI(0.95,1.39),P=0.141]及术后不良反应[恶心、呕吐:RR=0.90,95%CI(0.73,1.11),P=0.339;发热:RR=0.90,95%CI(0.77,1.06),P=0.219;肝区疼痛:RR=0.90,95%CI(0.80,1.01),P=0.219;外周血白细胞减少:RR=0.89,95%CI(0.65,1.21),P=0.462;转氨酶升高:RR=0.96,95%CI(0.80,1.16),P=0.663]差异均无统计学意义。结论 TACE治疗中晚期原发性肝癌时,采用雷替曲塞较氟尿嘧啶疗效更优,安全性则相似。     

Results of Preoperative Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy in Patients Undergoing Liver Resection for Colorectal Liver Metastases

Background Although hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) of floxuridine (FUDR) for colorectal liver metastases (CLM) can produce high response rates, data concerning preoperative HAIC are scarce. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and results of liver resection after preoperative HAIC with FUDR. Methods Between 1995 and 2004, 239 patients with isolated CLM received HAIC in our institution. Fifty of these patients underwent subsequent curative liver resection (HAIC group). Short- and long-term results of the HAIC group were compared with the outcomes of 50 patients who underwent liver resection for CLM without preoperative chemotherapy. Results Postoperative morbidity rate were comparable between the two groups. Overall disease-free survival at 1 and 3 years after hepatectomy were 77.5% and 57.5% in the HAIC group and 62.9% and 37% in the control group (P = .036). Overall survival from diagnosis of CLM at 1, 3, and 5 years were 97%, 59%, and 49% in the HAIC group versus 94%, 48%, and 35% in the control group (P = .097). When patients were stratified according to clinical-risk scoring (CRS) system, patients with more advanced disease at the time of liver resection (CRS ≥3) had a median survival of 41 months in the HAIC group (n = 37) and 35 months in the control group (n = 34) (P = .031). Conclusions HAIC of FUDR does not negatively affect the outcome of subsequent liver resection. Preoperative HAIC of FUDR may reduce liver recurrence rate and improve long-term survival in patients with more advanced liver disease. Part of this article was presented at the International Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association, 7th World Congress in Edinburgh, Scotland, September 3–7, 2006.