A Comparative Analysis of Efficacy of Apatinib Combined with Transarterial Chemoembolization and Transarterial Chemoembolization Alone in the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Portal Vein Tumor Thrombus

Sun, Tao; Chen, Lei; Kan, Xuefeng; Ren, Yanqiao; Cao, Yanyan; Zhang, Weihua; Lu, Haohao; Zheng, Chuansheng

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1255133

Journal of Oncology

On this page

Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Ethical Approval Consent Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 1255133 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1255133

A Comparative Analysis of Efficacy of Apatinib Combined with Transarterial Chemoembolization and Transarterial Chemoembolization Alone in the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Portal Vein Tumor Thrombus

Tao Sun,^1,2Lei Chen,^1,2Xuefeng Kan,^1,2Yanqiao Ren,^1,2Yanyan Cao,^1,2Weihua Zhang,^1,2Haohao Lu ,^1,2and Chuansheng Zheng^1,2

Academic Editor: San Lin You

Received09 Nov 2021

Revised17 Feb 2022

Accepted19 Feb 2022

Published21 Mar 2022

Abstract

Background. The treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) remains controversial due to the limited effect of sorafenib. The aim of the study was to investigate whether apatinib could improve the efficacy of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for patients with HCC complicated by PVTT. Methods. The study included 109 patients with HCC and PVTT who received TACE combined with apatinib (TACE + apatinib) (53 patients) or TACE alone (56 patients) between June 2015 and January 2019. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to reduce the potential selection bias. Overall survival time (OS) and time to progression (TTP) were used to evaluate the efficacy of TACE + apatinib and TACE alone. Results. Before PSM, TACE + apatinib significantly improved median TTP (7.0 vs. 3.0 months, ) and median OS (15.0 vs. 7.0 months, ) when compared with TACE alone. After PSM, the median TTP was significantly longer in the TACE + apatinib group, 6.0 months, than in the TACE alone group, 3.0 months (), and the median OS was significantly longer in the TACE + apatinib group, 14.0 months, than in the TACE alone group, 7.0 months (). Subgroup analysis revealed that, except for patients with Child–Pugh class B, the patients with or without extrahepatic metastases and with Child–Pugh class A had longer TTP and OS after the combined TACE + apatinib treatment than after TACE alone. Conclusion. The combination of TACE + apatinib might be an effective and safe treatment for HCC patients with PVTT.

1. Introduction

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most prevalent cancers worldwide and results in 782,000 deaths annually [1]. Due to latent symptoms and limited screening, most HCC patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage of the tumor [2]. Portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT), i.e., the invasion of the main portal veins and their branches, is the most common macrovascular invasion and represents one of the significant risk factors for poor HCC prognosis [3–5]. Since patients suffering from PVTT are typically in the advanced stages of HCC [6], traditional treatment options are limited. A previous study reported that sorafenib, used as the first-line therapy for advanced HCC, benefited only modestly patients with advanced HCC complicated by PVTT [7]. A systematic review that included eight studies demonstrated that sorafenib does not provide an additional survival benefit for HCC patients with PVTT compared with other treatments such as hepatic resection, radiotherapy, and combined therapy [8].

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the standard treatment for HCC patients in the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B [9]. Emerging studies suggest that TACE provides an effective and safe treatment for certain HCC patients with PVTT, especially those with preserved liver function and sufficient collateral blood flow in the vicinity of the blocked portal vein [10–12]. Based on the results of a meta-analysis, the time to progression (TTP) in patients with unresectable HCC treated by a combination of TACE with sorafenib was longer than in patients treated with TACE alone [13]. Recently, several studies documented that the combination of TACE and sorafenib as a strategy to treat HCC patients with PVTT provides greater benefits than sorafenib monotherapy [14, 15].

Apatinib is a novel molecular inhibitor selectively targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 (VEGFR-2) tyrosine kinase. Although apatinib is similar to sorafenib, its binding affinity to VEGFR-2 is 10 times higher [16, 17]. Apatinib was approved in China for the treatment of advanced or metastatic gastric cancer [18]. Additionally, apatinib exhibited better effects against HCC than sorafenib, both in vivo and in vitro [19]. The efficacy of inhibiting HCC growth and angiogenesis by apatinib was comparable to that of sorafenib but was associated with fewer adverse effects. A single-arm, open-label phase II clinical trial reported that apatinib showed a robust clinical effect in patients with advanced HCC, with a median OS of 13.8 months and a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 8.7 months [20].

Since VEGFR-2 plays a significant role in neovascularization after TACE [21], the combination of TACE and apatinib may improve the outcome of the treatment of advanced HCC due to selective inhibition of VEGFR-2. In fact, several studies revealed that patients with advanced HCC who underwent treatment with TACE and apatinib (TACE + apatinib) benefited more than patients treated by TACE alone [21–23]. Although these results are encouraging, these studies did not directly demonstrate an improvement in the survival of HCC patients with PVTT after apatinib administration. To date, there is a shortage of data that could provide evidence for the advantages of the TACE + apatinib combination treatment. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective study to compare the efficacy and safety of TACE + apatinib with TACE alone in the treatment of HCC patients with PVTT.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Patient Selection

The diagnosis of HCC was based on the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria [24]. Computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used to diagnose PVTT and assess its location.

This study included 109 HCC patients with PVTT who underwent TACE + apatinib or TACE alone at our hospital between June 2015 and January 2019. Among them, 53 patients were treated with TACE + apatinib and 56 with TACE alone. A propensity score matching (PSM) was used to reduce the patient selection bias and balance the variables between the two treatment groups. The treatment selection was mostly based on the patient’s preference. The safety and efficacy of the TACE + apatinib treatment were analyzed retrospectively and compared with TACE alone.

Approval for this retrospective study was obtained from our college ethics committee (UHCT-IEC-SOP-016-03-01). Informed consent was obtained from the patients before the first TACE procedure. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) diagnosis of HCC; (2) Child–Pugh class A or B; (3) Eastern Cooperative Group Performance Status (ECOG) score of ≤2 points; (4) PVTT by contrast-enhanced CT or MRI before the TACE procedure; and (5) platelet count ≥60 × 10⁹/L. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) the main portal vein completely blocked without collateral circulate; (2) Child–Pugh class C; (3) liver transplantation, liver resection, or local-regional therapies before the TACE procedure; and (4) sorafenib therapy, or systemic chemotherapy.

2.2. TACE Procedure and Apatinib Administration

The TACE procedure and the protocol of apatinib were described in our prior studies [23, 25]. Briefly, TACE was performed by operators who had at least 5 years of experience and utilized a transfemoral arterial access route with a micropuncture system by placing a 5-F vascular introducer (Cook, Bloomington, IN, USA). Celiac and superior mesenteric arteriographies were carried out to assess the arterial anatomy, tumor supplying vessels, and the patency of the portal vein. The tumor feeding arteries were selectively cannulated with a 3-F microcatheter. A 5–20 ml aliquot of lipiodol (Lipiodol Ultraﬂuido, Guerbet, France) was mixed with 10–40 mg doxorubicin hydrochloride (Hisun Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Zhejiang, China) to create an emulsion, and then 5–20 ml of the emulsion was injected into tumor-feeding arteries through the microcatheter, followed by supplement embolization with gelatin sponge particles (300–700 um, Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN, USA).

In the TACE + apatinib group, apatinib was taken orally 3–5 days after each TACE procedure at an initial dosage of 500 mg/day. The dosage of apatinib was adjusted according to the patient’s tolerance to the drug. The adverse events of apatinib were graded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0) [23]. If the adverse events were grade 3 or higher without effective control, the apatinib was reduced to 250 mg/day to relieve or eliminate the adverse events. If the adverse events (≥ grade 3) did not disappear after the dose adjustment, the administration of the drug was temporarily interrupted. The 250 mg/day dose was restored when the adverse events were alleviated or disappeared [23].

2.3. Follow-Up

All patients were followed up until January 2020. The follow-up included abdominal contrast-enhanced CT or MRI, and laboratory tests. The first follow-up was performed at the end of the fourth week after the first TACE procedure. A repeated TACE was needed when the recurrent tumor or residual lesions were found on imaging. Subsequent follow-up examinations were conducted every 2 months, starting 4 weeks after the first TACE procedure.

2.4. Definition and Assessments

The review of medical records included CT, MRI, and laboratory data. Tumor response was evaluated using the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in solid tumors (mRECIST) [26]. The assessment of tumor response was carried out at the first month after the first TACE procedure and then every 2 months until the time of progression or death. Disease control rate (DCR) was defined as the portion of patients who achieved a complete response (CR), partial response (PR), and stable disease (SD) (CR + PR + SD) [26]. Objective response rate was defined as the portion of patients who achieved CR, PR (CR + PR) [22]. Overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP) were used to evaluate the efficacy of treatment. OS was defined as the time between the first TACE and the last follow-up or all-cause death. TTP was defined as the time from the first TACE to the onset of tumor progression. Adverse events were measured based on the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0.

2.5. Classification of PVTT

PVTT was classified into three types, including type I: tumor thrombus involving segmental branches of the portal vein or above; type II: tumor thrombus involving the right/left portal vein; and type III: tumor thrombus involving the main portal vein trunk based on Cheng’s classification [27].

2.6. PSM Analysis

PSM analysis was conducted using the SPSS 24.0 software (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). The baseline variables including age, neutrophil, lymphocyte, ALT, AST, hemoglobin, platelets, gender, HBV, type of PVTT, extrahepatic metastases, AFP, Child–Pugh, and ECOG were matched in our model. One-to-one matching without replacement was applied, and the value of the caliper was 0.2.

2.7. Statistical Analyses

The statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS 24.0 software. Normally distributed data, nonnormally distributed data, and categorical variables are expressed as mean ± standard deviation, median (quartile range), and frequency (percentage), respectively. The Pearson x² test, correction x² test, Fisher’s exact test, independent-samples t-test, and Mann–Whitney U test were used to compare the two groups. Kaplan–Meier curves and log-rank test were used to compare TTP and OS between two groups. Variables with the value of at univariate analysis were entered into univariate Cox proportional hazards regression model analysis, which was used to identify risk factors affecting OS. value <0.05 (two-tailed) was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Patient Population

The study included 109 HCC patients with PVTT who received TACE + apatinib (N = 53) or TACE alone (N = 56). During the follow-up period, 40 (75.5%) deaths and 51 (96.2%) patients with tumor progression were observed in the TACE + apatinib group. In the TACE alone group, 52 (92.9%) deaths and 56 (100%) cases of tumor progression were observed. After the PSM analysis, 46 pairs of patients were matched (Figure 1). The baseline characteristics of the two groups did not show significant differences before and after PSM (Table 1).

3.2. Tumor Response

Before PSM, DCR among the patients in the TACE + apatinib group was 58.5% (31/53), a value significantly higher than in the TACE alone group (28.6%, 16/56) (). The ORR in the TACE + apatinib group was 30.2% (16/53), which was significantly higher than in the TACE alone group (10.7%, 6/56) (). After PSM, DCR in the TACE + apatinib group was 60.9% (28/46), which was significantly higher than in the TACE alone group (34.8%, 16/46) (). The ORR among the patients in the TACE + apatinib group was 34.8% (16/46), a value significantly higher than in the TACE alone group (15.2%, 7/46) ().

3.3. Overall Survival Analyses

Before PSM, the median OS was 15.0 months in the TACE-apatinib group and 7 months in the TACE alone group () (Figure 2(a)). After PSM, the median OS was 14.0 months in the TACE-apatinib group and 7 months in the TACE alone group () (Figure 3(a)).

(a)

(b)

(a)

(b)

3.4. Time to Progression Analyses

Before PSM, the median TTP was 7.0 months in the TACE-apatinib group and 3.0 months in the TACE alone group () (Figure 2(b)). After PSM, the median TTP was 6.0 months in the TACE-apatinib group and 3.0 months in the TACE alone group () (Figure 3(b)). The patients in the TACE-apatinib group had a longer TTP than in the TACE alone group before and after PSM.

3.5. Adverse Events

A detailed list of adverse events before PSM is shown in Table 2. The adverse events of hand-foot skin reactions, hypertension, and proteinuria in the TACE-apatinib group were more common than those in the TACE group (all ). However, the severe adverse events (grades ≥3) in the TACE-apatinib group were similar to those in the TACE group (all ).

The adverse events associated with the TACE procedure in the two groups are shown in Table 3. Before PSM, four adverse events were observed across four patients in the TACE-apatinib group. Four adverse events were also identified across four patients in the TACE alone group.

3.6. Prognostic Factors Associated with TTP and OS

Univariate analysis and multivariate Cox regression analysis were performed to reveal prognostic factors for TTP and OS. The univariate analysis showed that maximal tumor size (), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (), and treatment method (TACE-apatinib or TACE alone) () were associated with TTP and that bilirubin (), maximal tumor size (), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (), Child–Pugh class (), and treatment method (TACE-apatinib or TACE-alone) () were associated with OS. Multivariate analysis revealed that maximal tumor size (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.170; 95% CI, 1.097–1.247; ), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (HR = 1.098; 95% CI, 1.040–1.159; ), and TACE-apatinib (HR = 2.117; 95% CI, 1.391–3.221; ) were independent protective factors for TTP and that maximal tumor size (HR = 1.293, 95% CI, 1.203–1.391; ), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (HR = 1.084; 95% CI, 1.023–1.150; ) and TACE-apatinib (HR = 2.256; 95% CI, 1.428–3.565; ) were independent favorable factors for OS (Table 4).

3.7. Subgroup Analyses

The results of subgroup analyses are listed in Figure 4. For the patients with or without extrahepatic metastases, with Child–Pugh class A, the median TTP and OS in the TACE-apatinib group were significantly longer than in the TACE alone group. However, for patients with Child–Pugh class B, there was no significant difference in the efficacy of the treatment between the two groups.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

4. Discussion

Patients with PVTT usually have an unsatisfactory OS due to the aggressive course of the disease, declining liver function, high recurrence rate, and limited treatment options [28]. The median OS among HCC patients with PVTT has been reported to be as low as 2 to 4 months [28]. Although immunotherapies, e.g., atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, provided encouraging results in the treatment of unresectable HCC when compared to sorafenib, they have not been widely used clinically [29]. The adjunctive external-beam radiation therapy also showed potential in treating HCC patients with PVTT, but high-quality evidence of its benefits is yet to be obtained [30]. According to the Chinese guidelines for the treatment of HCC [31], TACE, systemic therapy (sorafenib or FOLFOX chemotherapy), surgical resection, and radiotherapy are recommended for the treatment of vascular invasion, whereas systemic therapy (sorafenib or FOLFOX4), TACE, and radiotherapy are recommended for the treatment of extrahepatic metastases. Sorafenib is recommended as the first-line therapy by the BCLC clinical staging system and sorafenib combined with TACE is more effective than TACE alone for patients with advanced HCC, but its survival benefit in HCC patients with PVTT was reported to be modest [7, 32, 33]. Considering the high cost of sorafenib treatment and its small effect, apatinib with a lower price and higher binding affinity to VEGFR-2 appears as a promising alternative for advanced HCC patients. In fact, several previous studies involving the combined treatment of TACE + apatinib reported encouraging results in patients with advanced HCC [22, 23]. Nevertheless, in these studies, cases with PVTT were only a subgroup of a broader category of patients with advanced HCC. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct studies to determine the efficacy and safety of the combined treatment of TACE + apatinib in HCC patients with PVTT.

To the best of our knowledge, only two studies focused on the effects of the combination of TACE and apatinib in the treatment of HCC patients with PVTT [22, 34]. The study conducted by Liu assessed the efficacy and tolerability of this combined treatment for advanced HCC, but it did not include TACE alone as a control group. Thus, it is essential to compare the efficacy and safety between the groups of TACE + apatinib and TACE alone using a PSM analysis, which may provide more reliable results.

The present study revealed that the combined treatment with TACE + apatinib significantly prolonged the median OS and TTP compared with TACE alone. The multivariate analysis further demonstrated that TACE + apatinib therapy was an independent factor in prolonging OS and TTP. Yuan and coworkers reported that combining TACE with sorafenib significantly increased the median OS for the HCC patients with PVTT in comparison with TACE alone (OS: 13.0 vs. 6.0 months, ) [15], while Chu and colleagues reported that the median OS of patients treated with the combination of TACE and sorafenib was 12 months [24], i.e., slightly inferior to that observed in our study. A meta-analysis reported that in the included studies, the median TTP of patients treated with the combination of TACE and sorafenib ranged from 3 to 7 months [35]. These results revealed that the efficacy of TACE-apatinib in the treatment of HCC patients with PVTT was not inferior to that of TACE-sorafenib.

In our study, the side effects of apatinib were acceptable and manageable, a finding reported in many previous studies [21–23]. The common adverse events related to apatinib included hand-foot skin reactions, hypertension, diarrhea, fatigue, oral ulcer, headache, proteinuria, voice change, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage. These adverse events were predominantly grade 1 or 2. In several patients, grade 3 apatinib-related adverse events were alleviated after the dose reduction, implying that they were controllable. Generally, adverse events of apatinib in our study were similar to those reported for sorafenib [15, 24]. Thus, TACE + apatinib is safe for HCC patients with PVTT.

To further define which subgroup of patients benefited more from the combination treatment, subgroup analysis was conducted. Except for patients with Child–Pugh class B, the efficacy of TACE + apatinib for the patients with or without extrahepatic metastases and patients with Child–Pugh class A was superior to that of TACE-alone. This result indicates that the patients with these characteristics were more suitable for the treatment with the combination of TACE and apatinib. The difference in the outcomes for the patients with Child–Pugh classes A and B revealed that liver function might affect the therapeutic impact of TACE + apatinib.

Although our study provided encouraging results, it has some limitations. First, the study was designed as a retrospective analysis, and despite performing PSM, the potential patient selection bias could not be avoided entirely. Second, the data in our study originated from one clinical center. Prospective randomized controlled trials are needed in the future to provide high-level evidence for the effectiveness and safety of TACE + apatinib for the treatment of HCC patients with PVTT.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the data on the efficacy of TACE + apatinib in HCC patients with PVTT are encouraging. The TACE + apatinib combination therapy is safe in this group of patients.

Data Availability

The data used in the study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Ethical Approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Union Hospital of Huazhong University of Science and Technology (UHCT-IEC-SOP-016-03-01).

Written informed consent was waived by this institution.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ Contributions

Tao Sun, Lei Chen, and Xuefeng Kan contributed equally to this work.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 81873919).

References

F. Bray, J. Ferlay, I. Soerjomataram, R. L. Siegel, L. A. Torre, and A. Jemal, “Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 68, no. 6, pp. 394–424, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Forner, J. M. Llovet, and J. Bruix, “Hepatocellular carcinoma,” The Lancet, vol. 379, no. 9822, pp. 1245–1255, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Minagawa and M. Makuuchi, “Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma accompanied by portal vein tumor thrombus,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 12, no. 47, pp. 7561–7567, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Schöniger-Hekele, C. Müller, M. Kutilek, C. Oesterreicher, P. Ferenci, and A. Gangl, “Hepatocellular carcinoma in central europe: prognostic features and survival,” Gut, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 103–109, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. L. Chan, C. C. Chong, A. W. Chan, D. M. Poon, and K. S. Chok, “Management of hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis: review and update at 2016,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 22, no. 32, pp. 7289–7300, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. K. Heimbach, L. M. Kulik, R. S. Finn et al., “AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma,” Hepatology, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 358–380, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. W. Jeong, J. Y. Jang, K. Y. Shim et al., “Practical effect of sorafenib monotherapy on advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein tumor thrombosis,” Gut and liver, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 696–703, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Qi and X. Guo, “Sorafenib for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumour thrombosis: a systematic review of comparative studies,” Gastroenterology Review, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 142–147, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
European Association for the Study of the Liver and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, “EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma,” Journal of Hepatology, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 908–943, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Han, J. H. Kim, G. Y. Ko, D. I. Gwon, and K. B. Sung, “Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with portal venous tumor thrombosis: a comprehensive review,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 407–416, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Quirk, Y. H. Kim, S. Saab, and E. W. Lee, “Management of hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein thrombosis,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 3462–3471, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Luo, R.-P. Guo, E. C. H. Lai et al., “Transarterial chemoembolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis: a prospective comparative study,” Annals of Surgical Oncology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 413–420, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Liu, H. Chen, M. Wang et al., “Combination therapy of sorafenib and TACE for unresectable HCC: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 3, Article ID e91124, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Pan, X.-S. Li, Q.-K. Xie et al., “Safety and efficacy of transarterial chemoembolization plus sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal venous tumour thrombus,” Clinical Radiology, vol. 69, no. 12, pp. e553–e561, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Yuan, X. Yin, B. Tang et al., “Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) combined with sorafenib in treatment of HBV background hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus: a propensity score matching study,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2019, Article ID 2141859, 6 pages, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C.-Y. Lan, Y. Wang, Y. Xiong et al., “Apatinib combined with oral etoposide in patients with platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory ovarian cancer (AEROC): a phase 2, single-arm, prospective study,” The Lancet Oncology, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 1239–1246, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. J. Scott, “Correction to: apatinib: A review in advanced gastric cancer and other advanced cancers,” Drugs, vol. 78, no. 7, p. 759, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Li, S. Qin, J. Xu et al., “Apatinib for chemotherapy-refractory advanced metastatic gastric cancer: results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm, phase II trial,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, vol. 31, no. 26, pp. 3219–3225, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Liang, L. Kong, Y. Du, X. Zhu, and J. Tian, “Antitumorigenic and antiangiogenic efficacy of apatinib in liver cancer evaluated by multimodality molecular imaging,” Experimental & Molecular Medicine, vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 1–11, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Hou, K. Zhu, X. Yang et al., “Apatinib as first-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase II clinical trial,” Annals of Translational Medicine, vol. 8, no. 17, p. 1047, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Lu, X.-L. Jin, C. Yang et al., “Comparison of efficacy between TACE combined with apatinib and TACE alone in the treatment of intermediate and advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a single-center randomized controlled trial,” Cancer Biology & Therapy, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 433–438, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Zhu, B. Feng, L. Mei, R. Sun, C. Guo, and J. Zhu, “Clinical efficacy of TACE combined with Apatinib in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma,” Journal of B.U.ON.: Official Journal of the Balkan Union of Oncology, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 608–614, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
X. Kan, B. Liang, G. Zhou et al., “Transarterial chemoembolization combined with apatinib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis,” Frontiers in oncology, vol. 10, p. 970, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. H. Chu, J. H. Kim, J. H. Shim, S. M. Yoon, P. H. Kim, and I. Alrashidi, “Chemoembolization plus radiotherapy versus chemoembolization plus sorafenib for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma invading the portal vein: a propensity score matching analysis,” Cancers, vol. 12, no. 5, p. 1116, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Chen, X. Kan, T. Sun et al., “Transarterial chemoembolization combined with iodine 125 seeds versus transarterial chemoembolization combined with radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma,” BMC Gastroenterology, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 205, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Lencioni and J. Llovet, “Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma,” Seminars in Liver Disease, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 52–60, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. J. Leng, Y. Z. Xu, and J. H. Dong, “Efficacy of transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein thrombosis: a meta‐analysis,” ANZ Journal of Surgery, vol. 86, no. 10, pp. 816–820, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P.-H. Liu, T.-I. Huo, and R. Miksad, “Hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor involvement: best management strategies,” Seminars in Liver Disease, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 242–251, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. S. Finn, S. Qin, M. Ikeda et al., “Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 382, no. 20, pp. 1894–1905, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Han, C. Li, H. Meng et al., “Efficacy and safety of external-beam radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: an overview of current evidence according to the different target population,” Bioscience trends, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 10–22, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Zhou, H. Sun, Z. Wang, and W. CongJ. WangM. Zeng, W. Zhou, P. Bie et al., “Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (2019 edition),” Liver Cancer, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 682–720, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Hu, Z. Duan, X. Long et al., “Sorafenib combined with transarterial chemoembolization versus transarterial chemoembolization alone for advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching study,” PLoS One, vol. 9, no. 5, Article ID e96620, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Zhu, J. Chen, L. Lai et al., “Hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus: treatment with transarterial chemoembolization combined with sorafenib-a retrospective controlled study,” Radiology, vol. 272, no. 1, pp. 284–293, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Fan, G. Yuan, H. Fan et al., “Apatinib combined with transarterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein tumor thrombus: a multicenter retrospective study,” Clinical Therapeutics, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 1463–1476, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Zhang, K. Wang, M. Wang et al., “Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) combined with sorafenib versus TACE for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus: a systematic review and meta-analysis,” Oncotarget, vol. 8, no. 17, pp. 29416–29427, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Tao Sun et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

385

Downloads

466

Citations