Search

Background and Aim: Sorafenib is the standard treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with distant metastasis, unresectable HCC, and HCC refractory to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) or with macroscopic vascular invasion (MVI). Also, hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) has been used for advanced HCC in Southeast and East Asian countries. However, clearer information is needed for choosing appropriately between these therapies., Methods: The subjects were 391 HAIC and 431 sorafenibs administered at our hospital and related hospitals. In this case, cases that satisfy the following three conditions were targeted: (i) no extrahepatic metastasis, (ii) Child-Pugh A, and (ii) not having received treatment of both HAIC and sorafenib during the course. As a result, 150 cases of HAIC and 134 cases of sorafenib were analyzed this time., Results: Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed for the HAIC and sorafenib groups. TACE refractory status and MVI were factors contributing to overall survival (OS). Therefore, this study divided all cases according to those variables. The median survival time of MVI-positive and non-TACE refractory cases was significantly better with HAIC (13 months) versus sorafenib (6 months). However, in MVI-negative and TACE refractory cases, the median survival time of HAIC (8 months) was significantly poorer than for sorafenib (20 months)., Conclusion: Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization refractory status with HAIC and MVI with sorafenib were factors for poor prognosis. In particular, HAIC was significantly better than sorafenib as primary treatment in MVI and non-TACE refractory cases. It is necessary to consider these factors in treatment selection., (© 2018 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background and Aim: Chronic hepatitis C genotype 2 patients show high susceptibility to pegylated interferon plus ribavirin therapy (PEG/RBV). However, the differences in response to therapy between genotypes 2a and 2b, and the efficacy of prolonged therapy for refractory patients have not been evaluated. We investigated the differences in response to PEG/RBV between each genotype and examined the efficacy of prolonged therapy., Methods: A total of 343 chronic hepatitis patients infected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 2 (2a: n = 195; 2b: n = 148) were enrolled in this study. All patients received PEG/RBV for 24 (24 week group, n = 242) or more weeks (prolonged group, n = 101). We analyzed the differences in virological response between genotypes 2a and 2b. Clinical and virological factors of patients in the 24-week group and the prolonged treatment group were matched using propensity score analysis, and the efficacy of prolonged therapy established by comparing time of serum HCV disappearance for each genotype., Results: Virological response tended to be higher for genotype 2a compared with genotype 2b; however, there was no significant difference in sustained virological response rates between genotypes (2a: 78.3%; 2b: 70.2%; P = 0.19). After propensity score matching, the adjusted P-value for sustained virological response rate was significantly different for genotype 2b patients with undetectable HCV-RNA between weeks 5 and 8, and for genotype 2a patients with detectable HCV-RNA at week 8., Conclusion: Prolonged therapy with PEG/RBV may be effective when serum HCV-RNA is detectable at week 4 and week 8 for genotype 2b and 2a patients, respectively., (© 2014 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.)