TY - JOUR
T1 - The impact of portal vein tumor thrombosis on survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with different therapies
T2 - A cohort study
AU - Mähringer-Kunz, Aline
AU - Steinle, Verena
AU - Kloeckner, Roman
AU - Schotten, Sebastian
AU - Hahn, Felix
AU - Schmidtmann, Irene
AU - Hinrichs, Jan Bernd
AU - DüBer, Christoph
AU - Galle, Peter Robert
AU - Lang, Hauke
AU - Weinmann, Arndt
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Mähringer-Kunz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2021/5
Y1 - 2021/5
N2 - Background Portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) is a frequent complication of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which leads to classification as advanced stage disease (regardless of the degree of PVTT) according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Classification. For such patients, systemic therapy is the standard of care. However, in clinical reality, many patients with PVTT undergo different treatments, such as resection, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT), or best supportive care (BSC). Here we examined whether patients benefited from such alternative therapies, according to the extent of PVTT. Methods This analysis included therapy-naïve patients with HCC and PVTT treated between January 2005 and December 2016. PVTT was classified according to the Liver Cancer study group of Japan as follows: Vp1 = segmental PV invasion; Vp2 = right anterior or posterior PV; Vp3 = right or left PV; Vp4 = main trunk. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed for each treatment subgroup considering the extent of PVTT. We performed Cox regression analysis with adjustment for possible confounders. To further attenuate selection bias, we applied propensity score weighting using the inverse probability of treatment weights. Results A total of 278 treatment-naïve patients with HCC and PVTT were included for analysis. The median observed OS in months for each treatment modality (resection, TACE/SIRT, sorafenib, BSC, respectively) was 32.4, 8.1, N/A, and 1.7 for Vp1; 10.7, 6.9, 5.5, and 1.2 for Vp2; 6.6, 7.5, 2.9, and 0.6 for Vp3; and 8.0, 3.6, 5.3, and 0.7 for Vp4. Thus, the median OS in the resection group in case of segmental PVTT (Vp1) was significantly longer compared to any other treatment group (all p values <0.01). Conclusions Treatment strategy for HCC with PVTT should not be limited to systemic therapy in general. The extent of PVTT should be considered when deciding on treatment alternatives. In patients with segmental PVTT (Vp1), resection should be evaluated.
AB - Background Portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) is a frequent complication of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which leads to classification as advanced stage disease (regardless of the degree of PVTT) according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Classification. For such patients, systemic therapy is the standard of care. However, in clinical reality, many patients with PVTT undergo different treatments, such as resection, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT), or best supportive care (BSC). Here we examined whether patients benefited from such alternative therapies, according to the extent of PVTT. Methods This analysis included therapy-naïve patients with HCC and PVTT treated between January 2005 and December 2016. PVTT was classified according to the Liver Cancer study group of Japan as follows: Vp1 = segmental PV invasion; Vp2 = right anterior or posterior PV; Vp3 = right or left PV; Vp4 = main trunk. Overall survival (OS) was analyzed for each treatment subgroup considering the extent of PVTT. We performed Cox regression analysis with adjustment for possible confounders. To further attenuate selection bias, we applied propensity score weighting using the inverse probability of treatment weights. Results A total of 278 treatment-naïve patients with HCC and PVTT were included for analysis. The median observed OS in months for each treatment modality (resection, TACE/SIRT, sorafenib, BSC, respectively) was 32.4, 8.1, N/A, and 1.7 for Vp1; 10.7, 6.9, 5.5, and 1.2 for Vp2; 6.6, 7.5, 2.9, and 0.6 for Vp3; and 8.0, 3.6, 5.3, and 0.7 for Vp4. Thus, the median OS in the resection group in case of segmental PVTT (Vp1) was significantly longer compared to any other treatment group (all p values <0.01). Conclusions Treatment strategy for HCC with PVTT should not be limited to systemic therapy in general. The extent of PVTT should be considered when deciding on treatment alternatives. In patients with segmental PVTT (Vp1), resection should be evaluated.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85105453718&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0249426
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0249426
M3 - Journal articles
C2 - 33961627
AN - SCOPUS:85105453718
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 16
JO - PLoS ONE
JF - PLoS ONE
IS - 5 May
M1 - e0249426
ER -