Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Bridging therapies to liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: A bridge to nowhere?
Tan, Chun Han Nigel; Yu, Yue; Tan, Yan Rui Nicholas; Lim, Boon Leng Kieron; Iyer, Shridhar Ganpathi; Madhavan, Krishnakumar; Kow, Alfred Wei Chieh.
Afiliación
  • Tan CHN; Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
  • Yu Y; National University Centre for Organ Transplantation, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
  • Tan YRN; Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
  • Lim BLK; Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
  • Iyer SG; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
  • Madhavan K; National University Centre for Organ Transplantation, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
  • Kow AWC; Division of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery and Liver Transplantation, Department of Surgery, University Surgical Cluster, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg ; 22(1): 27-35, 2018 Feb.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29536053
BACKGROUNDS/AIMS: Liver Transplantation (LT) is a recognized treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC). The role of Bridging Therapies (BT) remains controversial. METHODS: From January 2001 to October 2012, 192 patients were referred to the National University Hospital, Singapore for consideration of LT for HCC. Sixty-five patients (33.8%) were found suitable for transplant and were placed on the waitlist. Analysis was performed in these patients. RESULTS: The most common etiology of HCC was Hepatitis B (n=28, 43.1%). Thirty-six patients (55.4%) received BT. Seventeen patients (47.2%) received TACE only, while 10 patients (27.8%) received radiofrequency ablation (RFA) only. The remaining patients received a combination of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and RFA. Baseline tumor and patient characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The overall dropout rate was 44.4% and 31.0% in the BT and non-BT groups, respectively (p=0.269). The dropout rate due to disease progression beyond criteria was 6.9% (n=2) in the non-bridged group and 22.2% (n=8) in the bridged group (p=0.089). Thirty-nine patients (60%) underwent LT, of which all patients who underwent Living Donor LT did not receive BT (n=4, 21.1%, p=0.030). The median time to LT was 180 days (range, 20-558 days) in the non-BT group and 291 days (range, 17-844 days) in the BT group (p=0.214). There was no difference in survival or recurrence between the BT and non-BT groups (p=0.862). CONCLUSIONS: BT does not influence the dropout rate or survival after LT but it should be considered in patients who are on the waitlist for more than 6 months.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Singapur Pais de publicación: Corea del Sur

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Ann Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Singapur Pais de publicación: Corea del Sur