Search

Background: Systemic treatments are recommended for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in preserved liver function. However, their effects are unsatisfactory in some tumor conditions, particularly macrovascular invasion (MVI) including major portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT). We compared the efficacy of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) regimens New-FP and sorafenib for various tumor conditions in preserved liver function. Methods: We retrospectively collected the data of 1709 patients with HCC who were treated with New-FP or sorafenib. Survival was assessed after propensity score matching. Subgroup analyses were conducted: cohort 1 (no MVI or extrahepatic spread (EHS)), cohort 2 (MVI only), cohort 3 (EHS only), cohort 4 (MVI and EHS), and cohort 5 (major PVTT). Results: The New-FP group had a longer median survival time (MST) than the sorafenib in the whole analysis (18 vs. 9 months; p < 0.0001). New-FP demonstrated a longer MST compared with sorafenib in cohort 2 and cohort 4. In cohort 5, the MST of the New-FP group was 16 months, while that of sorafenib was 6 months (p < 0.0001). For major PVTT-HCC, the response rate of New-FP was 73.0%. The MST of patients who achieved complete response with New-FP was 59 months. Conclusions: HAIC using New-FP is promising for patients with MVI- and major PVTT-HCC in preserved liver function.

Backround: Not all patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) benefit from treatment with molecular targeted agents such as sorafenib. We investigated whether New-FP (fine-powder cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil), a hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy regimen, is more favorable than sorafenib as an initial treatment for locally progressed HCC., Methods: To avoid selection bias, we corrected the data from different facilities that did or did not perform New-FP therapy. In total, 1709 consecutive patients with HCC initially treated with New-FP or sorafenib; 1624 (New-FP, n = 644; sorafenib n = 980) were assessed. After propensity score matching (PSM), overall survival (OS) and prognostic factors were assessed ( n = 344 each). Additionally, the patients were categorized into four groups: cohort-1 [(without macrovascular invasion (MVI) and extrahepatic spread (EHS)], cohort-2 (with MVI), cohort-3 (with EHS), and cohort-4 (with MVI and EHS) to clarify the efficacy of each treatment., Results: New-FP prolonged OS than sorafenib after PSM (New-FP, 12 months; sorafenib, 7.9 months; p < 0.001). Sorafenib treatment, and severe MVI and EHS were poor prognostic factors. In the subgroup analyses, the OS was significantly longer the New-FP group in cohort-2., Conclusions: Local treatment using New-FP is a potentially superior initial treatment compared with sorafenib as a multidisciplinary treatment in locally progressed HCC without EHS.