METHODS: This retrospective study of Stage III breast cancer patients was conducted over a 5 year period from 1998 to 2002. The survival data were obtained from the National Registry of Births and Deaths with the end-point of the study in April 2006. The Kaplan Meier method was applied for survival analysis. Cox regression analysis by stepwise selection was performed to identify important prognostic factors.
RESULTS: Out of a 155 evaluable patients, 74 (47.7%) had primary surgery, 62 (40%) had neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 10 patients (6.5%) were given Tamoxifen as the primary treatment, while 9 patients (5.8%) defaulted any form of treatment. After neoadjuvant chemotherapy, 9 patients defaulted further treatment, leaving 53 evaluable patients. Out of these 53 evaluable patients, 5 patients (9.4%) had complete pathological response, 5 (9.4%) a complete clinical response, and 26 (49.1%) had partial response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The 5-year survival in the primary surgery group was 56.7 % compared to 44.7% in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group (p<0.01). The important prognostic factors were race, size of tumour, nodal status, estrogen receptor status and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
CONCLUSION: Patients who had primary surgery had better survival than those who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which may be due to bias in the selection of patients for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Out of a total of 155 patients, 25.1% defaulted part of the treatment, or did not receive optimal treatment, emphasizing the importance of psychosocial support and counselling for this group of patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing either treatment was carried out from January 2009 to December 2014. Tumour response to the procedures was evaluated according to the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST). Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess and compare the overall survival in the two groups.
RESULTS: A total of 79 patients were analysed (34 had c-TACE, 45 had DEB-TACE) with a median follow-up of 11.8 months. A total of 20 patients in the c-TACE group (80%) and 12 patients in the DEB-TACE group (44%) died during the follow up period. The median survival durations in the c-TACE and DEB-TACE groups were 4.9 ± 3.2 months and 8.3 ± 2.0 months respectively (p=0.008). There was no statistically significant difference noted among the two groups with respect to mRECIST criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: DEB-TACE demonstrated a significant improvement in overall survival rates for patients with unresectable HCC when compared to c-TACE. It is a safe and promising approach and should potentially be considered as a standard of care in the management of unresectable HCC.