Review
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2005.
World J Gastroenterol. Jul 7, 2005; 11(25): 3817-3822
Published online Jul 7, 2005. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v11.i25.3817
Table 1 Randomized series of adjuvant intrahepatic arterial chemotherapy after surgical resection of hepatic metastases
AuthorsTreatment protocolSample size(Tx/Ctl)ObservationtimeDFS Tx vs CtlOS Tx vs CtlConclusions
Lygidakis et al[8]Surgery+HAI chemoimmunotherapy40 (20/20)3 yrNAMedian 20 vsBeneficial
vs surgery alone11 (mo) (P < 0.05)
Asahara et al[9]Surgery+HAI chemotherapy38 (10/28)NANA3-yr 100% vs 60%Beneficial
vs surgery alone4-yr 100% vs 47%,
respectively (P < 0.05)
Rudroff et al[10]Surgery+HAI 5-FU/MMC30 (14/16)5 yr5-yr 15% vs5-yr 25% vs 31%Not
vs surgery alone23% (P>0.05)(P > 0.05)beneficial
Lorenz et al[11]Surgery+HAI 5-FU/LV226 (113/113)NAMedian 14.2 vsMedian 34.5 vsNot
vs surgery alone13.7 (mo) (P>0.05)40.8 (mo) (P > 0.05)beneficial
Kemeny et al[12]Surgery+HAI FUDR/DEXA+IV156 (74/82)2 yr2-yr 57% vs 42%2-yr 86% vs 72%Beneficial
5-FU/LV vs surgery+IV 5-FU/LV(P = 0.07)(P = 0.03)
Tono et al[13]Surgery+HAI 5-FU+oral 5-FU19 (9/10)62.2 (mo)1-, 2-, 3-yr 77.8%,1-, 2-, 3-yr 88.9%,Beneficial
vs surgery+oral 5-FU(mean)77.8%, 66.7% vs77.8%, 77.8% vs
50.0%, 30.0%, 20.0%100.0%, 50.0%, and
respectively (P = 0.045)50.0% respectively
(P = 0.2686)
Kemeny et al[14]Surgery+HAI FUDR+IV 5-FU109 (53/56)NA4-yr 46% vs 25%Median 63.7 vsBeneficial
vs surgery(P = 0.04)49 (mo) (P = 0.60)