Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28490356›Full record

Trial reportBMC cancer2017

Transhepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy using a combination of miriplatin and CDDP powder versus miriplatin alone in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized controlled trial.

Kenya Kamimura, Takeshi Suda, Takeshi Yokoo, Hiroteru Kamimura, Tsutomu Kanefuji, Atsunori Tsuchiya, Masaaki Takamura, Hirokazu Kawai, Nobuo Waguri, Satoshi Yamagiwa and 1 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Kenya KamimuraDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata University, Niigata, 951-8510, Niigata, Japan.
Takeshi SudaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Uonuma Institute of Community Medicine, Niigata Medical and Dental Hospital, 4132 Urasa, Minami-Uonuma, 949-7302, Niigata, Japan. tspitt@med.niigata-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8231-0883
Takeshi YokooDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata University, Niigata, 951-8510, Niigata, Japan.
Hiroteru KamimuraDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata University, Niigata, 951-8510, Niigata, Japan.
Tsutomu KanefujiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Uonuma Institute of Community Medicine, Niigata Medical and Dental Hospital, 4132 Urasa, Minami-Uonuma, 949-7302, Niigata, Japan.
Atsunori TsuchiyaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata University, Niigata, 951-8510, Niigata, Japan.
Masaaki TakamuraDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata University, Niigata, 951-8510, Niigata, Japan.
Hirokazu KawaiDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata University, Niigata, 951-8510, Niigata, Japan.
Nobuo WaguriDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Niigata City General Hospital, Niigata, 950-1197, Niigata, Japan.
Satoshi YamagiwaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata University, Niigata, 951-8510, Niigata, Japan.
Shuji TeraiDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata University, Niigata, 951-8510, Niigata, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBased on promising results from a Phase I study of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy using a combination of miriplatin and cisplatin powder (DDP-H) for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (UMIN-CTR000003541), a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase II study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination therapy versus miriplatin monotherapy.

methodsNineteen patients, five and fourteen Barcelona-Clinic Liver Cancer staging classification A and B cases, respectively, were randomly assigned to receive either miriplatin monotherapy (n = 9) or miriplatin/DDP-H combination therapy (n = 10). DDP-H and/or miriplatin were administered through the hepatic arteries supplying the lobes of the liver containing tumors, and progression free survival was analyzed as a primary end point in addition to other secondary endpoints. The corresponding therapy was repeated unless disease progression or severe adverse events were recorded.

resultsThe monotherapy or combination therapy was performed for 15 or 36 sessions in total, respectively. Although there were no significant differences between the two groups for treatment intervals (p = 0.96) or the dose of miriplatin used in each session (p = 0.99), the progression free survival and overall disease control rate were significantly better in the combination therapy group (91 vs 423 days, p = 0.025; 40.0 vs 77.8%, p = 0.0025, respectively). Consistent with these observations, a trend of a significantly slower increase in des-γ-carboxyprothrombin was observed, and the number of treatment sessions was nearly significantly larger in the combination therapy group (p < 0.0001, p = 0.057, respectively). Conversely, the median survival time did not show a significant difference (706 days, monotherapy vs 733 days, combination therapy; p = 0.40). A significant decrease in cholinesterase was observed during the course of treatment only in patients receiving combination therapy (r = -0.86, p < 0.0001). A few cases in both arms showed hematological and/or non-hematological toxicities that were categorized as grade 1 (NCI-CTCAE).

conclusionsThe higher disease control effects with the combination of miriplatin and DDP-H indicate that it is a promising alternative treatment for cases with multiple HCCs, especially for those that can tolerate the treatment without experiencing a reduction in hepatic reserve.

trial registrationThis study was registered on 1 January 2012 with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry ( http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm , UMIN000004691).

Indexed as

Infusions, Intra-ArterialAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBiomarkersCarcinoma, HepatocellularCisplatinDisease-Free SurvivalFemaleHepatic ArteryHumansLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedOrganoplatinum CompoundsacarboxyprothrombinBiomarkersCisplatinmiriplatinOrganoplatinum CompoundsProtein PrecursorsProthrombinCisplatin powderHepatocellular carcinomaInterventional radiologyMiriplatinPhase II clinical trial

Identifiers

PMID28490356
PMCPMC5425991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.