September 28, 2012

Chemoembolization (trans-arterial chemoembolization or TACE)


This technique takes advantage of the fact that liver cancer is a tumor that is very vascular (contains many blood vessels) and gets its blood supply exclusively from the hepatic artery branches. This procedure is similar to intra-arterial infusion chemotherapy.
But in TACE, there are additional blocking action (embolization / embolizing) the small blood vessels with different types of compounds, such as foam so that (gelfoam) or even small metal coils. Thus, TACE has the advantages of exposing the tumor to high concentrations of chemotherapeutic agents and restrict locally because they are not taken away by the bloodstream. At the same time, this technique is revoked / depriving the tumor of blood supply it needs, which can result in damage or death of tumor cells.

The type and frequency of complications of TACE and intra-arterial chemotherapy are similar. Potential loss of TACE is that deterrence / counteraction vessels feeding the tumors may make future efforts on infusions of intra-arterial impossible. More than that, so far, no studies of the head with a head that directly compare the effectiveness of intra-arterial infusion versus chemoembolization. In Japan, chemotherapeutic agents mixed with lipiodol. Ideanya is that because the tumor cells preferentially take lipiodol, they will likewise take chemotherapy. This Japanese technique is still not validated in comparison with head-head comparison with conventional TACE.

What are the benefits of TACE? In one large study involving several institutions in Italy, chemoembolization does not seem worthwhile. Patients who did not undergo TACE lived as long as patients who received TACE, although the tumors were more likely to shrink in size in patients who were treated. Does this mean that TACE or intra-arterial chemotherapy is not working? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Studies in Japan have shown that TACE can reduce the level of liver cancer. With other words, tumors shrank enough to lower (improve) the situation of cancer. From the practical point of view, shrinking the tumor creates several surgical options in these patients. Otherwise, these patients have tumors that can not be operated because of the large size tumors first (early) them. More importantly, the same studies have shown an improvement in survival in patients with tumors are considerably smaller. In America, these experiments were run to see whether doing TACE before liver transplantation improves survival compared with liver transplant patients without TACE.

It is safe to say that TACE or intra-arterial chemoinfusion are options (choices) treatment to relieve / ease for liver cancer. This means that these procedures can provide relief / exemption or make further reduced disease severity. However, they are not a cure. Fewer than 50% of patients will have some shrinkage in tumor size. Furthermore, they can be used only in patients with relatively preserved liver function. Reasons for this is that these procedures, as mentioned previously, can lead to liver failure in individuals with poor liver function.
Posted by at
Labels:

Chemoembolization (trans-arterial chemoembolization or TACE)


This technique takes advantage of the fact that liver cancer is a tumor that is very vascular (contains many blood vessels) and gets its blood supply exclusively from the hepatic artery branches. This procedure is similar to intra-arterial infusion chemotherapy.
But in TACE, there are additional blocking action (embolization / embolizing) the small blood vessels with different types of compounds, such as foam so that (gelfoam) or even small metal coils. Thus, TACE has the advantages of exposing the tumor to high concentrations of chemotherapeutic agents and restrict locally because they are not taken away by the bloodstream. At the same time, this technique is revoked / depriving the tumor of blood supply it needs, which can result in damage or death of tumor cells.

The type and frequency of complications of TACE and intra-arterial chemotherapy are similar. Potential loss of TACE is that deterrence / counteraction vessels feeding the tumors may make future efforts on infusions of intra-arterial impossible. More than that, so far, no studies of the head with a head that directly compare the effectiveness of intra-arterial infusion versus chemoembolization. In Japan, chemotherapeutic agents mixed with lipiodol. Ideanya is that because the tumor cells preferentially take lipiodol, they will likewise take chemotherapy. This Japanese technique is still not validated in comparison with head-head comparison with conventional TACE.

What are the benefits of TACE? In one large study involving several institutions in Italy, chemoembolization does not seem worthwhile. Patients who did not undergo TACE lived as long as patients who received TACE, although the tumors were more likely to shrink in size in patients who were treated. Does this mean that TACE or intra-arterial chemotherapy is not working? Maybe yes, maybe no.

Studies in Japan have shown that TACE can reduce the level of liver cancer. With other words, tumors shrank enough to lower (improve) the situation of cancer. From the practical point of view, shrinking the tumor creates several surgical options in these patients. Otherwise, these patients have tumors that can not be operated because of the large size tumors first (early) them. More importantly, the same studies have shown an improvement in survival in patients with tumors are considerably smaller. In America, these experiments were run to see whether doing TACE before liver transplantation improves survival compared with liver transplant patients without TACE.

It is safe to say that TACE or intra-arterial chemoinfusion are options (choices) treatment to relieve / ease for liver cancer. This means that these procedures can provide relief / exemption or make further reduced disease severity. However, they are not a cure. Fewer than 50% of patients will have some shrinkage in tumor size. Furthermore, they can be used only in patients with relatively preserved liver function. Reasons for this is that these procedures, as mentioned previously, can lead to liver failure in individuals with poor liver function.