Efficacy and safety of drug-eluting beads bronchial arterial chemoembolization versus conventional bronchial arterial chemoembolization in lung cancer patients with hemoptysis

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting beads bronchial arterial chemoembolization (DEB-BACE) compared with conventional bronchial arterial chemoembolization (cBACE) in lung cancer patients with hemoptysis. Materials & methods: Thirty-six lung cancer patients with hemoptysis treated by DEB-BACE or cBACE were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Technical success of BACE and clinical success of hemoptysis treatment were no different between DEB-BACE and cBACE (both p > 0.050), whereas DEB-BACE achieved increased total clinical response (p = 0.021), objective response rate (p = 0.035) and prolonged hemoptysis relapse-free survival (p = 0.013) compared with cBACE. The adverse event rates were similar between these two groups (all p > 0.05). Conclusion: DEB-BACE presents with higher tumor treatment response, prolonged hemoptysis relapse-free survival and comparable safety profiles compared with cBACE in lung cancer patients with hemoptysis.

Keywords::

• clinical response
• conventional bronchial arterial chemoembolization
• drug-eluting beads bronchial arterial chemoembolization
• hemoptysis
• lung cancer

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/fon-2021-1515

Author contributions

Z Fu and C Wang made substantial contributions to the design of the present study. Z Fu and C Wang contributed equally to this work. Data acquisition and interpretation were performed by Z Fu, C Wang, W Wei, G Xiang, L Guan, M Zhan, W Li, X Peng, Z Gong and B Gao. Z Fu, C Wang and B Gao critically revised the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending or royalties.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

Ethical conduct of research

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board. Written informed consent was collected from patients or their family members. The authors state that they have obtained appropriate Institutional Review Board approval or have followed the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki for all human or animal experimental investigations.