Abstract
Background and Aim: Little information is available about the antiviral efficacy of lamivudine (LAM) and entecavir (ETV) in patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Thus, we compared the antiviral efficacy of LAM and ETV in these patients. Methods: The medical records of 134 antiviral therapy-naïve patients with HBV-related advanced HCC (modified Union for International Cancer Control [UICC] Tumor, Nodes, and Metastases [TNM] stages III-IV) treated between January 2005 and September 2009 were reviewed. After HCC diagnosis, 87 (64.9%) and 47 (35.1%) patients received LAM and ETV, respectively. Results: The mean age of patients (115 men, 19 women) was 53years. Sixty-five (48.5%) and 69 (51.5%) patients had TNM stages III and IV HCC, respectively. Treatment outcomes during follow-up, including virologic, biochemical, and serologic responses and appearance of antiviral resistance, were similar in the LAM and ETV groups (all P>0.05). Multivariate analysis identified Child-Pugh class, α-fetoprotein, and TNM stage as independent predictors of overall survival (all P<0.05). Antiviral agent type (LAM vs ETV) did not influence overall survival (median 9.6months in LAM vs 13.6months in ETV group; P=0.493). HCC treatment was not interrupted due to HBV flare up in any patient. Conclusions: The antiviral efficacy of LAM and ETV was similar and the type of antiviral agent did not influence overall survival in patients with HBV-related advanced HCC. Thus, LAM, which is less expensive than ETV in Korea, might be sufficient to control HBV in these patients.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1528-1534 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia) |
| Volume | 27 |
| Issue number | 9 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2012 Sep |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Hepatology
- Gastroenterology
Cite this
}
Antiviral efficacy of lamivudine versus entecavir in patients with hepatitis B virus-related advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. / Shin, Hye Sun; Kim, Seung Up; Park, Jun Yong; Kim, Do Young; Han, Kwang Hyub; Chon, Chae Yoon; Baatarkhuu, Oidov; Ahn, Sang Hoon.
In: Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia), Vol. 27, No. 9, 09.2012, p. 1528-1534.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
TY - JOUR
T1 - Antiviral efficacy of lamivudine versus entecavir in patients with hepatitis B virus-related advanced hepatocellular carcinoma
AU - Shin, Hye Sun
AU - Kim, Seung Up
AU - Park, Jun Yong
AU - Kim, Do Young
AU - Han, Kwang Hyub
AU - Chon, Chae Yoon
AU - Baatarkhuu, Oidov
AU - Ahn, Sang Hoon
PY - 2012/9
Y1 - 2012/9
N2 - Background and Aim: Little information is available about the antiviral efficacy of lamivudine (LAM) and entecavir (ETV) in patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Thus, we compared the antiviral efficacy of LAM and ETV in these patients. Methods: The medical records of 134 antiviral therapy-naïve patients with HBV-related advanced HCC (modified Union for International Cancer Control [UICC] Tumor, Nodes, and Metastases [TNM] stages III-IV) treated between January 2005 and September 2009 were reviewed. After HCC diagnosis, 87 (64.9%) and 47 (35.1%) patients received LAM and ETV, respectively. Results: The mean age of patients (115 men, 19 women) was 53years. Sixty-five (48.5%) and 69 (51.5%) patients had TNM stages III and IV HCC, respectively. Treatment outcomes during follow-up, including virologic, biochemical, and serologic responses and appearance of antiviral resistance, were similar in the LAM and ETV groups (all P>0.05). Multivariate analysis identified Child-Pugh class, α-fetoprotein, and TNM stage as independent predictors of overall survival (all P<0.05). Antiviral agent type (LAM vs ETV) did not influence overall survival (median 9.6months in LAM vs 13.6months in ETV group; P=0.493). HCC treatment was not interrupted due to HBV flare up in any patient. Conclusions: The antiviral efficacy of LAM and ETV was similar and the type of antiviral agent did not influence overall survival in patients with HBV-related advanced HCC. Thus, LAM, which is less expensive than ETV in Korea, might be sufficient to control HBV in these patients.
AB - Background and Aim: Little information is available about the antiviral efficacy of lamivudine (LAM) and entecavir (ETV) in patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Thus, we compared the antiviral efficacy of LAM and ETV in these patients. Methods: The medical records of 134 antiviral therapy-naïve patients with HBV-related advanced HCC (modified Union for International Cancer Control [UICC] Tumor, Nodes, and Metastases [TNM] stages III-IV) treated between January 2005 and September 2009 were reviewed. After HCC diagnosis, 87 (64.9%) and 47 (35.1%) patients received LAM and ETV, respectively. Results: The mean age of patients (115 men, 19 women) was 53years. Sixty-five (48.5%) and 69 (51.5%) patients had TNM stages III and IV HCC, respectively. Treatment outcomes during follow-up, including virologic, biochemical, and serologic responses and appearance of antiviral resistance, were similar in the LAM and ETV groups (all P>0.05). Multivariate analysis identified Child-Pugh class, α-fetoprotein, and TNM stage as independent predictors of overall survival (all P<0.05). Antiviral agent type (LAM vs ETV) did not influence overall survival (median 9.6months in LAM vs 13.6months in ETV group; P=0.493). HCC treatment was not interrupted due to HBV flare up in any patient. Conclusions: The antiviral efficacy of LAM and ETV was similar and the type of antiviral agent did not influence overall survival in patients with HBV-related advanced HCC. Thus, LAM, which is less expensive than ETV in Korea, might be sufficient to control HBV in these patients.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84865377664&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84865377664&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2012.07145.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2012.07145.x
M3 - Article
C2 - 22497450
AN - SCOPUS:84865377664
VL - 27
SP - 1528
EP - 1534
JO - Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia)
JF - Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (Australia)
SN - 0815-9319
IS - 9
ER -