Background/aim: Inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma is common in Asia and is usually treated with repeated transarterial chemoembolization. Gunji et al. showed better survival and fewer complications with autologous blood clot as compared with gelfoam used for embolization. Our aim was to compare the effect of blood clot versus gelfoam.
Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized trial in 100 patients with inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma, and compared the side effects and cumulative survival in the two groups. Cox's proportional hazard model was used to study the prognostic factors.
Results: The diameter of the main tumor was 7.9+/-4.6 cm. Our study did not show additional beneficial effects of blood clot. The proportion of side effects was similar and the common ones included fever, pain and vomiting. Though the hepatic artery remained patent for a longer period with blood clot (p=0.061), there was no difference in survival (p=0.129 for Okuda I disease and p=0.388 for Okuda II disease). Subgroup analysis showed longer survival in patients with vascular occlusion (p=0.034 for Okuda I and p=0.029 for Okuda II disease). The independent factors of survival were sex, Child's class, Okuda stage, tumor type and presence of metastases.
Conclusion: This study showed no additional benefits of blood clot in patients with inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma, in Okuda I and II disease. The longer survival in patients with vascular occlusion suggested that the damage to normal liver tissue by planned periodic transarterial chemoembolization may outweigh its benefit in later sessions of repeated TACE in certain patients.