A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Prophylactic Medication during Radioembolization in Metastatic Liver Disease: Is It Really Necessary? A Retrospective Cohort Study and Systematic Review of the Literature. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Purpose: Trans-arterial radioembolization is a well-studied tumoricidal treatment for liver malignancies; however, consensus and evidence regarding periprocedural prophylactic medication (PPM) are lacking.

Methods: A single-center retrospective analysis from 2014 to 2020 was performed in patients treated with Y-glass microspheres for neuroendocrine or colorectal liver metastases. Inclusion criteria were the availability of at least 3 months of clinical, biochemical, and imaging follow-up and post-treatment Y-PET/CT imaging for the determination of the whole non-tumorous liver absorbed dose (D). Logistic regression models were used to investigate if variables (among which are P/UDCA and D) were associated with either clinical toxicity, biochemical toxicity, or hepatotoxicity. Additionally, a structured literature search was performed in November 2022 to identify all publications related to PPM use in radioembolization treatments.

Results: Fifty-one patients received P/UDCA as post-treatment medication, while 19 did not. No correlation was found between toxicity and P/UDCA use. D was associated with biochemical toxicity ( = 0.05). A literature review resulted in eight relevant articles, including a total of 534 patients, in which no consistent advice regarding PPM was provided.

Conclusion: In this single-center, retrospective review, P/UDCA use did not reduce liver toxicity in patients with metastatic liver disease. The whole non-tumorous liver-absorbed dose was the only significant factor for hepatotoxicity. No standardized international guidelines or supporting evidence exist for PPM in radioembolization.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10742749PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13243652DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

prophylactic medication
8
metastatic liver
8
liver disease
8
single-center retrospective
8
p/udca associated
8
biochemical toxicity
8
ppm radioembolization
8
liver
6
toxicity
5
radioembolization
4

Similar Publications