Abstract 1481P
Background
Reportedly up to 30% of lung cancer patients will develop hemoptysis and 10% will experience massive hemoptysis. Bronchial artery embolization (BAE) is routinely performed in patients with hemoptysis secondary to neoplasm, while associated with a high failure rate and increased mortality. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of drug-eluting microspheres BAE (DEM-BAE) with blank microspheres BAE (BM-BAE) for hemoptysis in NSCLC patients.
Methods
DEM-BAE was performed in 25 patients with hemoptysis with one vial of 300-500μm Callispheres drug-eluting beads (Gemcitabine 100mg). The BM-BAE group consisted of 25 patients who were treated with blank microspheres of 300-500μm. We categorized the results as technical and clinical success, and also included the mid-term results. Technical success was defined as the complete cessation of the target artery as confirmed by digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Clinical success was defined as the cessation of hemoptysis within 24 h of BAE. Technical success was compared immediately after the procedure. The clinical success and mid-term results (percentage of patients who were free of hemoptysis) were compared at 1 and 6 months after the procedure, respectively.
Results
There was no significant difference for technical success rates (DEM-BAE group: 90%, BM-BAE group: 85%, P>0.05). However, the clinical success rates (DEM-BAE group: 83.3%, BM-BAE group: 68%, P<0.01) and the mid-term results (DEM-BAE group: 71.4%, BM-BAE group: 64%, P<0.01) showed a significant difference. Moreover, Disease control rate (CR+PR+SD) was higher in DEM-BAE group than control group (DEM-BAE group: 78.5%, BM-BAE group: 48%, P<0.01). The procedure-related complications included mild cough and mild chest pain. There was no special management required for these complications.
Conclusions
DEM-BAE appeared to be the more optimal modality to improve the mid-term clinical efficacy compared to blank microspheres BAE for hemoptysis in NSCLC patients. Further studies were warranted.
Clinical trial identification
ChiCTR2300071106.
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
1607P - Association of the lipid biomarker, PCPro, and clinical outcomes in the ENZAMET trial (ANZUP 1304)
Presenter: Lisa Horvath
Session: Poster session 10
1608P - Prostate cancer working group 4 (PCWG4) preliminary criteria using serial PSMA PET/CT for response evaluation: Analysis from the PRINCE trial
Presenter: Michael Hofman
Session: Poster session 10
1609P - PSMA-PET and PROMISE re-define stage and risk in patients with prostate cancer
Presenter: Wolfgang Fendler
Session: Poster session 10
1610P - Circulating tumour cell (CTC) enumeration and overall survival (OS) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) treated with xaluritamig
Presenter: Andrew Armstrong
Session: Poster session 10
1611P - Haematologic impact of [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 versus ARPI change in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in PSMAfore
Presenter: Kim Nguyen Chi
Session: Poster session 10
1612P - Impact of FANCA, ATM, CDK12 alterations on survival in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC)
Presenter: David Lorente
Session: Poster session 10
1613P - Clinically advanced prostate cancer (CAPC) featuring BRCA2 loss: A comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) study
Presenter: Chiara Mercinelli
Session: Poster session 10
1614P - PSA responses and PSMA scan changes after immunotherapy for biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BCR) without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)
Presenter: Ravi Madan
Session: Poster session 10
1615P - A new prognostic model of overall survival (OS) in patients (pts) with metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC)
Presenter: Susan Halabi
Session: Poster session 10