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
1554P - Co payments in cancer patients: Analysis and estimating OOP
Presenter: Krishnamani Kalpathi
Session: Poster session 10
1555P - Estimating the social value of immuno-oncology (IO) therapies in Japan
Presenter: Tomoya Ohno
Session: Poster session 10
1556P - Current landscape of drug approvals for genitourinary (GU) cancers in North America and Europe
Presenter: Jose Tapia
Session: Poster session 10
1557P - The use of patient experience in UK NICE decision making in oncology
Presenter: Noemi Muszbek
Session: Poster session 10
1558P - Independent validation of the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (Gail model) for predicting breast cancer risk in Egyptian population
Presenter: Elaria Yacoub
Session: Poster session 10
1559P - Equity of access and clinical impact of genomic testing in patients with cancer in a UK early phase clinical trials unit
Presenter: Jonathan Poon
Session: Poster session 10
1560P - Optimal age versus real age in breast and gynaecological risk reducing surgery in BRCA1/2 carriers
Presenter: Alberta Ferrari
Session: Poster session 10
1561P - Targeted screening methodologies to select high risk individuals: LungFlag performance in Estonia Lung Cancer Screening Pilot
Presenter: Tanel Laisaar
Session: Poster session 10
1562P - The feasibility of polygenic risk score-based population screening for breast cancer: The experience from the BRIGHT study in Estonia
Presenter: Anni Lepland
Session: Poster session 10
1563P - Increasing the earlier detection of lung cancer: A toolbox for change
Presenter: Helena Wilcox
Session: Poster session 10