PubMedZhonghua zhong liu za zhi [Chinese journal of oncology]2026-11-11
[Comparison of efficacy and safety between TAE combined with FOLFOX-HAIC or RALOX-HAIC in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma].
Zhang M M, Chang X J XJ, Gao X D XD, Kong H F HF et al.
Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) using the FOLFOX regimen, consisting of oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil, with those of HAIC using the RALOX regimen in patients with intermediate-advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods: A total of 239 patients with primary hepatocellular carcinoma who received transarterial embolization (TAE) combined with FOLFOX-HAIC or RALOX-HAIC at the Fifth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital between January 2022 and October 2024 were retrospectively enrolled. Patients in the FOLFOX-HAIC and RALOX-HAIC groups were matched at a ratio of 2∶1 using propensity score matching (PSM), resulting in 103 patients in the FOLFOX-HAIC group and 68 patients in the RALOX-HAIC group. The objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events were compared between the two groups. Results: After PSM, there were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the FOLFOX-HAIC and RALOX-HAIC groups, with all P values greater than 0.05. According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1, the ORR was 37.9% (39/103) in the FOLFOX-HAIC group and 33.8% (23/68) in the RALOX-HAIC group, while the DCR was 84.5% (87/103) and 76.5% (52/68), respectively. No significant differences were observed between the two groups, with P values of 0.707 and 0.266, respectively. According to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, the ORR was 49.5% (51/103) in the FOLFOX-HAIC group and 45.6% (31/68) in the RALOX-HAIC group, while the DCR was 84.5% (87/103) and 76.5% (52/68), respectively. The differences were also not statistically significant, with P values of 0.729 and 0.266, respectively. The median PFS was 11.9 months in the FOLFOX-HAIC group and 10.0 months in the RALOX-HAIC group, while the median OS was 23.1 months and 17.2 months, respectively, with no statistically significant differences between the two groups, both P=0.400. The incidences of grade 1-2 adverse events were 62.1% and 66.2% in the FOLFOX-HAIC and RALOX-HAIC groups, respectively, while the incidences of grade 3-4 adverse events were 36.9% and 29.4%, respectively. No significant differences were observed between the two groups, with all P values greater than 0.05. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in both groups were increased aspartate aminotransferase levels (29.1% and 19.1%), increased alanine aminotransferase levels (20.4% and 20.6%), and thrombocytopenia (16.5% and 25.0%). Conclusions: In patients with intermediate-advanced hepatocellular carcinoma receiving TAE combined with HAIC, FOLFOX-HAIC and RALOX-HAIC showed comparable efficacy and safety. RALOX-HAIC may serve as a potential alternative to FOLFOX-HAIC.