loading page

Comparison of efficacy and safety of corticosteroid and vincristine in treating Kaposiform hemangioendothelioma and tufted angioma: A Multiicenter Prospective Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
  • +9
  • Wei Yao,
  • Kai Li,
  • Zuopeng Wang,
  • Jinhu Wang,
  • Yi Ji,
  • Ling Zhou,
  • Haijin Huang,
  • Xiaoyun Gao,
  • Zhijian Huang,
  • Song Gu,
  • Heying Yang,
  • Shan Zheng
Wei Yao
Children's Hospital of Fudan University

Corresponding Author:2812094044@qq.com

Author Profile
Kai Li
Children's Hospital of Fudan University
Author Profile
Zuopeng Wang
Children’s Hospital of Fudan University
Author Profile
Jinhu Wang
Zhejiang University School of Medicine Children's Hospital
Author Profile
Yi Ji
West China Hospital of Sichuan University
Author Profile
Ling Zhou
People's Hospital of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region
Author Profile
Haijin Huang
The First Affiliated Hospital of Gannan Medical University
Author Profile
Xiaoyun Gao
Fujian Provincial Hospital
Author Profile
Zhijian Huang
Children’s Hospital of Soochow University
Author Profile
Song Gu
Shanghai Children’s Medical Center, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine
Author Profile
Heying Yang
Zhengzhou University First Affiliated Hospital
Author Profile
Shan Zheng
Children's Hospital of Fudan University
Author Profile


Purpose: To evaluate and compare the efficacy of corticosteroid and vincristine (VCR) in the treatment of kaposiform hemangioendothelioma (KHE) and tufted angioma (TA). Methods: This was a multicenter prospective randomized controlled study. All patients with KHE/TA who meet the diagnostic criteria were included. The patients were randomized to methylprednisolone (MP) group and VCR group. The primary outcome was the single main parameter effective rate (SMPE) and overall effective rate (OE) of corticosteroid and VCR over one month after treatment. The single main parameters included platelets, fibrinogen, tumor size, texture and appearance. Results: In single main parameters, VCR was superior to corticosteroid in the relief of platelet (80.0% vs 44.0, P = 0.019) and tumor texture (68.9% vs 30.8%, P = 0.007). Although the efficacy of VCR on fibrinogen (23.3% vs 20.7%, P=1.000), tumor size (23.3% vs 13.8%, P=0.273) and appearance (65.5% vs 46.2%, P=0.120) were higher than that of corticosteroid, there was no significant difference (P > 0.05). And the overall effective rate of VCR was higher than that of corticosteroid (31.0% and 56.7% vs 31.0%), but the differences were also not statistically significant. (P=0.067). Conclusions: Our prospective data show that the therapeutic effect of VCR was significantly greater than that of corticosteroid with regard to treating thrombocytopenia and improving tumor texture. So, we recommend that VCR could be an option for first-line treatment in KHE/TA patients.