BACKGROUND/AIMS: Doxorubicin-eluting bead TACE (DEB-TACE) has recently been developed as a novel therapy option for HCC. However, the clinical efficacy of DEB-TACE is still unclear. Herein, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of DEB-TACE compared with conventional TACE (cTACE). METHODOLOGY: We inlcuded seven studies (a total of 693 patients) to compare DEB-TACE with cTACE. The pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated using a random or fixed effects model. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database were searched for articles published from dates of inceptions up to February 20, 2012. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias estimate were also performed to evaluate the potential risk bias in the overall results of pooled analysis. RESULTS: The pooled estimates for tumor response of DEB-TACE were not significantly different from those of cTACE, with CR (OR: 1.18; 95%CI: 0.81-1.71; p=0.394), PR (OR: 1.37; 95%CI: 0.94-1.99; p=0.101), SD (OR: 0.88; 95%CI: 0.51-1.51; p=0.637), PD (OR: 0.85; 95%CI: 0.52-1.38; p=0.512), DC (OR: 1.37, 95%CI: 0.95-1.98; p=0.089) and OR (OR: 1.40; 95%CI: 0.97-2.000; p=0.070). CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests that DEB-TACE is able to accomplish the same tumor response as cTACE. Although this analysis provides a comprehensive look at published data involving the clinical efficacy of DEB-TACE compared with conventional TACE, additional large scale of randomized-control studies are still needed.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Doxorubicin-eluting bead TACE (DEB-TACE) has recently been developed as a novel therapy option for HCC. However, the clinical efficacy of DEB-TACE is still unclear. Herein, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of DEB-TACE compared with conventional TACE (cTACE). METHODOLOGY: We inlcuded seven studies (a total of 693 patients) to compare DEB-TACE with cTACE. The pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated using a random or fixed effects model. MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database were searched for articles published from dates of inceptions up to February 20, 2012. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias estimate were also performed to evaluate the potential risk bias in the overall results of pooled analysis. RESULTS: The pooled estimates for tumor response of DEB-TACE were not significantly different from those of cTACE, with CR (OR: 1.18; 95%CI: 0.81-1.71; p=0.394), PR (OR: 1.37; 95%CI: 0.94-1.99; p=0.101), SD (OR: 0.88; 95%CI: 0.51-1.51; p=0.637), PD (OR: 0.85; 95%CI: 0.52-1.38; p=0.512), DC (OR: 1.37, 95%CI: 0.95-1.98; p=0.089) and OR (OR: 1.40; 95%CI: 0.97-2.000; p=0.070). CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests that DEB-TACE is able to accomplish the same tumor response as cTACE. Although this analysis provides a comprehensive look at published data involving the clinical efficacy of DEB-TACE compared with conventional TACE, additional large scale of randomized-control studies are still needed.
Authors: Saleh A Alqahtani; Faisal M Sanai; Ashwaq Alolayan; Faisal Abaalkhail; Hamad Alsuhaibani; Mazen Hassanain; Waleed Alhazzani; Abdullah Alsuhaibani; Abdullah Algarni; Alejandro Forner; Richard S Finn; Waleed K Al-Hamoudi Journal: Saudi J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 2.485
Authors: Francesco Bellissimo; Marilia Rita Pinzone; Bruno Cacopardo; Giuseppe Nunnari Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 5.742