AIM: Conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) is widely used for treating patients with inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A variation on the technique based on drug-eluting beads (DEB-TACE) has recently entered the clinic, but trials of its safety and efficacy have given conflicting results. This systematic review aimed to gain a current, comprehensive picture of how DEB-TACE compares with cTACE. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure database and clinical trial registries were searched through June 2014. Risk ratios (RR), hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: The analysis included four randomized controlled trials, one uncontrolled prospective study and one prospective case-control study, altogether involving 652 patients. Overall survival benefit was similar between cTACE and DEB-TACE patients (HR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.82-1.40, P = 0.875). However, DEB-TACE was associated with a significantly higher objective tumor response rate (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.01-1.29, P = 0.03) and a slightly lower incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Though the available evidence suggests that although DEB-TACE is associated with better tumor response and potentially fewer adverse events, it does not provide greater survival benefit than cTACE. These results need to be validated in high-quality trials with large sample size.
AIM: Conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) is widely used for treating patients with inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A variation on the technique based on drug-eluting beads (DEB-TACE) has recently entered the clinic, but trials of its safety and efficacy have given conflicting results. This systematic review aimed to gain a current, comprehensive picture of how DEB-TACE compares with cTACE. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure database and clinical trial registries were searched through June 2014. Risk ratios (RR), hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: The analysis included four randomized controlled trials, one uncontrolled prospective study and one prospective case-control study, altogether involving 652 patients. Overall survival benefit was similar between cTACE and DEB-TACEpatients (HR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.82-1.40, P = 0.875). However, DEB-TACE was associated with a significantly higher objective tumor response rate (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.01-1.29, P = 0.03) and a slightly lower incidence of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Though the available evidence suggests that although DEB-TACE is associated with better tumor response and potentially fewer adverse events, it does not provide greater survival benefit than cTACE. These results need to be validated in high-quality trials with large sample size.
Authors: K J Hartrumpf; S Marquardt; T Werncke; T Murray; M M Kirstein; A Vogel; F Wacker; T Rodt Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2018-07-14 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Ali Morshid; Khaled M Elsayes; Ahmed M Khalaf; Mohab M Elmohr; Justin Yu; Ahmed O Kaseb; Manal Hassan; Armeen Mahvash; Zhihui Wang; John D Hazle; David Fuentes Journal: Radiol Artif Intell Date: 2019-09-25
Authors: Weihua Zhang; Lei Chen; Yanyan Cao; Bo Sun; Yanqiao Ren; Tao Sun; Chuansheng Zheng Journal: Cancer Manag Res Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 3.989