| Literature DB >> 35356619 |
Xiao Yang1, Tingting Lan2, Hui Zhong3, Zujian Zhang3, Hui Xie1, Youwei Li1, Wen Huang3.
Abstract
The efficacy and safety of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) are systematically evaluated in the treatment of primary liver cancer, which provides a reference for clinical practice and more in-depth research. Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang Data, supplemented by other searches, collected all randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing TACE combined with TACE alone for HCC. The meta-analysis, after selecting the literature, extracting data, and evaluating the methodological quality of the included studies following the inclusion criteria, was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. There was statistical difference in 3-year survival rate of TACE combined with heat treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (OR = 1.72,95%CI (1.22,2.41), P=0.002, I2 = 0%, and Z = 3.12), total effective rate (OR = 1.91,95%CI (1.31,2.78), P=0.0008, I2 = 0%, and Z = 3.37), quality-of-life improvement rate (OR = 2.29,95%CI (1.62,3.23), P < 0.00001, I2 = 83%, and Z = 3.37), and complication rate (OR = 2.29,95%CI (1.62,3.23), P < 0.00001, I2 = 83%, and Z = 3.37). Compared with TACE alone, TACE combined with hyperthermia can significantly improve the survival rate and recent efficacy of patients, improve the quality of life, and have a trend to reduce the incidence of toxicity. However, its long-term efficacy and more comprehensive safety need to be verified by more sample and high-quality RCT.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35356619 PMCID: PMC8959991 DOI: 10.1155/2022/8223336
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Figure 1Flowchart of the literature screening.
Basic clinical features of 12 literature were included in our study.
| Study | Age | Gender (man) | Disease types | Experimental group (N) | Control group (N) | NOS score | Research type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Borgheresi A 2020 | 53.71 ± 12.2 | 41.25 | Advanced liver cancer | 98 | 70 | 8 | RCT |
| Görgec B 2020 | 65.65 ± 13.4 | 69.12 | Advanced liver cancer | 88 | 60 | 7 | RCT |
| Yamada | 53.12 ± 14.5 | 45.72 | Advanced liver cancer | 120 | 110 | 8 | RCT |
| Van Rosmalen 2019 | 67.15 ± 14.5 | 44.12 | Advanced liver cancer | 68 | 60 | 8 | RCT |
| Nurili F 2021 | 52.85 ± 11.4 | 51.89 | Advanced liver cancer | 60 | 75 | 8 | RCT |
| Newgard BJ 2019 | 64.36 ± 10.2 | 63.45 | Advanced liver cancer | 56 | 67 | 7 | RCT |
| Yarmohammadi 2018 | 62.62 ± 12.2 | 78.10 | Advanced liver cancer | 80 | 77 | 9 | RCT |
| Kouri BE 2018 | 62.61 ± 13.0 | 48.75 | Advanced liver cancer | 81 | 60 | 9 | RCT |
| Lewis AL 2018 | 57.25 ± 14.5 | 59.23 | Advanced liver cancer | 43 | 58 | 7 | RCT |
| Ronald | 66.22 ± 15.2 | 56.22 | Advanced liver cancer | 60 | 72 | 8 | RCT |
| Furumaya A 2019 | 71.35 ± 11.1 | 53.16 | Advanced liver cancer | 110 | 102 | 8 | RCT |
| Franken LC 2020 | 57.25 ± 16.0 | 66.34 | Advanced liver cancer | 90 | 79 | 8 | RCT |
Figure 2Literature quality evaluation chart. (a) Risk of bias graph. (b) Risk of bias summary.
Figure 3Funnel plot of literature publication bias.
Figure 4Meta-analysis of the 3-year survival rate between two groups.
Figure 5Meta-analysis of the total effective rate between two groups.
Figure 6Meta-analysis of the quality-of-life improvement rate between two groups.
Figure 7Meta-analysis of the complication rate between two groups.