Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Combined with Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization versus Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Alone as the First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Chemotherapy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 64 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 248-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jiani Zhao ◽  
Lianli Zeng ◽  
Qian Wu ◽  
Li Wang ◽  
Jun Lei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy ◽  
Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
First Line ◽  
Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Arterial Chemoembolization

Background: The superiority of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) compared to SBRT alone as the first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains unclear. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the efficiency and safety of SBRT combined with TACE (ST group) and SBRT alone (SA group). Methods: We searched PubMed, Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) for related studies. We analyzed overall survival (OS), local control survival (LCS), progression-free survival (PFS), the response rate and adverse effects (AEs) between the 2 groups. Results: Ten articles were included, with a total of 980 patients. The results showed that the ST (SBRT + TACE) group had a longer OS (95% CIs 0.60–0.85, p = 0.0002), a higher 5-year OS rate (95% CI 1.01–2.04, p = 0.04), a higher rate of complete response (95% CI 1.08–1.90, p = 0.01), and a higher disease control rate (95% CI 1.02–1.16, p = 0.02) than the SA (SBRT alone) group. No significant difference was found in LCS, PFS and total AEs of all grades and grades 3–5 AEs between the 2 groups. In the subgroup analysis, the patients with HCC + PVTT or treated with SBRT followed by TACE in the ST group had the same OS as those in the SA group, and the patients in the ST group had a higher incidence rate of leukopenia and fever than those in the SA group. Conclusion: SBRT + TACE appears to be more effective than SBRT alone in treating unresectable HCC. However, its higher incidence rate of leukopenia and fever need to be monitored.

Is transcatheter arterial chemoembolization plus sorafenib better than chemoembolization plus placebo in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma?

2020 ◽  
pp. 030089162094502
Author(s):  
Yong Xie ◽  
Huan Tian ◽  
Hua Xiang
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Grade 3 ◽  
Arterial Chemoembolization

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus sorafenib compared with TACE plus placebo for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using meta-analytical techniques. Methods: A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were done from inception to December 27, 2019. Published trials including a treatment group receiving TACE + sorafenib and a control group receiving TACE + placebo with data for at least 1-year survival or tumor response or time to progression were included. Results: Our study suggested that there was no evidence that TACE plus sorafenib was associated with a lower risk of disease progression compared with TACE plus placebo for treatment of HCC (hazard ratio 0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84–1.05]), and no significant difference for treatment of HCC compared with TACE plus placebo in terms of 0.5-, 1-, 1.5-, and 2-year survival rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.01 [95% CI, 0.97–1.05]; RR 1.00 [95% CI, 0.92–1.08], RR 1.04 [95% CI, 0.89–1.23], RR 0.98 [95% CI, 0.72–1.34], respectively). The meta-analysis also showed that TACE + sorafenib seemed to have no significant difference for treatment of HCC compared with TACE + placebo in terms of complete response, partial response, stable disease, progressive disease, overall response rate, and disease control rate. There was an increased incidence of fatigue of grade 3/4 and elevation of aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase of grade 3/4 in patients receiving TACE plus sorafenib compared with those receiving TACE plus placebo. Conclusions: There is no additive benefit of TACE plus sorafenib compared to TACE plus placebo for HCC.

scholarly journals Individual or combined transcatheter arterial chemoembolization and radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: a time-to-event meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chuang Jiang ◽  
Gong Cheng ◽  
Mingheng Liao ◽  
Jiwei Huang
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Radiofrequency Ablation ◽  
Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Combined Treatment ◽  
Similar Rate ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
China National Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Knowledge Infrastructure ◽  
Arterial Chemoembolization

Abstract Background There is still some debate as to whether transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is better than TACE or RFA alone. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of TACE plus RFA for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with RFA or TACE alone. Methods We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure) for all relevant randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies reporting overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and complications of TACE plus RFA for HCC, compared with RFA or TACE alone. Results Twenty-one studies involving 3413 patients were included. TACE combined with RFA was associated with better OS (hazard ratio [HR]=0.62, 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 0.55–0.71, P < 0.001) and RFS (HR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.39–0.69, P < 0.001) than TACE alone; compared with RFA alone, TACE plus RFA resulted in longer OS (HR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.53–0.75, P < 0.001) and RFS (HR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.51–0.71, P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses by tumor size also showed that combined treatment resulted in better OS and RFS compared with RFA alone in patients with HCC larger than 3 cm. Combined treatment resulted in similar rate of major complications compared with TACE or RFA alone (OR = 1.78, 95% CI = 0.99–3.20, P = 0.05; OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.42–2.38, P = 1.00, respectively). Conclusions TACE combined with RFA was more effective for HCC than TACE alone. For patients with a tumor larger than 3 cm, the combined treatment also achieved a better effect than RFA alone.

scholarly journals Comparison of Radiofrequency Ablation with or without Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinxin Wang ◽  
Yang Che ◽  
Shiyong Chen ◽  
Biao Wu ◽  
Yu He ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Radiofrequency Ablation ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Tumor Progression ◽  
Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Arterial Chemoembolization

Abstract Background To evaluate the curative effect and safety of compare radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with or without transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)with the help of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) . Materials and Methods RCTs comparing TACE combined with RFA and RFA alone were searched electronically using PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and EMBASE. Fixed and random-effects were used to measure pooled estimates. Research indicators included overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFA), tumor progression and complications. Results Overall, 6 RCTs were included in this meta-analysis, with a total of 527 patients (TACE-RFA: 271; RFA: 256). 3- and5-year OS rate was higher in the TACE-RFA group than in the RFA group (OR = 1.74; 95% CI: 1.17–2.59; p = 0.006; OR = 2.19; 95% CI: 1.49–3.22; p < 0.0001). The 3- and 5-year RFS rate in the TACE-RFA group was higher than that in the RFA group (OR = 1.92, 95% CI: 1.30 ~ 2.82, p = 0.0009; OR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.21 ~ 2.70, p = 0.004, respectively). The rate of tumor progression was lower in the TACE-RFA group than in the RFA group (OR = 0.57; 95% CI: 0.38 ~ 0.85; p = 0.005). No significant differences in terms of 1-year OS rate and complications rate were observed between groups.

scholarly journals First-Line Systemic Treatment Strategies for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenfeng Liu ◽  
Bing Quan ◽  
Shenxin Lu ◽  
Bei Tang ◽  
Miao Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
First Line ◽  
Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

ObjectiveSeveral new first-line treatments were recently approved for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this meta-analysis, we compare the efficacy and safety of first-line systemic treatments to provide information for clinical decision making in unresectable HCC.MethodsPubmed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI, CBM, VIP, and the Wanfang databases, as well as the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails were searched for randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of first-line chemotherapy, molecular targeted therapy, or immunotherapy for unresectable HCC. Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to explore the effects of various treatment options on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), whereas odd ratios with 95% CIs were used for adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). A network meta-analysis was performed to synthesize data and for direct and indirect comparisons between treatments. The cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) and P score were used to rank treatments. The risk of bias across studies was assessed graphically and numerically using the funnel plot and Egger’s regression test.ResultsFifteen studies including 9005 patients were analyzed. Sintilimab plus bevacizumab, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, and donafenib had better OS outcomes than sorafenib. Sintilimab plus bevacizumab, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib, and linifanib had better PFS outcomes than sorafenib. The results of network meta-analysis showed that sintilimab plus bevacizumab was associated with the best OS and PFS. Egger’s tests indicated that none of the included studies had obvious publication deviation.ConclusionSintilimab plus bevacizumab showed the best OS and PFS outcomes with no additional AEs or SAEs. Thus, sintilimab plus bevacizumab may be a better first line choice for the treatment of patients with unresectable HCC.Systematic Review RegistrationPROSPEROI [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/index.php], identifier CRD42021269734.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document