Ryan A. Kuehnle BS, Leila T. Tchelebi MD, Ethan B. Ludmir MD, Freddy E. Escorcia MD, PhD, Sabi Shrestha MD, Nina Sanford MD, Colin M. Court MD, PhD, Jeff M. Ryckman MD, Sukeshi P. Arora MD, Eric J. Lehrer MD, Jonathan Gelfond PhD, Krishan R. Jethwa MD, MPH, Neil B. Newman MD, MSc
{"title":"Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of external-beam radiation versus transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma","authors":"Ryan A. Kuehnle BS, Leila T. Tchelebi MD, Ethan B. Ludmir MD, Freddy E. Escorcia MD, PhD, Sabi Shrestha MD, Nina Sanford MD, Colin M. Court MD, PhD, Jeff M. Ryckman MD, Sukeshi P. Arora MD, Eric J. Lehrer MD, Jonathan Gelfond PhD, Krishan R. Jethwa MD, MPH, Neil B. Newman MD, MSc","doi":"10.1002/cncr.35720","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>External-beam radiation (EBRT) is a noninvasive therapeutic alternative to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized clinical trials to assess the clinical efficacy of EBRT versus TACE for HCC as either a definitive monotherapy or as a bridge to transplantation/surgery.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to include prospective randomized trials comparing EBRT versus TACE. Data was analyzed with random and fixed-effects models. The inconsistency index (I<sup>2</sup>) was chosen to assess heterogeneity. Three publications were included with a total of 142 patients. Outcomes included local control (LC), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and occurrences of grade ≥3 toxicity. Comparisons are reported as hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>There were three randomized trials that met inclusion criteria. The EBRT was delivered in three to 15 fractions with a total dose between 30 and 75 gray(Gy). EBRT was associated with significantly improved LC (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.08–0.34; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and PFS (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.23–0.60; I<sup>2</sup>, 0%) compared with TACE. There was no significant difference between EBRT and TACE in OS (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.51–1.22; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) or grade ≥3 toxicity (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.31–2.37; I<sup>2</sup> = 57%). None of the analyses had statistically significant heterogeneity.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Compared with TACE, EBRT yields superior LC and PFS without providing a survival benefit in early and intermediate stage HCC. Additional larger prospective randomized controlled trials should be conducted to further investigate differences in clinical outcomes amongst patients with more advanced disease.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":138,"journal":{"name":"Cancer","volume":"131 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.35720","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
External-beam radiation (EBRT) is a noninvasive therapeutic alternative to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized clinical trials to assess the clinical efficacy of EBRT versus TACE for HCC as either a definitive monotherapy or as a bridge to transplantation/surgery.
Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to include prospective randomized trials comparing EBRT versus TACE. Data was analyzed with random and fixed-effects models. The inconsistency index (I2) was chosen to assess heterogeneity. Three publications were included with a total of 142 patients. Outcomes included local control (LC), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and occurrences of grade ≥3 toxicity. Comparisons are reported as hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Results
There were three randomized trials that met inclusion criteria. The EBRT was delivered in three to 15 fractions with a total dose between 30 and 75 gray(Gy). EBRT was associated with significantly improved LC (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.08–0.34; I2 = 0%) and PFS (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.23–0.60; I2, 0%) compared with TACE. There was no significant difference between EBRT and TACE in OS (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.51–1.22; I2 = 0%) or grade ≥3 toxicity (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.31–2.37; I2 = 57%). None of the analyses had statistically significant heterogeneity.
Conclusions
Compared with TACE, EBRT yields superior LC and PFS without providing a survival benefit in early and intermediate stage HCC. Additional larger prospective randomized controlled trials should be conducted to further investigate differences in clinical outcomes amongst patients with more advanced disease.
期刊介绍:
The CANCER site is a full-text, electronic implementation of CANCER, an Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society, and CANCER CYTOPATHOLOGY, a Journal of the American Cancer Society.
CANCER publishes interdisciplinary oncologic information according to, but not limited to, the following disease sites and disciplines: blood/bone marrow; breast disease; endocrine disorders; epidemiology; gastrointestinal tract; genitourinary disease; gynecologic oncology; head and neck disease; hepatobiliary tract; integrated medicine; lung disease; medical oncology; neuro-oncology; pathology radiation oncology; translational research