Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of external-beam radiation versus transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma

IF 6.1 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Cancer Pub Date : 2025-01-30 DOI:10.1002/cncr.35720
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,&nbsp;Leila T. Tchelebi MD,&nbsp;Ethan B. Ludmir MD,&nbsp;Freddy E. Escorcia MD, PhD,&nbsp;Sabi Shrestha MD,&nbsp;Nina Sanford MD,&nbsp;Colin M. Court MD, PhD,&nbsp;Jeff M. Ryckman MD,&nbsp;Sukeshi P. Arora MD,&nbsp;Eric J. Lehrer MD,&nbsp;Jonathan Gelfond PhD,&nbsp;Krishan R. Jethwa MD, MPH,&nbsp;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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cancer
Cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
3.20%
发文量
480
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
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
期刊最新文献
Gaps in care highlight the need to expand access to clinical cancer trials Men face substantial lifelong risk of oral HPV infection New AI model shows promise for cancer diagnosis Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of external-beam radiation versus transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma Outcomes and treatment patterns for stage I human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database, 2010–2019
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1