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

IF 5.1 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":5.1000,"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://acsjournals.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
外束放疗与经动脉化疗栓塞治疗肝癌的随机对照试验荟萃分析。
背景:外束放疗(EBRT)是治疗肝细胞癌(HCC)的一种非侵入性治疗方法,可替代经动脉化疗栓塞(TACE)。本研究的目的是对前瞻性随机临床试验进行系统回顾和荟萃分析,以评估EBRT与TACE作为HCC的最终单药治疗或作为移植/手术的桥梁的临床疗效。方法:进行系统评价和荟萃分析,包括前瞻性随机试验,比较EBRT和TACE。数据分析采用随机和固定效应模型。选择不一致性指数(I2)来评估异质性。3篇出版物共纳入142例患者。结果包括局部控制(LC)、总生存期(OS)、无进展生存期(PFS)和≥3级毒性的发生率。比较以95%置信区间(ci)的风险比(hr)或风险比(rr)报告。结果:有3个随机试验符合纳入标准。EBRT分3到15份,总剂量在30到75格雷(Gy)之间。EBRT与LC显著改善相关(HR, 0.16;95% ci, 0.08-0.34;I2 = 0%)和PFS (HR, 0.37;95% ci, 0.23-0.60;I2, 0%),与TACE相比。EBRT与TACE在OS方面差异无统计学意义(RR, 0.79;95% ci, 0.51-1.22;I2 = 0%)或≥3级毒性(RR, 0.86;95% ci, 0.31-2.37;i2 = 57%)。所有分析均无统计学显著异质性。结论:与TACE相比,EBRT在早期和中期HCC中产生了更好的LC和PFS,但没有提供生存优势。应该进行更多更大规模的前瞻性随机对照试验,以进一步研究晚期疾病患者临床结果的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Integration of food and nutrition into oncology care: Proceedings of the Food is Medicine in Oncology Care Symposium. Issue Information Exercise recommendations for older adults living with and beyond cancer: A consensus statement by the Advancing Capacity to Integrate Exercise Into the Care of Older Cancer Survivors expert panel Efficacy and safety of teclistamab in triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma: Pooled findings from three clinical cohorts and a retrospective cohort Circulating tumor DNA informs clinical practice in patients with recurrent/metastatic gastroesophageal cancers
×
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:604180095
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