Effect of Yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization in patients with non-surgical hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, the use of Yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization in non-surgical hepatocellular carcinoma was suggested but the evidence supporting its use is unclear. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception up to April 14, 2020 for randomized controlled trials comparing Y90-TARE to standard of care in non-surgical HCC patients. Our primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Our secondary outcomes were progression-free survival, time to progression, disease control rate, grade ≥3 adverse events and rates of gastro-intestinal ulcers. Hazard ratios (HR) and risk ratios (RR) with random-effects model were used for our analyses. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using Cochrane's RoB 2 tool. RESULTS: Of 1,604 citations identified, eight studies (1,439 patients) were included in our analysis. No improvement in overall survival were noted when Yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization was compared to standard treatments (HR 0.99 [95% CI 0.81-1.21], 6 studies, I2 = 77.6%). However, Yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization was associated with fewer grade ≥3 adverse events (RR 0.64 [95% CI 0.45-0.92], 7 studies, I2 = 66%). No difference was observed on other secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: In non-surgical HCC patients, Yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization was not associated with significant effect on survival, progression-free survival, time to progression, disease control rate and the incidence of gastro-intestinal ulcers but was however associated with significantly lower rates of grade ≥3 adverse events. Further randomized controlled trials are warranted to better delineate optimal treatment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".