TACE and conformal radiotherapy vs. TACE alone for hepatocellular carcinoma: A randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Aims Transcatheter arterial chemoembolisation (TACE) is recommended for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma devoid of macrovascular invasion or extrahepatic spread but not eligible for curative therapies. We compared the efficacy and safety of the combination of a single TACE and external conformal radiotherapy (CRT) vs . classical TACE. Methods TACERTE was an open-labelled, randomised controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation rate to two or three TACE (arm A) or one TACE + CRT (arm B). Participants had a mean age of 70 years, and 86% were male. The aetiology was alcohol in 85%. The primary endpoint was liver progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. The typical CRT schedule was 54 Gy in 18 sessions of 3 Gy. Results Of the 120 participants randomised, 64 were in arm A and 56 in arm B; 100 participants underwent the planned schedule and defined the ‘per-protocol' group. In intention-to-treat participants, the liver PFS at 12 and 18 months were 59% and 19% in arm A and 61% and 36% in arm B (hazard ratio [HR] 0.69; 95% CI 0.40–1.18; p = 0.17), respectively. In the per-protocol population, treated liver PFS tended to be better in arm B (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.34–1.06; p = 0.081) than in arm A. Liver-related grade III–IV adverse events were more frequent in arm B than in arm A. Median overall survival reached 30 months (95% CI 23–35) in arm A and 22 months (95% CI 15.7–26.2) in arm B. Conclusions Although TACE + CRT tended to improve local control, this first Western randomised controlled trial showed that the combined strategy failed to increase PFS or overall survival and led more frequently to liver-related adverse effects. Impact and implications Hepatocellular carcinoma is frequently treated by arterial embolisation of the tumour and more recently by external radiotherapy. We tried to determine whether combination of the two treatments (irradiation after embolisation) might produce interesting results. Our results in this prospective randomised study were not able to demonstrate a beneficial effect of combining embolisation and irradiation in these patients. On the contrary, we observed more adverse effects with the combined treatment. Clinical Trials Registration NCT01300143.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".