MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362475744 · doi:10.1186/s12957-023-02961-7

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors versus TACE in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4362475744 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ruihua Duan, Fen Gong, Yan Wang, Caixia Huang, Jiaming Wu, Leihao Hu, Min Liu, Shijun Qiu, Liming Lu, Yisheng Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Surgical Oncology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineMeta-analysisHazard ratioHepatocellular carcinomaObservational studyAdverse effectRandomized controlled trialPlaceboOncologyConfidence intervalPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has been increasingly used to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). However, the superiority of combination therapy to TACE monotherapy remains controversial. Therefore, here we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TACE plus TKIs in patients with uHCC. METHODS: We searched four databases for eligible studies. The primary outcome was time to progression (TTP), while the secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), tumor response rates, and adverse events (AEs). Pooled hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were collected for TTP and OS, and the data were analyzed using random-effects meta-analysis models in STATA software. OR and 95% CIs were used to estimate dichotomous variables (complete remission[CR], partial remission[PR], stable disease[SD], progressive disease[PD], objective response rate[ORR], disease control rate[DCR], and AEs) using RStudio's random-effects model. Quality assessments were performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) for observational studies and the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 30 studies (9 RCTs, 21 observational studies) with 8246 patients. We judged the risk of bias as low in 44.4% (4/9) of the RCTs and high in 55.6% (5/9) of the RCTs. All observational studies were considered of high quality, with a NOS score of at least 6. Compared with TACE alone or TACE plus placebo, TACE combined with TKIs was superior in prolonging TTP (combined HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.65-0.80), OS (combined HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.49-0.67), and objective response rate (OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.23-3.67) in patients with uHCC. However, TACE plus TKIs caused a higher incidence of AEs, especially hand-foot skin reactions (OR 87.17%, 95%CI 42.88-177.23), diarrhea (OR 18.13%, 95%CI 9.32-35.27), and hypertension (OR 12.24%, 95%CI 5.89-25.42). CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis found that TACE plus TKIs may be beneficial for patients with uHCC in terms of TTP, OS, and tumor response rates. However, combination therapy is also associated with a significantly increased risk of adverse reactions. Therefore, we must evaluate the clinical benefits and risks of combination therapy. Further well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm our findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022298003.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Surgical OncologySame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207