Irradiation stent with 125I plus TACE versus sorafenib plus TACE for hepatocellular carcinoma with major portal vein tumor thrombosis: a multicenter randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Treatment strategy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and Vp4 [main trunk] portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) remains limited due to posttreatment liver failure. We aimed to assess the efficacy of irradiation stent placement with 125 I plus transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) (ISP-TACE) compared to sorafenib plus TACE (Sora-TACE) in these patients. METHODS: In this multicenter randomized controlled trial, participants with HCC and Vp4 PVTT without extrahepatic metastases were enrolled from November 2018 to July 2021 at 16 medical centers. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were hepatic function, time to symptomatic progression, patency of portal vein, disease control rate, and treatment safety. RESULTS: Of 105 randomized participants, 51 were assigned to the ISP-TACE group, and 54 were assigned to the Sora-TACE group. The median OS was 9.9 months versus 6.3 months (95% CI: 0.27-0.82; P =0.01). Incidence of acute hepatic decompensation was 16% (8 of 51) versus 33% (18 of 54) ( P =0.036). The time to symptomatic progression was 6.6 months versus 4.2 months (95% CI: 0.38-0.93; P =0.037). The median stent patency was 7.2 months (interquartile range, 4.7-9.3) in the ISP-TACE group. The disease control rate was 86% (44 of 51) versus 67% (36 of 54) ( P =0.018). Incidences of adverse events at least grade 3 were comparable between the safety populations of the two groups: 16 of 49 (33%) versus 18 of 50 (36%) ( P =0.73). CONCLUSION: Irradiation stent placement plus TACE showed superior results compared with sorafenib plus TACE in prolonging OS in patients with HCC and Vp4 PVTT.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".