Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) Versus Transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE) for Treatment Of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a Meta-Analysis of Propensity Matched Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There are currently limited data comparing the efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to report on the summary effect estimate of overall survival and local control at 1-year based on available evidence. Methods: A literature search was conducted in PubMed from database inception until April 2020. Articles were independently screened by two reviewers and included if they reported on a propensity-matched study design comparing SBRT to TACE for the treatment of HCC with at least 1 year follow up. Event data of overall survival and local control at 1-year were extracted. A random-effects model was applied to generate summary odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Four studies with 606 patients were identified and included. SBRT (73.6%) and TACE (67.0%) had similar 1-year rates of OS, with an OR of 0.87 (0.56, 1.37). SBRT (88.4%) had greater local control at 1 year compared to TACE (71.7%); OR of 0.34 (0.13, 0.86). Conclusion: SBRT is comparable to TACE in terms of 1-year survival for the treatment HCC and may provide an advantage in terms of local control. Future controlled trials are necessary to determine the clinical advantages and best indications for each 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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".