Comparative Analysis of Transradial and Transfemoral Approaches in Transarterial Radioembolization for Liver Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Transarterial radioembolization (TARE) is a minimally invasive therapy combining embolization and radiation for cancer treatment. This meta-analysis compares radiation exposure, quality of life, and safety of the transradial (TRA) versus transfemoral (TFA) approaches in TARE for liver tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science for studies comparing TRA versus TFA in TARE for liver tumors. Our primary outcomes focused on various measures of patient radiation exposure, including procedure time, fluoroscopy time, air kerma, and dose-area product (DAP). For secondary outcomes, we evaluated safety parameters, such as overall pain experienced during the procedure, pain in the recovery room post-procedure, the incidence of adverse events, and the impact on quality of life. Study quality was assessed using Cochrane's ROB 2 tool for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. Data analysis was conducted with REVMAN 5.4.1 software. RESULTS: Six studies, comprising one RCT and five cohort studies with 1,209 patients, underwent comprehensive analysis. The aggregated findings revealed a significant reduction in procedure duration associated with TRA (MD =- 6.30, 95% CI [- 9.88, - 2.73], P = 0.005). However, no statistically significant differences were found between TRA and TFA groups concerning fluoroscopy time, recovery time, air kerma, DAP, pain in the recovery room, overall pain during the procedure, quality of life measuring mental health and physical function or adverse events. CONCLUSION: TRA and TFA showed comparable results in TARE for liver tumors, but TRA offered a shorter procedure time. Further RCTs with larger samples are needed to confirm these findings. Future studies should assess long-term efficacy for a more complete evaluation.
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 | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".