TACE Versus TARE in the Treatment of Liver-Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Liver metastases are common among patients with breast cancer and have a poor prognosis if left untreated. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate and compare chemoembolization (TACE) versus radioembolization (TARE) treatments in patients with breast cancer liver-dominant metastases in terms of overall survival (OS), local tumor control (LC), and toxicity. Methods: The S.P.I.D.E.R framework was used to address the clinical question. A systematic literature search using PubMed and Scopus was performed to identify full articles evaluating the efficacy of TACE and TARE in patients with liver metastases from breast cancer. Results: The literature search resulted in 10 articles for TACE, 13 articles for TARE and 1 for combined TACE/TARE, totaling 462 patients for the TACE group and 627 for the TARE group. The median LC was 68.7% for TACE and 78.9% for TARE. The median OS was 15.3 months for TACE and 11.9 for TARE. Progression at three months was 32.5% for TACE and 20.6% for TARE. Conclusions: The included studies were heterogeneous, varying widely in design, patient selection, and therapeutic protocols. Nonetheless, this systematic review suggests that locoregional therapies are effective in the treatment of liver metastases in patients with breast cancer and may improve tumor burden, alleviate symptoms and extend overall survival. The median LC of the liver metastases at three months was higher in the TARE group compared to TACE. However, the TARE group showed lower OS rates after 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.
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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it