MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413908797 · doi:10.3390/curroncol32090487

Safety of Combination TARE and SBRT in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Review of Literature & Single-Center Case Series

2025· review· en· W4413908797 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bahareh Gholami, Ali Afrasiabi, Andrew M. Moon, Ted K. Yanagihara, Hui Wang, Sandra Gad, Alexander Villalobos, David Mauro, Hyeon Yu, Johannes L. du Pisanie, Nima Kokabi

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHepatocellular carcinomaSeries (stratigraphy)Center (category theory)Single CenterGeneral surgeryInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer. At the time of diagnosis, many HCC patients are not candidates for surgical resection and are considered for other locoregional therapies, including transarterial radioembolization (TARE) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). To date only a few studies have explored the safety and efficacy of combining TARE and SBRT. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate it. Patients who received both SBRT and TARE from 2016 to 2024 were retrospectively evaluated for treatment-related toxicity based on criteria for adverse events (CTCAE v4.0). Treatment response was evaluated by modified response evaluation criteria for solid tumors (m-RECIST). We identified 12 patients with median age of 66.5 (range: 40, 87) and median follow up of 12 months. The median time between TARE and SBRT was 6.5 months (range: 1.5 to 24). Following the second treatment, ALBI grade remined the same among all patients at 3-month post treatment compared to baseline. Baseline CP was A among all patients and remained unchanged during follow-up and no higher than grade 3 clinical or biochemical toxicity was seen. The objective response rate (ORR) among patients receiving treatment to the same lesion was 100%. The combination treatment was consistent with prior studies in which the combination of TARE and SBRT has been shown to have good local control with few cases of grade 3 toxicity. Our study demonstrates that treatment with TARE and SBRT was safe and effective among our small sample of patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis→French-language works237,207→