Outcomes by transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) modality from participants (pts) with embolization-eligible hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with durvalumab (D)+bevacizumab (B)+TACE and placebos (PBO)+TACE: EMERALD-1 subgroup analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: EMERALD-1 (NCT03778957) met its primary endpoint, showing improved progression-free survival (PFS) in pts with locoregional HCC treated with D+B+TACE versus PBO+TACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61–0.98). This analysis assessed the impact of TACE modality (conventional TACE [cTACE] or drug-eluting bead [DEB]-TACE) on efficacy and safety outcomes. Methods: Pts in this analysis received D (1500 mg) or PBO for D (Q4W) plus cTACE or DEB-TACE (investigator choice; TACE modality was a stratification factor). After completing the last TACE, pts received D (1120 mg)+B (15 mg/kg) or PBO for D+B (Q3W). PFS, time to progression (TTP), and overall response rate (ORR; BICR per RECIST v1.1) with D+B+TACE and PBO+TACE (intent-to-treat population) are reported by TACE modality. Safety was assessed in the safety analysis set (pts received≥1 dose of study treatment [tx], regardless of randomization). Results: Overall, 59.3% of pts received cTACE and 40.7% received DEB-TACE in the D+B+TACE arm; similarly, 58.5% of pts received cTACE and 41.5% received DEB-TACE in the PBO+TACE arm. Most pts received 1 or 2 TACE procedures in both cTACE (60% in D+B+TACE arm; 67.2% in PBO+TACE arm) and DEB-TACE groups (55.6% in D+B+TACE arm; 53.6% in PBO+TACE arm). Baseline characteristics in the cTACE and DEB-TACE groups were similar, with some differences in the relative distribution of BCLC, HAP, and tumor burden (BCLC Score A; 29.0% vs 17.9%: HAP Score A; 36.5% vs 25.0%: tumor burden within up-to-7 criteria; 56.4% vs 37.5%, respectively). Baseline characteristics were generally well balanced across tx arms within the cTACE and DEB-TACE groups. PFS, TTP, and ORR improved with D+B+TACE versus PBO+TACE, regardless of TACE modality (Table). In the D+B+TACE and PBO+TACE arms, max Grade 3–4 adverse events possibly related to study tx were reported by 25/100 (25.0%) and 3/116 (2.6%) pts in the cTACE group, and 16/54 (29.6%) and 9/84 (10.7%) pts in the DEB-TACE group, respectively. Conclusions: Overall, pts receiving D+B+TACE had improved PFS, TTP, and ORR versus PBO+TACE regardless of TACE modality. Safety was manageable with both cTACE and DEB-TACE. © 2025 American Society of Clinical Oncology, Inc. Reused with permission. This abstract was accepted and previously presented at the 2025 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium. All rights reserved. Publication History Article published online: 04 September 2025 © 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".