Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27936465›Full record

SynthesisOncotarget2017

Meta-analysis of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization plus radiofrequency ablation versus transcatheter arterial chemoembolization alone for hepatocellular carcinoma.

De-Jun Yang, Kun-Lun Luo, Hong Liu, Bing Cai, Guo-Qing Tao, Xiao-Fang Su, Xiao-Juan Hou, Fei Ye, Xiang-Yong Li, Zhi-Qiang Tian

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. TACE and conformal radiotherapyJHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

De-Jun YangDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, The Changzheng Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China.
Kun-Lun LuoDepartment of General Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine and Oncology, The 101st Hospital of Chinese PLA, Wuxi 214044, China.
Hong LiuDepartment of General Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine and Oncology, The 101st Hospital of Chinese PLA, Wuxi 214044, China.
Bing CaiDepartment of General Surgery, Wuxi People's Hospital Affiliated Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi 214023, China.
Guo-Qing TaoDepartment of General Surgery, Wuxi People's Hospital Affiliated Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi 214023, China.
Xiao-Fang SuDepartment of General Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine and Oncology, The 101st Hospital of Chinese PLA, Wuxi 214044, China.
Xiao-Juan HouTumor Immunology and Gene Therapy Center, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, The Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200438, China.
Fei YeTumor Immunology and Gene Therapy Center, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, The Second Military Medical University, Shanghai 200438, China.
Xiang-Yong LiDepartment of General Surgery and Rehabilitation Medicine and Oncology, The 101st Hospital of Chinese PLA, Wuxi 214044, China.
Zhi-Qiang TianDepartment of General Surgery, Wuxi People's Hospital Affiliated Nanjing Medical University, Wuxi 214023, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with TACE alone for hepatocellular carcinoma. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL for all relative randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies until October 31 2016. Tumor response, recurrence-free survival, overall survival and postoperative complications were the major evaluation indices. Review Manager (version 5.3) was used to analyze the data. Dichotomous data was calculated by odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). There were 1 RCT and 10 retrospective studies with 928 patients in this meta-analysis: 412 patients with TACE plus RFA and 516 patients with TACE alone. Compared with TACE alone group, TACE plus RFA group attained higher tumor response rates (OR = 6.08, 95% CI = 4.00 to 9.26, P < 0.00001), achieved longer recurrence-free survival rates (ORRFS = 3.78, 95% CI: 2.38 to 6.02, P < 0.00001) and overall survival rates (OR1-year = 3.92, 95% CI = 2.41-6.39, P < 0.00001; OR3-year = 2.56; 95% CI = 1.81-3.60; P < 0.00001; OR5-year = 2.78; 95% CI = 1.77-4.38; P < 0.0001). Serious postoperative complications were not observed, although complications were higher in TACE plus RFA group than that in TACE alone group (OR = 2.74, 95% CI = 1.07 to 7.07, P = 0.04). In conclusion, the use of TACE plus RFA for intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma can attain higher tumor response rates and improve survival rates than TACE alone.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularCatheter AblationChemoembolization, TherapeuticCombined Modality TherapyHumansLiver NeoplasmsOdds RatioPostoperative ComplicationsPublication BiasSurvival RateTreatment Outcomehepatocellular carcinomameta-analysisradiofrequency ablationtranscatheter arterial chemoembolization

Identifiers

PMID27936465
PMCPMC5356855

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.