Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33001024›Full record

SynthesisHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2020

Selective internal radiation therapies for unresectable early-, intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review, network meta-analysis and economic evaluation.

Matthew Walton, Ros Wade, Lindsay Claxton, Sahar Sharif-Hurst, Melissa Harden, Jai Patel, Ian Rowe, Robert Hodgson, Alison Eastwood

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew WaltonCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1932-3689
Ros WadeCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8666-8110
Lindsay ClaxtonCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1795-7568
Sahar Sharif-HurstCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6885-0456
Melissa HardenCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2338-6869
Jai PatelLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9248-0125
Ian RoweLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1288-0749
Robert HodgsonCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6962-2893
Alison EastwoodCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1079-7781
University of York · GBLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GB

Funding

Department of Health 17/109/19
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of primary liver cancer. Treatment choice is dependent on underlying liver dysfunction and cancer stage. Treatment options include conventional transarterial therapies for patients with intermediate-stage disease and systemic therapy [e.g. sorafenib (Nexavar

objectiveTo assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapies for treating patients with unresectable early-, intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

methodsA search was undertaken to identify clinical effectiveness literature relating to selective internal radiation therapies and relevant comparators for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Studies were critically appraised and summarised. The network of evidence was mapped to estimate the relative effectiveness of the different selective internal radiation therapies and comparator treatments. An economic analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness.

resultsTwenty studies were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two large randomised controlled trials rated as having a low risk of bias [SARAH: Vilgrain V, Pereira H, Assenat E, Guiu B, Ilonca AD, Pageaux GP, LIMITATIONS: The existing evidence cannot provide decision-makers with clear guidance on the comparative effectiveness of treatments in early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma or on the efficacy of TheraSphere or QuiremSpheres.

conclusionsIn the advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma population, two large randomised trials have shown that SIR-Spheres have similar clinical effectiveness to sorafenib. None of the selective internal radiation therapies was cost-effective, being more costly and less effective than lenvatinib, both at list price and with Patient Access Scheme discounts. FUTURE WORK: Future studies may wish to include early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma patients and the low tumour burden/albumin-bilirubin 1 subgroup of advanced-stage patients. Future high-quality studies evaluating alternative selective internal radiation therapies would be beneficial. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019128383.

fundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAgedCarcinoma, HepatocellularFemaleHumansLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedRadiotherapyTreatment OutcomeHEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMALIVER CANCERQUIREMSPHERESSELECTIVE INTERNAL RADIATION THERAPYSIR-SPHERESTHERASPHERE

Identifiers

PMID33001024
PMCPMC7569721
OpenAlexW3089367981

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.