Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33871708›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2021

Duration of response after DEB-TACE compared to lipiodol-TACE in HCC-naïve patients: a propensity score matching analysis.

Irene Bargellini, Valentina Lorenzoni, Giulia Lorenzoni, Paola Scalise, Gianni Andreozzi, Elena Bozzi, Luigi Giorgi, Rosa Cervelli, Rossella Scandiffio, Orsola Perrone and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. New insights into mechanisms and interventions of locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

18 authors.

Irene BargelliniDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Pisa University Hospital, Via Paradisa 2, 56126, Pisa, Italy. irenebargellini@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5641-1330
Valentina LorenzoniInstitute of Management, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, 56127, Pisa, Italy.
Giulia LorenzoniDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Pisa University Hospital, Via Paradisa 2, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Paola ScaliseDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Pisa University Hospital, Via Paradisa 2, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Gianni AndreozziInstitute of Management, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, 56127, Pisa, Italy.
Elena BozziDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Pisa University Hospital, Via Paradisa 2, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Luigi GiorgiDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Pisa University Hospital, Via Paradisa 2, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Rosa CervelliDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Pisa University Hospital, Via Paradisa 2, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Rossella ScandiffioDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Pisa University Hospital, Via Paradisa 2, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Orsola PerroneDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Pisa University Hospital, Via Paradisa 2, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Donato Vito MecciaDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Pisa University Hospital, Via Paradisa 2, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Antonio BoccuzziDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Pisa University Hospital, Via Paradisa 2, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Francesco DaviddiDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Pisa University Hospital, Via Paradisa 2, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Antonio CicorelliDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Pisa University Hospital, Via Paradisa 2, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Alessandro LunardiDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Pisa University Hospital, Via Paradisa 2, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Laura CrocettiDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Pisa University Hospital, Via Paradisa 2, 56126, Pisa, Italy.
Giuseppe TurchettiInstitute of Management, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, 56127, Pisa, Italy.
Roberto CioniDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Pisa University Hospital, Via Paradisa 2, 56126, Pisa, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo retrospectively compare long-term outcomes of first-line drug-eluting particle (DEB)- transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and lipiodol-TACE, in patients with unresectable hepatocellular (HCC).

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed our database to identify adult patients with treatment-naïve unresectable HCC, who underwent TACE from 2006 to 2013. Patients were excluded in the absence of complete medical records relative to first TACE, 1-month follow-up, and/or sufficient follow-up data. Periprocedural complications, duration of hospitalization, 1-month tumor response by mRECIST, time to tumor progression (TTP) and target tumor progression (TTTP), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated.

resultsOut of an initial series of 656 patients, 329 patients were excluded for unavailability of sufficient baseline and/or follow-up data. The remaining 327 patients underwent either lipiodol-TACE (n = 160) or DEB-TACE (n = 167). Patients treated with lipiodol-TACE had a significantly higher tumor burden. By propensity score, patients were matched according to baseline differences (BCLC stage, uninodular or multinodular HCC, and unilobar or bilobar HCC), resulting in 101 patients in each treatment group. Lipiodol-TACE was associated with a significantly higher incidence of adverse events (p = 0.03), and longer hospitalization (mean, 2.5 days vs 1.9 days; p = 0.03), while tumor response, TTP, and OS were comparable. In patients achieving 1-month complete response (CR) of target tumor, TTTP was significantly (p = 0.009) longer after DEB-TACE compared to lipiodol-TACE (median, 835 vs 353 days), resulting in a lower number of re-treatments during the entire follow-up (0.75 vs 1.6, p = 0.01).

conclusionCompared to lipiodol-TACE, DEB-TACE offers higher tolerability, reduced hospitalization, and more durable target tumor response after CR. KEY POINTS: • Compared to lipiodol-TACE, DEB-TACE is better tolerated and has reduced side effects, which translates into shorter hospitalization. • When complete radiological response according to the mRECIST is obtained 1 month after the procedure, DEB-TACE offers a more durable local tumor control compared to lipiodol-TACE. • In these patients, the longer duration of response after DEB-TACE translates into a lower number of re-interventions.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularChemoembolization, TherapeuticLiver NeoplasmsDoxorubicinEthiodized OilHumansPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeDoxorubicinEthiodized OilCarcinoma, hepatocellularChemoembolization, therapeuticEthiodized oilMicrospheresPropensity score

Identifiers

PMID33871708
PMCPMC8452560

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.