Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34447681›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational hepatology2021

Re-evaluating Transarterial Chemoembolization Failure/Refractoriness: A Survey by Chinese College of Interventionalists.

Bin-Yan Zhong, Wan-Sheng Wang, Shen Zhang, Hai-Dong Zhu, Lei Zhang, Jian Shen, Xiao-Li Zhu, Gao-Jun Teng, Cai-Fang Ni

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational hepatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Bin-Yan ZhongDepartment of Interventional Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Wan-Sheng WangDepartment of Interventional Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Shen ZhangDepartment of Interventional Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Hai-Dong ZhuCenter of Interventional Radiology & Vascular Surgery, Department of Radiology, Zhongda Hospital, Medical School, Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Lei ZhangDepartment of Interventional Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Jian ShenDepartment of Interventional Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Xiao-Li ZhuDepartment of Interventional Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Gao-Jun TengCenter of Interventional Radiology & Vascular Surgery, Department of Radiology, Zhongda Hospital, Medical School, Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1145-0798
Cai-Fang NiDepartment of Interventional Radiology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5953-781X
Zhongda Hospital Southeast University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsThe recognition of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) failure/refractoriness among Chinese clinicians remains unclear. Using an online survey conducted by the Chinese College of Interventionalists (CCI), the aim of this study was to explore the recognition of TACE failure/refractoriness and review TACE application for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment in clinical practice.

methodsFrom 27 August 2020 to 30 August 2020 during the CCI 2020 annual meeting, a survey with 34 questions was sent by email to 264 CCI clinicians in China with more than 10 years of experience using TACE for HCC treatment.

resultsA total of 257 clinicians participated and responded to the survey. Most participants agreed that the concept of "TACE failure/refractoriness" has scientific and clinical significance (n=191, 74.3%). Nearly half of these participants chose TACE-based combination treatment as subsequent therapy after so-called TACE failure/refractoriness (n=88, 46.1%). None of the existing TACE failure/refractoriness definitions were widely accepted by the participants; thus, it is necessary to re-define this concept for the treatment of HCC in China (n=235, 91.4%). Most participants agreed that continuing TACE should be performed for patients with preserved liver function, presenting portal vein tumor thrombosis (n=242, 94.2%) or extrahepatic spread (n=253, 98.4%), after the previous TACE treatment to control intrahepatic lesion(s).

conclusionsThere is an obvious difference in the recognition of TACE failure/refractoriness among Chinese clinicians based on existing definitions. Further work should be carried out to re-define TACE failure/refractoriness.

Indexed as

FailureHepatocellular carcinomaRefractorinessSurveyTACE

Identifiers

PMID34447681
PMCPMC8369015
OpenAlexW3156398656

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.