ArticleTranslational cancer research2019
Efficacy and safety of CalliSpheres
Article in Translational cancer research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
33 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to assess the treatment response, short-term overall survival (OS) and safety profiles of drug-eluting beads transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE) in patients with secondary liver cancer.
methodsFifty-five patients with secondary liver cancer underwent DEB-TACE were enrolled in this prospective cohort study. Treatment response was assessed by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST). OS was calculated from the time of DEB-TACE operation until the date of death.
resultsThe complete response (CR) and objective response rate (ORR) at 1-3 months post DEB-TACE were 12.7% and 67.3%. Mean OS was 383 d (95% CI: 360-406), and 6-month OS rate was 93.4%±3.7%. Subgroup analysis revealed previous conventional TACE (cTACE) treatment was correlated with worse ORR (P=0.028), and it was a risk factor for ORR achievement (P=0.021). As for liver function, the percentages of abnormal TP (P=0.031), TBIL (P=0.022), ALT (P=0.002) and AST (P=0.035) were increased at 1 week post DEB-TACE compared to baseline, while these four indexes returned to baseline (all P>0.05) at 1-3 months post DEB-TACE. As to safety profiles, 41 (66.1%), 28 (45.2%), 17 (27.4%), 8 (12.9%) and 6 (9.7%) cases had pain, vomiting, fever, nausea and other adverse events (AEs) respectively during DEB-TACE operation, while 26 (41.9%), 9 (14.5%), 8 (12.9%), 4 (6.5%), 1 (1.6%) and 2 (3.2%) cases had pain, fever, vomiting, nausea, bone marrow toxicity and other AEs respectively at 1 month after DEB-TACE operation.
conclusionsDEB-TACE was efficient and well tolerated in treating patients with secondary liver cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.