ArticleJournal of interventional medicine2021
Comparison of radiation doses between hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy and transarterial chemoembolization for liver cancer.
Article in Journal of interventional medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Transarterial Chemoembolization Plus Sorafenib versus Transarterial Chemoembolization Alone for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2023Review
- Radiation Dose Aspects of Hepatic Artery Infusion Chemotherapy in Uveal Melanoma Patients with Liver Metastases.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the radiation dose received by patients during hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) procedures and the related influencing factors. Methods: Data of 162 cases in the HAIC group and 230 cases in the TACE group were collected. The included covariates were Age (<45/45-59/≥60 years), BMI levels (underweight/normal weight/obesity), focus Dye of tumor (present/absent), lesion size (<5cm/≥5cm), superselection (present/absent), hepatic vascular variation (present/absent). The endpoints were postoperative dose-area product (DAP), exposure time and Air kerma (AK). Results: Of all included patients, the HAIC group patients were younger than those in the TACE group (P = 0.028). The proportion of patients with large lesions in the HAIC group was higher than the TACE group (45.7% vs. 33.9%, P = 0.019). The proportion of patients who had superselection was lower in the HAIC group as compared to the TACE group (61.7% vs. 82.2%, P < 0.001). Generally, the HAIC group has lower DAP, exposure time and AK by 36.3% (P < 0.001), 38.2% (P < 0.001), and 41.3% (P < 0.001) than the TACE group, respectively. Linear regression analysis showed the procedure method (HAIC/TACE, P < 0.001), type of DSA machine (Pheno/FD20, P < 0.001), BMI levels (P < 0.001), age (P = 0.021), lesion size (<5cm/≥5 cm, P = 0.031) significantly correlated with low DAP. In the HAIC group, the type of DSA machine and BMI correlated with the radiation dose, while in the TACE group, the type of DSA machine, BMI, and lesion size correlated with the radiation dose. Conclusion: Compared with TACE, HAIC enables doctors and patients to receive lower radiation doses. Obese patients in both HAIC and TACE groups increase the radiation exposure in interventional doctors and patients, but large lesions only affect the radiation dose in the TACE procedure.
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.