ArticleTranslational cancer research2022
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound combined with transarterial chemoembolization and transarterial chemoembolization alone in the treatment of liver cancer.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Potential and Challenges of Focused Ultrasound-Mediated Therapies in the Management of Liver and Biliary Tract Cancers.Cancers · 2026Review
- Integrating Combination Therapy and Smart Embolic Materials to Overcome the Therapeutic Ceiling of Transarterial Chemoembolization in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2026Review
- High-intensity focused ultrasound treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2024Review
- Development and validation of a predictive scoring system for post-transarterial chemoembolization pain management in liver cancer patients.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
- High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Surgery for Tumor Ablation: A Review of Current Applications.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) have been shown to be effective in the treatment of malignant tumors such as hepatocellular carcinoma. In recent years, HIFU combined with TACE has been frequently reported, but researchers have not yet reached a uniform conclusion on the efficacy and safety of this treatment modality. Methods: The Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biomedical Literature Database, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and Embase databases were searched using the terms "randomized controlled trial (RCT)", "liver cancer", "transarterial chemoembolization", "TACE", "high intensity focused ultrasound", "HIFU", "HIFU combined with TACE", and "efficacy analysis". Studies were included in accordance with the PICOS principle, and risk of bias was assessed in randomized controlled trials in accordance with the Cochrane Manual for Systematic Evaluation of Interventions. Rev Man 5.3 and Stata 13 were employed for meta-analysis. Results: Six randomized controlled trials with a total sample size of 488 were included in this study. Of these studies, 5 described a random allocation (RA) method, 4 described allocation sequence concealment, and 4 used a blind method for the allocation of study subjects. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the 1-year [odds ratio (OR) =3.13, 95% CI: 1.92, 5.11, P<0.00001], 2-year (OR =3.38, 95% CI: 1.71, 6.66, P=0.0004), and 5-year (OR =2.15, 95% CI: 1.02, 4.55, P=0.04) survival rates (SRs) of patients treated with HIFU + TACE were significantly better than those of patients treated with TACE alone. The total effective rate (TER) of patients treated with HIFU + TACE (OR =3.61, 95% CI: 2.14, 6.08, P<0.00001) was significantly better than that of patients treated with TACE alone. Compared with TACE alone, HIFU combined with TACE significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative adverse reactions (OR= 0.57, 95% CI: 0.34, 9.96, P=0.03). Discussion: Meta-analysis was adopted in this study, and it was found that compared with TACE alone, HIFU combined with TACE in the treatment of LC had better efficacy, higher prognosis and survival rate, and lower incidence of adverse reactions. However, due to the limited sample size of the study, there was some risk of bias in the findings.
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.