Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38744685›Full record

ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2024

Outcome of Transarterial Radioembolization in the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Glass Versus Resin Microsphere.

Gyoung Min Kim, Do Young Kim, Jong Yun Won, Sungmo Moon, Seung Up Kim, Beom Kyung Kim

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Gyoung Min KimDepartment of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6768-4396
Do Young KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Hospital, 50-1, Yonsei-Ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea. dyk1025@yuhs.ac.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8327-3439
Jong Yun WonDepartment of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8237-5628
Sungmo MoonDepartment of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4334-3797
Seung Up KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Hospital, 50-1, Yonsei-Ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9658-8050
Beom Kyung KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Hospital, 50-1, Yonsei-Ro, Seodaemun-Gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5363-2496

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare the treatment outcomes of glass and resin microspheres for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and evaluate the prognostic factors that influence the outcomes. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 251 consecutive patients who underwent radioembolization for the treatment of HCC at a single tertiary center. Imaging responses after radioembolization were evaluated using the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) 1.1. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to identify the prognostic factors.

resultsA total of 195 patients were included in this study (glass microsphere, n = 75; resin microsphere, n = 120). The complete and objective response rates were 16.0% and 50.7% in the glass microsphere group and 17.5% and 58.3% in the resin microsphere group, respectively. Median PFS was 241 days in the glass microsphere group and 268 days in the resin microsphere group (p = 0.871). Median OS was 29 months in the glass microsphere group and 40 months in the resin microsphere group (p = 0.669). The only significant prognostic factor was bilobar tumor distribution, which favored resin microspheres (p = 0.023). Procedure-related adverse events occurred more frequently in the resin microsphere group (glass, 2.7% vs. resin, 5.0%; p < 0.001).

conclusionGlass and resin microspheres for the treatment of HCC did not show a significant difference in survival, though major adverse events occurred more frequently with the use of resin microspheres.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularEmbolization, TherapeuticGlassLiver NeoplasmsMicrospheresAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeYttrium RadioisotopesYttrium RadioisotopesGlass microsphereHepatocellular carcinomaOverall survivalRadioembolizationResin microsphere

Identifiers

PMID38744685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.