Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39033928›Full record

ArticleAnnals of hepatology

Outcomes of repeat conventional transarterial chemoembolization in patients with liver metastases.

Kamyar Ghabili, Austin-Marley Windham-Herman, Menelaos Konstantinidis, Nikitha Murali, Tabea Borde, Lucas C Adam, Fabian Laage-Gaupp, MingDe Lin, Julius Chapiro, Christos Georgiades and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of hepatology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

11 authors.

Kamyar GhabiliDepartment of Radiology, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, USA; Section of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Austin-Marley Windham-HermanSection of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA; Department of Interventional Radiology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
Menelaos KonstantinidisInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Canada; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Canada.
Nikitha MuraliSection of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA; Section of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Tabea BordeSection of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA; Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Charité Campus Benjamin Franklin (CBF), Berlin, Germany.
Lucas C AdamSection of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA; Department of Neurology and Experimental Neurology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Charité Campus Benjamin Franklin (CBF), Berlin, Germany.
Fabian Laage-GauppSection of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
MingDe LinSection of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Julius ChapiroSection of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Christos GeorgiadesDivision of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Nariman NezamiSection of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Biomedical imaging, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA; Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Medstar Georgetown Hospital, Washington, DC, USA; Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA; Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC, USA. Electronic address: dr.nezami@gmail.com.

Funding

Quantitative Multimodal Imaging Biomarkers for Combined Locoregional and Immunotherapy of Liver CancerR01CA206180 · NCI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI CHAPIRO, JULIUS, DUNCAN, JAMES S · 2016 to 2025
$6.1M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA206180
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND

objectivesAlthough unlimited sessions of conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) may be performed for liver metastases, there is no data indicating when treatment becomes ineffective. This study aimed to determine the optimal number of repeat cTACE sessions for nonresponding patients before abandoning cTACE in patients with liver metastases. MATERIALS AND

methodsIn this retrospective, single-institutional analysis, patients with liver metastases from neuroendocrine tumors (NET), colorectal carcinoma (CRC), and lung cancer who underwent consecutive cTACE sessions from 2001 to 2015 were studied. Quantitative European Association for Study of the Liver (qEASL) criteria were utilized for response assessment. The association between the number of cTACE and 2-year, 5-year, and overall survival was evaluated to estimate the optimal number of cTACE for each survival outcome.

resultsEighty-five patients underwent a total of 186 cTACE sessions for 117 liver metastases, of which 30.7 % responded to the first cTACE. For the target lesions that did not respond to the first, second, and third cTACE sessions, response rates after the second, third, and fourth cTACE sessions were 33.3 %, 23 %, and 25 %, respectively. The fourth cTACE session was the optimal number for 2-year survival (HR 0.40; 95 %CI: 0.16-0.97; p = 0.04), 5-year survival (HR 0.31; 95 %CI: 0.11-0.87; p = 0.02), and overall survival (HR 0.35; 95 %CI: 0.13-0.89; p = 0.02).

conclusionsRepeat cTACE in the management of liver metastases from NET, CRC, and lung cancer was associated with improved patient survival. We recommend at least four cTACE sessions before switching to another treatment for nonresponding metastatic liver lesions.

Indexed as

Chemoembolization, TherapeuticColorectal NeoplasmsLiver NeoplasmsLung NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeuroendocrine TumorsRetreatmentRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeLiverMetastasisResponseTransarterial chemoembolization

Identifiers

PMID39033928
PMCPMC11558520

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.