Clinical Effects and Safety of Intra-Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy with Lipiodol versus Intra-Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy Alone for Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Su Ho KimRadiology, College of Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea, lucidnature@naver.com.

Jung Suk OhRadiology, College of Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Chang Ho JeonRadiology, College of Medicine, Eunpyeong St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Ho Jong ChunRadiology, College of Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Byung Gil ChoiRadiology, College of Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThis study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) in 2 groups of patients: those who receive lipiodol (referred to as the lipiodol group) and those who do not receive lipiodol (referred to as the control group).

methodsFrom January 2016 through December 2023, 85 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma were enrolled in this retrospective study. In total, 40 patients received HAIC with lipiodol, while 45 patients were given HAIC without lipiodol. The modified response evaluation criteria for solid tumors were used to evaluate the tumor response, which was assessed through an imaging study. The two groups were compared regarding their overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety.

resultsThe outcomes between the lipiodol group and control group demonstrated no significant difference: the objective response rates (p = 0.066) were 32.5% and 15.6%; the disease control rates (p = 0.556) were 67.5% and 73.3%; the median OS times (p = 0.339) were 224 days and 398 days; the median PFS (p = 0.334) times were 191 days and 286 days in the lipiodol group and the control group, respectively. Adverse events also showed no significant difference between the two groups: elevation of total bilirubin (p = 0.834) rates were 40.0% and 37.8%; elevation of alanine aminotransferase (p = 0.191) percentages were 35.0% and 22.2%; and elevation of aspartate aminotransferase values (p = 0.058) were 65.0% and 44.4% in the lipiodol group and the control group, respectively.

conclusionsHAIC without lipiodol was non-inferior to HAIC with lipiodol in the clinical outcome.

introductionThis study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) in 2 groups of patients: those who receive lipiodol (referred to as the lipiodol group) and those who do not receive lipiodol (referred to as the control group).

methodsFrom January 2016 through December 2023, 85 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma were enrolled in this retrospective study. In total, 40 patients received HAIC with lipiodol, while 45 patients were given HAIC without lipiodol. The modified response evaluation criteria for solid tumors were used to evaluate the tumor response, which was assessed through an imaging study. The two groups were compared regarding their overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety.

resultsThe outcomes between the lipiodol group and control group demonstrated no significant difference: the objective response rates (p = 0.066) were 32.5% and 15.6%; the disease control rates (p = 0.556) were 67.5% and 73.3%; the median OS times (p = 0.339) were 224 days and 398 days; the median PFS (p = 0.334) times were 191 days and 286 days in the lipiodol group and the control group, respectively. Adverse events also showed no significant difference between the two groups: elevation of total bilirubin (p = 0.834) rates were 40.0% and 37.8%; elevation of alanine aminotransferase (p = 0.191) percentages were 35.0% and 22.2%; and elevation of aspartate aminotransferase values (p = 0.058) were 65.0% and 44.4% in the lipiodol group and the control group, respectively.

conclusionsHAIC without lipiodol was non-inferior to HAIC with lipiodol in the clinical outcome.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarcinoma, HepatocellularEthiodized OilLiver NeoplasmsAdultAgedFemaleHumansInfusions, Intra-ArterialMaleMiddle AgedProgression-Free SurvivalRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeEthiodized OilHepatocellular carcinomaIntra-arterial infusion chemotherapyLipiodol