ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Conventional transcatheter arterial chemoembolization with gelatin spheres for hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison with nonspherical gelatin sponge particles.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Functionalized biomaterial platforms for interventional embolization therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma.Bioactive materials · 2027Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the therapeutic effect, adverse events, and hepatic artery injury (HAI) between gelatin spheres (GS) and nonspherical gelatin sponge particles (GP) in conventional transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (C-TACE). MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 368 consecutive patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who underwent C-TACE between September 2019 and May 2021 were included in this single center retrospective study. Adverse events, radiologic tumor response, local tumor recurrence, and HAI were evaluated.
resultsSubsegmental C-TACE was performed using biodegradable GS in 165 patients and nonspherical biodegradable GP in 203 patients. No significant differences in patient background existed between the groups, and there was no significant difference in adverse event rate (p = 0.231). The CR and overall tumor response in the GS and GP groups were 73.3% vs 70.9%, and 99.4% vs 98.5%, respectively, with no significant between-group differences (p = 0.642 and p = 0.631). No significant difference in cumulative local tumor recurrence rate existed between the groups (p = 0.558). HAI was observed in 16% (20 of 125 patients) in the GS group and 37.4% (49 of 131 patients) in the GP group. The incidence of HAI was significantly higher in the GP group than in the GS group (p < 0.001). In multiple logistic regression analysis, risk factors for HAI were index tumor size ≥ 3 cm (p = 0.001) and use of GP (p < 0.001).
conclusionC-TACE with GS resulted in the same therapeutic and adverse effects as C-TACE with nonspherical GP while causing significantly less HAI. KEY POINTS: Question Comparisons between GS and nonspherical GP are lacking, and the potential advantages of GS over nonspherical GP are not well studied. Findings HAI incidence was higher in the GP than the GS group, and risk factors of HAI were index tumor size ≥ 3 cm and GP use. Clinical relevance C-TACE with GS resulted in the same therapeutic and adverse effects as C-TACE with nonspherical GP while causing significantly less HAI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40146423What 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.