ArticleJournal of thoracic imaging2025
Bronchial Arterial Chemoembolization With Drug-eluting Beads Versus With Gelfoam Particles for Advanced Nonsmall-cell Lung Cancer.
Article in Journal of thoracic imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBronchial arterial chemoembolization (BACE), as a safe and effective minimally invasive treatment method, is increasingly being accepted by more and more patients with advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In recent years, drug-eluting beads (DEB)-BACE has also been applied in the field of lung cancer. It is still unclear which is more recommended due to the limited number of comparative studies between conventional BACE (C-BACE) and DEB-BACE. PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of C-BACE (BACE with gelfoam particles) and DEB-BACE for advanced NSCLC. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom January 2021 to April 2023, 48 consecutive patients (37 males and 11 females) with advanced NSCLC treated with DEB-BACE (group A) or C-BACE (group B) at our center were collected retrospectively in this study. There were 18 patients in group A and 30 patients in group B. The technical success rate, adverse events, objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared between the 2 groups.
resultsThe technical success rate in both groups was 100%. The median OS times were 19.5 months and 12.5 months in group A and group B, respectively ( P =0.0062). The median PFS times were 13 months and 7 months in group A and group B, respectively ( P =0.0072). The ORRs at 6 months were 72.2% and 46.7% in group A and group B, respectively ( P =0.084). The DCRs at 6 months were 88.9% and 63.3% in group A and group B, respectively ( P =0.043). Grade 1 adverse events like chest pain, and cough were common, while serious adverse events did not occur.
conclusionsBACE with DEB or gelfoam particles were equally safe. The DEB-BACE showed better survival and tumor response than C-BACE for advanced NSCLC.
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.