ArticleThe oncologist2026
Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: real-world outcomes of intensification and salvage strategies.
Article in The oncologist, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundHepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) is a valuable option in patients with liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) but remains underutilized due to limited data.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective study of mCRC patients treated with HAIC in an expert center between 2010 and 2024. Patients were grouped according to treatment setting: intensification (INT; 1st/2nd line) and salvage (SALV; ≥3rd line).
resultsAmong 213 patients, 99 received INT-HAIC and 114 SALV-HAIC. SALV patients had worse baseline features, including more Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS ≥ 2; 16% vs 4%), RAS mutation (55% vs 45%), extra-hepatic disease (45% vs 23%), liver burden >50% (65% vs 40%), and prior intravenous (IV) oxaliplatin progression (41% vs 16%). Oxaliplatin was the main agent used (81% INT, 78% SALV). Objective response and disease control rate were 51%/77% (INT) and 32%/60% (SALV). Median progression-free survival (PFS), hepatic PFS, and overall survival were 7.6, 9, and 23 months (INT) and 3.7, 5.7, and 12 months (SALV). Prior IV oxaliplatin progression was associated with poorer outcomes of oxaliplatin-HAIC in the INT setting. Radical liver treatment followed HAIC in 28% (INT) and 7% (SALV). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 42.7% and catheter complications in 26.7%. Concomitant antiangiogenic therapy was associated with a higher rate of catheter-related complications (44% vs 22%) and remained associated after adjustment for clinical covariates.
conclusionsHAIC demonstrates promising efficacy and manageable toxicity in liver-dominant mCRC when delivered in expert multidisciplinary centers, although careful patient selection and caution with concomitant antiangiogenic therapy are warranted.
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.