ReviewCancers2026
Transarterial Chemoembolization Versus Transarterial Radioembolization in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Real-World and Clinical Trial Evidence.
Review in Cancers, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: This systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis evaluated the comparative clinical effectiveness and safety of transarterial radioembolization (TARE) versus transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). (2) Methods: Eligible studies were identified through an SLR following PRISMA guidelines using a predefined PICOS framework. PubMed and Embase were searched (2015-2025) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing TARE and TACE. Meta-analyses were conducted for outcomes, including overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs). Analyses were conducted for the overall population and predefined subgroups of interest. (3) Results: Among 1464 studies identified through database searches, 25 studies were selected for meta-analysis comprising 8146 patients with HCC. No significant difference was observed between TARE and TACE in 14 studies evaluating OS (HR: 0.99; 95% CI 0.70-1.39) or 13 studies evaluating ORR (RR: 0.94; 95% CI 0.84-1.05). Four studies reporting meta-analyzable PFS outcomes numerically favored TARE, although the difference was not statistically significant (HR: 0.54; 95% CI 0.29-1.01). Rates of any-grade and grade ≥3 AEs were comparable between the two arms. The results from subgroup analyses remained consistent with the overall findings. (4) Conclusions: TARE and TACE demonstrate comparable clinical outcomes in patients with HCC. Additional studies within specific, clinically meaningful subgroups of HCC patients will be valuable to further clarify the comparative effectiveness and safety of TARE and TACE in these populations.
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.