SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting beads versus conventional bronchial arterial chemoembolization for lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Conventional bronchial arterial chemoembolization (cBACE), operationally defined in this review as bronchial arterial infusion chemotherapy with or without embolization using non-drug-eluting materials, is used as a locoregional palliative option for selected patients with unresectable lung cancer. Drug-eluting beads bronchial arterial chemoembolization (DEB-BACE) may enhance therapeutic outcomes compared to cBACE, but comparative evidence remains limited. Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of DEB-BACE with cBACE in patients with lung cancer. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from their inception to July 15, 2025 for studies comparing DEB-BACE with cBACE. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 and STATA 16. Results: Five China-based comparative studies involving 221 patients were included. DEB-BACE was associated with higher pooled ORR at 1-3 months (OR = 5.38, 95% CI: 2.30-12.60) and 6 months (OR = 4.18, 95% CI: 1.90-9.19), as well as higher pooled DCR at 1-3 months (OR = 7.00, 95% CI: 1.99-24.60) and 6 months (OR = 5.40, 95% CI: 2.14-13.62). No statistically significant between-group differences were observed for hemoptysis, fever, chest discomfort, cough/sputum production, or nausea/vomiting. Conclusion: Current China-based comparative evidence suggests that DEB-BACE may be associated with higher short-term tumor response than conventional comparator treatment without an obvious increase in the assessed procedure-related adverse events. Given the small, mainly observational evidence base and heterogeneous comparator definitions, these findings remain preliminary and warrant confirmation in well-designed multicenter randomized trials.
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.