SynthesisCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
DSM-TACE Versus Conventional Approaches in HCC: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing efficacy and the safety profile of Degradable Starch Microspheres TACE (DSM-TACE) with conventional treatments (cTACE and DEB-TACE) in patients with Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS AND
methodsComparative studies (including randomized controlled trials -RCTs- and observational studies) reporting at least one of the following outcomes were included and considered for statistical analysis: Tumor response according to mRECIST criteria, Overall Survival (OS), Adverse Events (AEs), increase of ALT and AST levels. Risk Ratios were calculated using random-effects models. Survival analyses and Hazard Ratios were derived using reconstructed individual patient data.
results6/180 articles met inclusion criteria, including 1 RCT and 5 observational studies. Tumor response was comparable between DSM-TACE and control groups, without significant differences in the pooled analyses. DSM-TACE was not associated with a significant improvement in OS compared with conventional treatments (HR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.73-1.49; p = 0.690). AEs were only assessed narratively, due to insufficient homogeneous data for a pooled quantitative analysis. Restricting the analysis to DSM-TACE and cTACE, the analyses of post-procedural ALT and AST levels suggested a trend toward lower enzyme elevations with DSM-TACE (ALT: β=30.3, p=0.163; AST: β=44.3, p=0.141), although differences were not statistically significant.
conclusionDSM-TACE demonstrates radiological efficacy and an OS comparable to conventional treatments, with a trend toward a more favorable safety profile. DSM-TACE may represent an exploratory option within a personalized therapeutic strategy, although statistical significance was not demonstrated. Further well-designed clinical trials are required to better define its clinical role.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42702648What 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.