SynthesisCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Transarterial Therapies for Unresectable Neuroendocrine Liver Metastases: A Systematic Review.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the efficacy and safety of transarterial embolisation, conventional and drug-eluting-bead chemoembolisation, and radioembolisation in adults with unresectable neuroendocrine liver metastases. MATERIALS AND
methodsFive databases were searched from inception to June 2026 for studies comparing two or more transarterial modalities. Study quality was appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Because outcome reporting was heterogeneous, findings were synthesised narratively; pooling was undertaken only where two or more studies reported per-arm binary event counts.
resultsFifteen comparative studies including 1,454 patients were identified, 12 of them retrospective. Pooling was feasible for two safety outcomes only, each drawing on two studies: post-embolisation syndrome after chemoembolisation versus embolisation (odds ratio 2.17, 95% confidence interval 0.68-7.00) and severe adverse events after chemoembolisation versus radioembolisation (odds ratio 1.27, 95% confidence interval 0.58-2.79). Adjusted survival estimates with confidence intervals were reported in only four studies. Tumour grade and hepatic tumour burden were the most consistent prognostic factors. No modality showed a consistent survival advantage; radioembolisation offered shorter hospital stays, and evidence for drug-eluting-bead chemoembolisation remained limited amid hepatobiliary toxicity concerns.
conclusionNo transarterial modality has been shown to confer a consistent survival advantage, but the evidence is predominantly retrospective and too heterogeneous to establish equivalence. Selection should be individualised within a multidisciplinary team, accounting for disease burden, tumour biology, treatment goals, and safety. Adequately powered prospective trials remain an unmet priority.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42717107What 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.