ReviewCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Balloon-Occlusion Versus End-Hole Transarterial Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of balloon-occluded transarterial chemoembolization (B-TACE) compared with conventional (cTACE) and drug-eluting-bead transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO. PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to 8 February 2026 for randomized and observational studies comparing B-TACE with cTACE or DEB-TACE. Tumor response (mRECIST), overall survival, and adverse events were pooled using random-effects models; risk of bias was assessed with established tools.
resultsNine studies (one randomized, eight observational; 1534 patients) were included. Complete response, objective response, disease control, and progressive disease did not differ significantly between groups, with moderate-to-substantial heterogeneity. Baseline tumors were larger in the balloon-occluded group (mean difference 4.34 mm; 95% CI 1.18- 7.50; p = 0.014). Exploratory study-level analyses suggested greater relative B-TACE effects with larger tumors, particularly for complete response and disease control.Overall survival favored B-TACE in the two studies with extractable hazard ratios (HR 0.41; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.73; p = 0.002). Post-treatment liver enzymes, bilirubin, fever, and post-embolization syndrome did not differ significantly.
conclusionNo statistically significant differences in imaging response or safety were observed between intervention and comparator groups, while B-TACE was associated with a signal toward improved overall survival despite larger baseline tumors. Exploratory findings suggested that larger tumor size may be associated with a greater relative B-TACE effect. Given the limited evidence, these findings require confirmation in randomized controlled trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42881289What 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.