Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) Versus Transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE) for Treatment Of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a Meta-Analysis of Propensity Matched Studies
Sangyang Jia, Nicholas Lao, R. G. Boldt, Amol Mujoomdar, Ronald Chow, Charles B Simone, Michael Lock
{"title":"Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) Versus Transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE) for Treatment Of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a Meta-Analysis of Propensity Matched Studies","authors":"Sangyang Jia, Nicholas Lao, R. G. Boldt, Amol Mujoomdar, Ronald Chow, Charles B Simone, Michael Lock","doi":"10.33137/utmj.v101i1.41240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: There are currently limited data comparing the efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to report on the summary effect estimate of overall survival and local control at 1-year based on available evidence. \nMethods: A literature search was conducted in PubMed from database inception until April 2020. Articles were independently screened by two reviewers and included if they reported on a propensity-matched study design comparing SBRT to TACE for the treatment of HCC with at least 1 year follow up. Event data of overall survival and local control at 1-year were extracted. A random-effects model was applied to generate summary odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). \nResults: Four studies with 606 patients were identified and included. SBRT (73.6%) and TACE (67.0%) had similar 1-year rates of OS, with an OR of 0.87 (0.56, 1.37). SBRT (88.4%) had greater local control at 1 year compared to TACE (71.7%); OR of 0.34 (0.13, 0.86). \nConclusion: SBRT is comparable to TACE in terms of 1-year survival for the treatment HCC and may provide an advantage in terms of local control. Future controlled trials are necessary to determine the clinical advantages and best indications for each treatment.","PeriodicalId":41298,"journal":{"name":"University of Toronto Medical Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Toronto Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33137/utmj.v101i1.41240","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: There are currently limited data comparing the efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to report on the summary effect estimate of overall survival and local control at 1-year based on available evidence.
Methods: A literature search was conducted in PubMed from database inception until April 2020. Articles were independently screened by two reviewers and included if they reported on a propensity-matched study design comparing SBRT to TACE for the treatment of HCC with at least 1 year follow up. Event data of overall survival and local control at 1-year were extracted. A random-effects model was applied to generate summary odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Results: Four studies with 606 patients were identified and included. SBRT (73.6%) and TACE (67.0%) had similar 1-year rates of OS, with an OR of 0.87 (0.56, 1.37). SBRT (88.4%) had greater local control at 1 year compared to TACE (71.7%); OR of 0.34 (0.13, 0.86).
Conclusion: SBRT is comparable to TACE in terms of 1-year survival for the treatment HCC and may provide an advantage in terms of local control. Future controlled trials are necessary to determine the clinical advantages and best indications for each treatment.