Comparison of stereotactic body radiotherapy and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: Systematic review and meta‐analysis

IF 4.9 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Satoshi Komiyama , Atsuya Takeda , Yudai Tateishi , Yuichiro Tsurugai , Takahisa Eriguchi , Nobuyuki Horita
{"title":"Comparison of stereotactic body radiotherapy and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: Systematic review and meta‐analysis","authors":"Satoshi Komiyama ,&nbsp;Atsuya Takeda ,&nbsp;Yudai Tateishi ,&nbsp;Yuichiro Tsurugai ,&nbsp;Takahisa Eriguchi ,&nbsp;Nobuyuki Horita","doi":"10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an emerging treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which provides excellent local control (LC) and prolongs overall survival (OS). However, in current guidelines, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) has been proposed as a key treatment option for patients with early- and intermediate-stage HCC, whereas SBRT is not. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and <em>meta</em>-analysis of randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies using the propensity score (PS) to compare the outcomes of SBRT and TACE for HCC in a balanced manner. We systematically searched the PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases to identify randomized controlled trials and studies comparing SBRT and TACE using PS analysis. The hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and LC were pooled. The heterogeneity between the data collected from these studies was also assessed. SBRT led to a comparable OS (HR: 0.83; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.52–1.34; p = 0.44) to TACE, and significantly improved LC (HR: 0.25; 95 % CI: 0.09–0.67; p = 0.006). Considerable heterogeneity was observed in the HR of OS and LC. Although there was no significant difference in the rate of grade 3 or higher toxicities between TACE and SBRT, or between studies, liver toxicity was identified as a common adverse event associated with both SBRT and TACE. Compared to TACE, SBRT showed a comparable OS and improved LC without serious toxicity. Therefore, SBRT should be considered an effective treatment option for various stages of HCC, depending on the tumor factors and pretreatment liver function.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":21041,"journal":{"name":"Radiotherapy and Oncology","volume":"202 ","pages":"Article 110614"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiotherapy and Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167814024042762","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an emerging treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which provides excellent local control (LC) and prolongs overall survival (OS). However, in current guidelines, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) has been proposed as a key treatment option for patients with early- and intermediate-stage HCC, whereas SBRT is not. Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and retrospective studies using the propensity score (PS) to compare the outcomes of SBRT and TACE for HCC in a balanced manner. We systematically searched the PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases to identify randomized controlled trials and studies comparing SBRT and TACE using PS analysis. The hazard ratios (HRs) for OS and LC were pooled. The heterogeneity between the data collected from these studies was also assessed. SBRT led to a comparable OS (HR: 0.83; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.52–1.34; p = 0.44) to TACE, and significantly improved LC (HR: 0.25; 95 % CI: 0.09–0.67; p = 0.006). Considerable heterogeneity was observed in the HR of OS and LC. Although there was no significant difference in the rate of grade 3 or higher toxicities between TACE and SBRT, or between studies, liver toxicity was identified as a common adverse event associated with both SBRT and TACE. Compared to TACE, SBRT showed a comparable OS and improved LC without serious toxicity. Therefore, SBRT should be considered an effective treatment option for various stages of HCC, depending on the tumor factors and pretreatment liver function.
立体定向体放射治疗与经导管动脉化疗栓塞治疗肝细胞癌的比较:系统综述和荟萃分析。
立体定向体放射治疗(SBRT)是一种新兴的肝细胞癌(HCC)治疗方法,可提供良好的局部控制(LC)并延长总生存期(OS)。然而,在目前的指南中,经导管动脉化疗栓塞术(TACE)已被提出作为早中期 HCC 患者的主要治疗方案,而 SBRT 并非如此。因此,我们采用倾向评分(PS)对随机对照试验和回顾性研究进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,以均衡地比较 SBRT 和 TACE 治疗 HCC 的疗效。我们系统地检索了 PubMed、Cochrane、EMBASE 和 Web of Science 数据库,以确定随机对照试验和使用倾向评分分析比较 SBRT 和 TACE 的研究。对OS和LC的危险比(HRs)进行了汇总。同时还评估了这些研究数据之间的异质性。SBRT的OS(HR:0.83;95%置信区间(CI):0.52-1.34;P = 0.44)与TACE相当,LC(HR:0.25;95% CI:0.09-0.67;P = 0.006)显著改善。在OS和LC的HR方面观察到相当大的异质性。虽然TACE和SBRT之间或不同研究之间的3级或以上毒性反应发生率没有明显差异,但肝毒性被认为是SBRT和TACE的常见不良反应。与TACE相比,SBRT的OS和LC均有改善,且无严重毒性。因此,根据肿瘤因素和治疗前肝功能的不同,SBRT应被视为HCC各期的有效治疗方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Radiotherapy and Oncology
Radiotherapy and Oncology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
10.50%
发文量
2445
审稿时长
45 days
期刊介绍: Radiotherapy and Oncology publishes papers describing original research as well as review articles. It covers areas of interest relating to radiation oncology. This includes: clinical radiotherapy, combined modality treatment, translational studies, epidemiological outcomes, imaging, dosimetry, and radiation therapy planning, experimental work in radiobiology, chemobiology, hyperthermia and tumour biology, as well as data science in radiation oncology and physics aspects relevant to oncology.Papers on more general aspects of interest to the radiation oncologist including chemotherapy, surgery and immunology are also published.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信