4.6 Review

Long-term survival and postoperative complications of pre-liver transplantation transarterial chemoembolisation in hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

EJSO
Volume 48, Issue 3, Pages 621-631

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2021.09.017

Keywords

Meta-analysis; Transarterial chemoembolisation; Liver transplantation; Hepatocellular carcinoma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of pre-liver transplantation transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) on long-term survival and complications of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. The study found that patients treated with TACE had similar outcomes to non-TACE patients, but they had worse prognostic features.
Objectives: The aim of this meta-analysis was to conduct a contemporary systematic review of high quality non-randomised controlled trials to determine the effect of pre-liver transplantation (LT) transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) on long-term survival and complications of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.Background: TACE is used as a neoadjuvant therapy to mitigate waitlist drop-out for patients with HCC awaiting LT. Previous studies have conflicting conclusions on the effect of TACE on long-term survival and complications of HCC patients undergoing LT.Methods: CINAHL, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched. Baseline characteristics included number of patients outside Milan criteria, tumour diameter, MELD score, and time on the waiting list. Primary outcomes included 3-and 5-year overall and disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes included tumour recurrence, 30-day postoperative mortality, and hepatic artery and biliary complications.Results: Twenty-one high-quality NRCTs representing 8242 patients were included. Tumour diameter was significantly larger in TACE patients (3.49 cm vs 3.15 cm, P = 0.02) and time on the waiting list was significantly longer in TACE patients (4.87 months vs 3.46 months, P = 0.05), while MELD score was significantly higher in non-TACE patients (10.81 vs 12.35, P = 0.005). All primary and secondary outcomes displayed non-significant differences.Conclusion: Patients treated with TACE had similar survival and postoperative outcomes to non-TACE patients, however, they had worse prognostic features compared to non-TACE patients. These findings strongly support the current US and European clinical practice guidelines that neoadjuvant TACE can be used for patients with longer expected waiting list times (specifically >6 months). Randomised controlled trials would be needed to increase the quality of evidence.(c) 2021 Elsevier Ltd, BASO -The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available