4.6 Article

Comparative Effectiveness of Hepatic Artery Based Therapies for Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases: A Meta-Analysis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139940

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Aging T35 Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Patients with unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases (CRLM) are increasingly being managed using Hepatic Artery Based Therapies (HAT), including Hepatic Arterial Infusion (HAI), Radioembolization (RE), and Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization (TACE). Limited data is available on the comparative effectiveness of these options. We hypothesized that outcomes in terms of survival and toxicity were equivalent across the three strategies. Methods A meta-analysis was performed using a prospectively registered search strategy at PROSPERO (CRD42013003861) that utilized studies from PubMed (2003-2013). Primary outcome was median overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were treatment toxicity, tumor response, and conversion of the tumor to resectable. Additional covariates included prior or concurrent systemic therapy. Results Of 491 studies screened, 90 were selected for analyses-52 (n = 3,000 patients) HAI, 24 (n = 1,268) RE, 14 (n = 1,038) TACE. The median OS (95% CI) for patients receiving HAT in the first-line were RE 29.4 vs. HAI 21.4 vs. TACE 15.2 months (p = 0.97, 0.69 respectively). For patients failing at least one line of prior systemic therapy, the survival outcomes were TACE 21.3 (20.6-22.4) months vs. HAI 13.2 (12.2-14.2) months vs. RE 10.7 (9.5-12.0). Grade 3-4 toxicity for HAT alone was 40% in the HAI group, 19% in the RE group, and 18% in the TACE groups, which was increased with the addition of systemic chemotherapy. Level 1 evidence was available in 5 studies for HAI, 2 studies for RE and 1 for TACE. Conclusion HAI, RE, and TACE are equally effective in patients with unresectable CRLM with marginal differences in survival.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据