Comparison of transarterial bland and chemoembolization for neuroendocrine tumours: A systematic review and meta-analysis

11Citations
Citations of this article
31Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background Treatment of hepatic metastases from neuroendocrine tumours improves survival and symptom relief. Hepatic arterial embolotherapy techniques include transarterial chemoembolization (tace) and bland embolization (tae). The relative efficacy of the techniques is controversial. The purpose of the present study was to use a meta-analysis and systematic review to compare tace with tae in the treatment of hepatic metastases. Methods A literature search identified studies comparing tace and tae for treatment of hepatic metastases. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (os), progression-free survival (pfs), radiographic response, complications, and symptom control. The hazard ratios (hrs) and odds ratios (ors) were estimated and pooled. Results Eight studies and 504 patients were included. No statistically significant differences between tace and tae were observed for os at 1, 2, and 5 years or for hrs [1-year or: 0.72; 95% confidence interval (ci): 0.27 to 1.94; p < 0.52; 2-year or: 0.69; 95% ci: 0.43 to 1.11; p < 0.12; 5-year or: 0.91; 95% ci: 0.37 to 2.24; p < 0.85; hr: 0.96; 95% ci: 0.73 to 1.24; p < 0.74]. No statistically significant differences between tace and tae were observed for pfs at 1, 2, and 5 years or for hrs (1-year or: 0.71; 95% ci: 0.38 to 1.55; p < 0.30; 2-year or: 0.83; 95% ci: 0.33 to 2.06; p < 0.69; 5-year or: 0. 91; 95% ci: 0.37 to 2.24; p < 0.85; hr: 0.99–1.74; 95% ci: 0.74 to 1.73; p < 0.97). Both techniques are safe and effective for symptom control. Conclusions No statistically significant differences between tace and tae were observed for os and pfs.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tai, E., Kennedy, S., Farrell, A., Jaberi, A., Kachura, J., & Beecroft, R. (2020). Comparison of transarterial bland and chemoembolization for neuroendocrine tumours: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Current Oncology, 27(6), e537–e546. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.27.6205

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free