Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Radioterapia de haz externo para el carcinoma hepatocelular no resecable

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

References to studies included in this review

Leng 2000 {published data only}

Leng ZQ, Liang ZY, Shi S, Hu ZX. Comparison of treatment results of interventional therapy alone, radiotherapy alone, and combined interventional therapy plus radiotherapy for primary hepatic cancer. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology 2000;9:99‐101. CENTRAL

Liao 2010 {published data only}

Liao X, He H, Zhou Z, Hu W, Zhu X. Three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy combined with interventional therapy in treatment of primary hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of Practical Oncology 2010;25:681‐3. CENTRAL

Peng 2000 {published data only}

Peng KG, Han FS, Liu H, Song MZ. Clinical study of unresectable liver cancer treated by intraoperative hepatic arterial embolization and post‐operative hyperfractionation radiotherapy. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology 2000;9:11‐3. CENTRAL

Shang 2007 {published data only}

Shang Y, You XX, Xu HY, Chen MC. Prospective randomized clinical study of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, combined with three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy for primary liver cancer: an analysis of 40 cases. Shijie Xiaohua Zazhi 2007;15:3140‐2. CENTRAL

Wang 2000 {published data only}

Wang G, Shen W, Song M, Xu H. Results of combined treatment with transcatheter hepatic arterial chemoembolization and whole‐liver irradiation with the moving strip technique in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. International Journal of Clinical Oncology 2000;5:380‐5. CENTRAL

Xiao 2008 {published data only}

Xiao Z, Ouyang T, Yu R, Jiang X, Reng H, Wu Z. Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization combined with 3‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy for patients with unresectable primary hepatic carcinoma. Chinese Journal of Clinical Oncology 2008;35(1):18‐21. CENTRAL

Xue 1995 {published data only}

Xue HZ, Meng GD, Wang YW, Jiang QF. Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization plus radiotherapy in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology 1995;4:84‐5. CENTRAL

Zhang 2012 {published data only}

Zhang Z, Yang X, Wena M, Wan J. Evaluation of TACE combined with gamma‐knife radiotherapy for primary hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of Interventional Radiology (China) 2012;7(21):596‐9. CENTRAL

Zhao 2006 {published data only}

Zhao MH, Lang FP, Jiang QA, Ma JJ, Song YX. Three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for inoperable primary liver cancer. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology 2006;15:39‐41. CENTRAL

References to studies excluded from this review

Bush 2016 {published data only}

Bush DA, Smith JC, Slater JD, Volk ML, Reeves ME, Cheng J, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing proton beam radiation therapy with transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: results of an interim analysis. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics 2016;95(1):477‐82. CENTRAL

Kang 2014 {published data only}

Kang J, Nie Q, Du R, Zhang L, Zhang J, Li Q, et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy combined with transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis. Molecular and Clinical Oncology 2014;2:43‐50. CENTRAL

Lan 2005 {published data only}

Lan DQ, Gong XH, Wei XL. The efficacy analysis of transcatheter hepatic arterial chemoembolization combined with radiotherapy for primary liver cancer. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology 2005;14:152‐3. CENTRAL

Li 2003 {published data only}

Li B, Yu J, Wang L, Li C, Zhou T, Zhai L, et al. Study of local three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for patients with stage III hepatocellular carcinoma. American Journal of Clinical Oncology 2003;26(4):e92‐9. CENTRAL

Wang 2006 {published data only}

Wang XH, Li JX, Gao K. Radiotherapy combined with hepatic chemoembolization in the treatment of 54 primary liver cancer cases. Shaxi Yixue Zazhi 2006;35(4):461‐2. CENTRAL

References to ongoing studies

NCT01730937 {published data only}

NCT01730937. Sorafenib tosylate with or without stereotactic body radiation therapy in treating patients with liver cancer [Randomized phase III study of sorafenib versus stereotactic body radiation therapy followed by sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01730937 (first received November 15, 2012 ). CENTRAL

NCT01901692 {published data only}

NCT01901692. Transarterial chemoembolization plus radiotherapy or sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma with major vascular invasion (START) [Randomized phase II trial comparing transarterial chemoembolization plus external beam radiotherapy versus sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with major vascular invasion]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01901692 (first received July 14, 2013 ). CENTRAL

NCT01963429 {published data only}

NCT01963429. Comparison between radiofrequency ablation and hypofractionated proton beam radiation for recurrent/residual HCC [A randomized phase III study of the comparison between radiofrequency ablation and hypofractionated proton beam radiation in patients with recurrent/residual small hepatocellular carcinoma (APROH Study)]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01963429 (first received October 13, 2013 ). CENTRAL

NCT02323360 {published data only}

NCT02323360. A trial on SBRT after incomplete TAE or TACE versus exclusive TAE or TACE for treatment of inoperable HCC [A randomised phase III trial on stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) after incomplete transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) or chemoembolization (TACE) versus exclusive TAE or TACE for inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02323360 (first received December 11, 2014 ). CENTRAL

NCT02640924 {published data only}

NCT02640924. Proton radiotherapy versus radiofrequency ablation for patients with medium or large hepatocellular carcinoma [Proton beam radiotherapy versus switching control radiofrequency ablation for patients with medium (>3, ≦5 cm) or large (>5, ≦7cm) treatment‐naive hepatocellular carcinoma]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02640924 (first received December 7, 2015 ). CENTRAL

NCT02762266 {published data only}

NCT02762266. Transarterial chemoembolization compared with stereotactic body radiation therapy or stereotactic ablative radiation therapy in treating patients with residual or recurrent liver cancer undergone initial transarterial chemoembolization [International randomized study of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) versus stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) / stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for residual or recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after initial TACE]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02762266 (first received April 5, 2016 ). CENTRAL

NCT02794337 {published data only}

NCT02794337. TACE vs TACE+SBRT for unresectable hepatocellular cancer (TACE‐SBRT) [Integrated phase II/III randomized control trial of transarterial chemoembolisation alone or in combination with stereotactic body radiation in patients with unresectable hepatocellular cancer]. clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02794337 (first received March 8, 2016 ). CENTRAL

Abdel‐Rahman 2013

Abdel‐Rahman O, Elsayed Z. Combination trans arterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus sorafenib for the management of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review of the literature. Digestive Diseases and Sciences2013; Vol. 58, issue 12:3389‐96. [DOI: 10.1007/s10620‐0132872‐x]

Abdel‐Rahman 2016

Abdel‐Rahman OM, Elsayed Z. Yttrium‐90 microsphere radioembolisation for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011313.pub2]

Andolino 2011

Andolino DL, Johnson CS, Maluccio M, Kwo P, Tector AJ, Zook J, et al. Stereotactic body radiotherapy for primary hepatocellular carcinoma. International Journal of Radiation Oncology * Biology * Physics 2011;81(4):e447‐53.

Balshem 2011

Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines 3: rating the quality of evidence ‐ introduction. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64:401‐6.

Ben‐Josef 2005

Ben‐Josef E, Normolle D, Ensminger WD, Walker S, Tatro D, Ten Haken RK, et al. Phase II trial of high‐dose conformal radiation therapy with concurrent hepatic artery floxuridine for unresectable intrahepatic malignancies. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2005;23(34):8739‐47.

Brok 2008

Brok J, Thorlund K, Gluud C, Wetterslev J. Trial sequential analysis reveals insufficient information size and potentially false positive results in many meta‐analyses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008;61:763‐9.

Brok 2009

Brok J, Thorlund K, Wetterslev J, Gluud C. Apparently conclusive meta‐analyses may be inconclusive ‐ Trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta‐analyses. International Journal of Epidemiology 2009;38(1):287‐98.

Bruix 2011

Bruix J, Sherman M. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) 2011;53(3):1020‐2.

Bujold 2013

Bujold A, Massey CA, Kim JJ, Brierley J, Cho C, Wong RKS, et al. Sequential phase I and II trials of stereotactic body radiotherapy for locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2013;31(13):1631‐9.

Bush 2011

Bush DA, Kayali Z, Grove R, Slater JD. The safety and efficacy of high‐dose proton beam radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase 2 prospective trial. Cancer 2011;117(13):3053‐9.

Cárdenes 2009

Cárdenes HR. Role of stereotactic body radiotherapy in the management of primary hepatocellular carcinoma. Rationale, technique and results. Clinical Translational Oncology 2009;11(5):276‐83.

Dawson 2011

Dawson L. Overview: Where does radiation therapy fit in the spectrum of liver cancer local‐regional therapies?. Seminars in Radiation Oncology 2011;21(4):241‐6.

DeMets 1987

DeMets DL. Methods of combining randomised clinical trials: strengths and limitations. Statistics in Medicine 1987;6(3):341‐50.

DerSimonian 1986

DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta‐analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986;7(3):177‐88.

EASL/EORTC 2012

European Association for the Study of the Liver, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. EASL‐EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of Hepatology 2012;56(4):908‐43.

Egger 1997

Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta‐analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 1997;315:629‐34.

Eisenhauer 2009

Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). European Journal of Cancer 2009;45(2):228‐47.

Globocan 2012

International Agency for Research on Cancer. Globocan 2012: estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. globocan.iarc.fr/Default.aspx (accessed 20 June 2016).

Gluud 2017

Gluud C, Nikolova D, Klingenberg SL. Cochrane Hepato‐Biliary Group. About Cochrane (Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs)) 2017, Issue 2. Art. No.: LIVER.

GRADEpro 2008 [Computer program]

McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.). GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool. Hamilton (ON): McMaster University (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.), 2015.

Guyatt 2011

Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction ‐ GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(4):383‐94. [PUBMED: 21195583]

Guyatt 2011a

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Atkins D, Brozek J, Vist G, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(4):395‐400. [PUBMED: 21194891]

Guyatt 2011b

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso‐Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence ‐‐ study limitations (risk of bias). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(4):407‐15. [PUBMED: 21247734]

Guyatt 2011c

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Montori V, Vist G, Kunz R, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence ‐‐ publication bias. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(12):1277‐82. [PUBMED: 21802904]

Guyatt 2011d

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Alonso‐Coello P, Rind D, et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence ‐‐ imprecision. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(12):1283‐93. [PUBMED: 21839614]

Guyatt 2011e

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence ‐‐ inconsistency. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(12):1294‐302. [PUBMED: 21803546]

Guyatt 2011f

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Woodcock J, Brozek J, Helfand M, et al. GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence ‐‐ indirectness. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(12):1303‐10. [PUBMED: 21802903]

Guyatt 2011g

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, Glasziou P, Akl EA, Alonso‐Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011;64(12):1311‐6. [PUBMED: 21802902]

Guyatt 2013

Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Sultan S, Brozek J, Glasziou P, Alonso‐Coello P, et al. GRADE guidelines: 11. Making an overall rating of confidence in effect estimates for a single outcome and for all outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2013;66(2):151‐7. [PUBMED: 22542023]

Guyatt 2013a

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, Helfand M, Vist G, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables ‐‐ binary outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2013;66(2):158‐72. [PUBMED: 22609141]

Guyatt 2013b

Guyatt GH, Thorlund K, Oxman AD, Walter SD, Patrick D, Furukawa TA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles ‐‐ continuous outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2013;66(2):173‐83. [PUBMED: 23116689]

Guyatt 2013c

Guyatt G, Andrews J, Oxman AD, Alderson P, Dahm P, Falck‐Ytter Y, et al. GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2013;66(7):719‐25.

Hassan 2011

Hassan M, Kaseb A. Epidemiology and pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Targeted Therapy and Multidisciplinary Care. Springer, 2011:15‐25.

Higgins 2011

Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from handbook.cochrane.org.

Hoffe 2010

Hoffe SE, Finkelstein SE, Russell MS, Shridhar R. Nonsurgical options for hepatocellular carcinoma: evolving role of external beam radiotherapy. Cancer Control 2010;17(2):100‐10.

Hollis 1999

Hollis S, Campbell F. What is meant by intention to treat analysis? Survey of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 1999;319:670‐4.

Hong 2016

Hong TS, Wo JY, Yeap BY, Ben‐Josef E, McDonnell EI, Blaszkowsky LS, et al. Multi‐institutional phase II study of high‐dose hypofractionated proton beam therapy in patients with localized, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2016;34(5):460‐8.

Huo 2015

Huo Y, Eslick GD. Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization plus radiotherapy compared with chemoembolization alone for hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. JAMA Oncology 2015;1(6):756‐65.

ICH‐GCP 1997

International Conference on Harmonisation Expert Working Group. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Guideline for Good Clinical Practice CFR & ICH Guidelines. Vol. 1, Philadelphia (PA): Barnett International/PAREXEL, 1997.

Jihye 2012

Jihye C, Jinsil S. Application of radiotherapeutic strategies in the BCLC‐defined stages of hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Cancer 2012;1(3‐4):216‐25.

Kawashima 2005

Kawashima M, Furuse J, Nishio T, Konishi M, Ishii H, Kinoshita T, et al. Phase II study of radiotherapy employing proton beam for hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2005;23(9):1839‐46.

Kim 2015

Kim TH, Park J‐W, Kim Y‐J, Kim BH, Woo SM, Moon SH, et al. Phase I dose‐escalation study of proton beam therapy for inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Research and Treatment 2015;47(1):34‐45.

Kjaergard 2001

Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta‐analyses. Annals of Internal Medicine 2001;135(11):982‐9.

Klein 2013

Klein J, Dawson LA. Hepatocellular carcinoma radiation therapy: review of evidence and future opportunities. International Journal of Radiation Oncology * Biology * Physics 2013;87(1):22‐32.

Lee 2014

Lee D, Seong J. Radiotherapeutic options for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumour thrombosis. Liver Cancer 2014;3(1):18‐30.

Lundh 2017

Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3]

Ma 2010

Ma S, Jiao B, Liu X, Yi H, Kong D, Gao L, et al. Approach to radiation therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Treatment Reviews 2010;36(2):157‐63.

Macaskill 2001

Macaskill P, Walter SD, Irwig L. A comparison of methods to detect publication bias in meta‐analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2001;20:641‐54.

Maffione 2013

Maffione AM, Ferretti A, Vinjamuri S, Rubello D. The PERCIST criteria: an insightful appraisal. Nuclear Medicine Communications 2013;34(7):619‐20.

Maida 2014

Maida M, Orlando E, Cammà C, Cabibbo G. Staging systems of hepatocellular carcinoma: a review of literature. World Journal of Gastroenterology 2014;20(15):4141‐50.

Mantel 1959

Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1959;2(4):719‐48.

Meng 2009

Meng M‐B, Cui Y‐L, Lu Y, She B, Chen Y, Guan Y‐S, et al. Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in combination with radiotherapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Radiotherapy and Oncology 2009;92(2):184‐94.

Merle 2009

Merle P, Mornex F, Trepo C. Innovative therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: three‐dimensional high‐dose photon radiotherapy. Cancer Letters 2009;286(1):129‐33.

Moher 1998

Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta‐analyses?. Lancet 1998;352(9128):609‐13.

Mustafa 2013

Mustafa RA, Santesso N, Brozek J, Akl EA, Walter SD, Norman G, et al. The GRADE approach is reproducible in assessing the quality of evidence of quantitative evidence syntheses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2013;66(7):736‐42; quiz 742.e1‐5. [PUBMED: 23623694]

Oliveri 2011

Oliveri RS, Wetterslev J, Gluud C. Transarterial (chemo)embolisation for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004787.pub2]

Parmar 1998

Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta‐analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Statistics in Medicine 1998;17(24):2815‐34.

RevMan 2014 [Computer program]

The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.

Riaz 2011

Riaz A, Memon K, Miller FH, Nikolaidis P, Kulik LM, Lewandowski RJ, et al. Role of the EASL, RECIST, and WHO response guidelines alone or in combination for hepatocellular carcinoma: radiologic‐pathologic correlation. Journal of Hepatology 2011;54(4):695‐704.

Royle 2003

Royle P, Milne R. Literature searching for randomised controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: rapid versus exhaustive searches. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2003;19(4):591‐603.

Savović 2012

Savović J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Jüni P, Pildal J, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised, controlled trials. Health Technology Assessment 2012;16(35):1‐82.

Savović 2012a

Savović J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Jüni P, Pildal J, et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Annals of Internal Medicine 2012;157(6):429‐38.

Schulz 1995

Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273(5):408‐12.

Seong 2009

Seong J. Challenge and hope in radiotherapy of hepatocellular carcinoma. Yonsei Medical Journal 2009;50(5):601‐12.

Taefi 2013

Taefi A, Abrishami A, Nasseri‐Moghaddam S, Eghtesad B, Sherman M. Surgical resection versus liver transplant for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006935.pub2]

Thorlund 2009

Thorlund K, Devereaux PJ, Wetterslev J, Guyatt G, Ioannidis JP, Thabane L, et al. Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta‐analyses. International Journal of Epidemiology 2009;38(1):276‐86.

Thorlund 2010

Thorlund K, Anema A, Mills E. Interpreting meta‐analysis according to the adequacy of sample size. An example using isoniazid chemoprophylaxis for tuberculosis in purified protein derivative negative HIV‐infected individuals. Clinical Epidemiology 2010;2:57‐66.

Thorlund 2011

Thorlund K, Engstrøm J, Wetterslev J, Brok J, Imberger G, Gluud C. User manual for Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). ctu.dk/tsa/files/tsa_manual.pdf 2011 (accessed 20 June 2016).

TSA 2011 [Computer program]

Copenhagen Trial Unit. TSA ‐ Trial Sequential Analysis. Version 0.9 Beta. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Trial Unit, 2011.

Tsai 2013

Tsai CL, Koong AC, Hsu FM, Graber M, Chen IS, Cheng JC. Biomarker studies on radiotherapy to hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncology 2013;84(Suppl 1):64‐8.

Ursino 2012

Ursino S, Greco C, Cartei F, Colosimo C, Stefanelli A, Cacopardo B, et al. Radiotherapy and hepatocellular carcinoma: update and review of the literature. European Review of Medical and Pharmacological Sciences 2012;16(11):1599‐604.

Venook 2010

Venook AP, Papandreou C, Furuse J, de Guevara LL. The incidence and epidemiology of hepatocellular carcinoma: a global and regional perspective. Oncologist 2010;15(Suppl 4):5‐13.

Weis 2013

Weis S, Franke A, Mössner J, Jakobsen JC, Schoppmeyer K. Radiofrequency (thermal) ablation versus no intervention or other interventions for hepatocellular carcinoma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 12. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003046.pub3]

Wetterslev 2008

Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta‐analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008;61(1):64‐75.

Wetterslev 2009

Wetterslev J, Thorlund K, Brok J, Gluud C. Estimating required information size by quantifying diversity in a random‐effects meta‐analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2009;9:86.

Wigg 2010

Wigg AJ, Palumbo K, Wigg DR. Radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review of radiobiology and modelling projections indicate reconsideration of its use. Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2010;25(4):664‐71.

Wood 2008

Wood L, Egger M, Gluud LL, Schulz KF, Jüni P, Altman GD, et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta‐epidemiological study. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) 2008;336:601‐5.

Yau 2008

Yau T, Chan P, Epstein R, Poon RT. Evolution of systemic therapy of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. World Journal of Gastroenterology 2008;14(42):6437‐41.

Zou 2014

Zou L‐Q, Zhang B‐L, Chang Q, Zhu F‐P, Li Y‐Y, Wei Y‐Q, et al. 3D conformal radiotherapy combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. World Journal of Gastroenterology 2014;20(45):17227‐34.

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Leng 2000

Methods

Randomised clinical trial with three arms: transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) (arm A), or radiotherapy (arm B), or radiotherapy +TACE (arm C). Parrallel group design

Participants

107 people with primary liver cancer

Median age: 46 years

Male/female: 80/27

TACE = 39; RT = 32; TACE + RT = 36

Recruitment: September 1990 to June 1995

Inclusion criteria:

  • The standard made in 1977 at the First National Liver Cancer Academic Conference

  • KPS ≥ 65

  • Liver function is normal

  • No TACE or radiotherapy contraindication

Interventions

TACE: hepatic artery infusion. Two drugs from (cisplatin 60 mg to 120 mg, doxorubicin , THP 50 mg to 100 mg, mitomycin 16 mg to 20 mg, 5‐fluorouracil 1.0 g to 2.0 g, and cyclophosphamide 1.2 g) were chosen. 40% iodinated oil 10 mL to 30 mL, gel foam particles 1 mm to 2 mm every 4 to 8 weeks; average 3.2 times.

Radiotherapy: cobalt‐60 exposure, 57.5 ˜ 70.0 cGy twice a day, 5 days a week;
average total dose: 50 Gy.

TACE + radiotherapy: first, TACE 1 to 4 times; after 4 to 8 weeks take radiotherapy.

Outcomes

  1. Survival rate

  2. Complications

Notes

Country of the study: China

We were unable to locate a contact email for the corresponding author to request missing data.

Funding: unclear

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

The authors did not mention the method of randomisation.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

The method used to conceal the allocation was not described

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

The trial was not blinded, so that the allocation was known during the trial.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Outcome assessment was not blinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

There was insufficient data to assess attrition bias.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

The study did not report cancer‐related mortality, quality of life, or serious adverse events.

For profit bias

Unclear risk

Unclear funding source

Other bias

Unclear risk

Unclear risk of other biases

Liao 2010

Methods

Randomised clinical trial with two arms: transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus three dimensional conformal radiotherapy (DCRT) and TACE). Parrallel group design.

Participants

48 people with unresectable liver cancer

TACE = 24; 3‐DCRT and TACE = 24

Recruitment: November 2005 to November 2007

Interventions

TACE: femoral artery by Seldinger technique. 5‐fluorouracil 1000 mg to 1250 mg, DDP 70 mg to 90 mg, Epi‐ADM 50 mg to 60 mg, iodinated oil 5 mL to 20 mL.
Radiotherapy: three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy using 6MV X‐ray; total dose: 40 to 66 Gy over 20 to 33 fractions.

Outcomes

  1. Survival

  2. Response rate

  3. Toxicities

Notes

Country of the study: China

We were unable to locate a contact email for the corresponding author to request missing data.

Funding: Quzhou Science and Technology Bureau (NO. 20051120)

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

The article mentioned that the study was "randomised", but they did not provide the randomisation method.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

The method used to conceal the allocation was unclearly reported.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

No blinding of participants and personnel

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Outcomes were assessed by apparatus.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

No missing participants

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

The study did not report cancer‐related mortality, quality of life, or serious adverse events.

For profit bias

Low risk

The study was funded by Quzhou Science and Technology Bureau (grant NO. 20051120).

Other bias

Unclear risk

Unclear risk of other biases

Peng 2000

Methods

Randomised clinical trial with 2 arms: hepatic arterial embolisation versus hyperfractionated radiotherapy and hepatic arterial embolisation. Parallel‐group design

Participants

91 people with unresectable liver cancer

Male/female: 82/9

Average age: 52 years

Hepatic arterial embolisation = 48; hyperfractionated radiotherapy and hepatic arterial embolisation = 43

Recruitment: September 1988 to December 1997

Interventions

The total dose is 4000 to 5000 cGy, 34 to 42 fractions, over 3 to 4 weeks.

Outcomes

  1. Survival

  2. Tumour regression

  3. Change of alpha‐fetoprotein

  4. Portal vein tumour thrombus effect

  5. Side effects and complications

Notes

Country of the study: China

We were unable to locate a contact email for the corresponding author to request missing data.

Funding: unclear

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Random sampling

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

The method used to conceal the allocation was not described.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

The trial was not blinded, so that the allocation was known during the trial.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Outcome assessment was not blinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

There were insufficient data to assess attrition bias.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

The study did not report cancer‐related mortality, quality of life, or serious adverse events.

For profit bias

Unclear risk

Unclear funding source

Other bias

Unclear risk

Unclear risk of other biases

Shang 2007

Methods

Randomised clinical trial with 2 arms: three dimensional conformal radiotherapy (DCRT) + transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE. Parrallel group design

Participants

76 people with primary liver cancer

3‐DCRT + TACE = 40; TACE = 36

Median age: 52 years

Male/female: 48/28

Recruitment: May 2003 to March 2007

Inclusion criteria:

Chinese Medical Association guideline:

  • KPS ≥ 70; tumour volume < 6 cm

  • Child‐Pugh class A or B

  • No liver cancer metastasis

3‐DCRT + TACE:

  • hepatitis B virus (+/‐: 32/8)

  • Diameter of tumour (< 3/3 to 6 cm: 26/14)

TACE:

  • hepatitis B virus (+/‐: 30/6)

  • Diameter of tumour (< 3/3 to 6 cm: 20/16)

Interventions

TACE: femoral artery by Seldinger technique.
3‐DCRT: 2 Gy once daily, 5 days a week, for 4 to 6 weeks; average ≤ 50 Gy.

Outcomes

  1. Short‐term effects

  2. Survival rate

  3. Toxic and adverse effects

Notes

Country of the study: China

We were unable to make contact with the corresponding author to provide missing data.

Funding: unclear

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

The article was described as a "prospective randomised clinical study", but randomisation method was not mentioned.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

The method used to conceal the allocation was not described.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

The trial was not blinded, so that the allocation was known during the trial.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Outcomes were assessed by apparatus.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

There were insufficient data to assess attrition bias.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

The study did not report cancer‐related mortality, quality of life, or serious adverse events.

For profit bias

Unclear risk

Unclear funding source

Other bias

Unclear risk

Unclear risk of other bias

Wang 2000

Methods

Randomised clinical trial with 3 arms: radiotherapy versus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus radiotherapy + TACE. Parallel‐group design

Participants

60 people with histologically proven inoperable/unresectable advanced primary hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiotherapy = 20 participants; TACE = 20 participants; radiotherapy + TACE = 20 participants.

Median age: 52 years

Male/female: 45/16

Recruitment: January 1990 to January 1998

Inclusion criteria: Histologically or cytologically proven hepatocellular carcinoma and measurable bipolar disease. Patients with solitary lesion were also included if they were not candidates for surgery.

Exclusion criteria: Patients were excluded if they were older than 75 years, had bilirubin level more than 3, TLC less than 3000, platelet less than 60,000, creatinine more than 2.

Interventions

Radiotherapy: given as whole‐liver irradiation with the moving‐strip technique 150 to 180 cGy until tumour dose at the centre reached 20 to 25 Gy, then the residual foci as localised by ultrasound were treated with a boost until 50 Gy with cobalt‐60 machine.

TACE: Seldinger technique was used. Chemotherapy consisted of cisplatin, adriamycin, and mitomycin or floxuridine. The embolisation agent was 40% iodised oil. Treatment was repeated at 4, 6, and 8 weeks. Participants received TACE 4 to 5 times.

Radiotherapy + TACE: radiotherapy started 2 weeks after TACE until 20 to 25 Gy, then 1 week rest followed by the 2nd TACE. Another 2‐week gap, then radiotherapy boost until total dose up to 50 Gy. A further 2‐week gap, then 3rd TACE was given. 4th TACE was given after 6 to 8 weeks. TACE was administered in this group until 5 times.

Outcomes

  1. Tumour response

  2. Survival

  3. Complications

Notes

Country of the study: China

We were unable to locate a contact email for the corresponding author to request missing data.

Funding: unclear

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Envelope method

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

The method used to conceal the allocation was not described.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

The trial was not blinded, so that the allocation was known during the trial.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Detection bias was unclear.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

There were insufficient data to assess attrition bias.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

The study did not report cancer‐related mortality, quality of life, or serious adverse events.

For profit bias

Unclear risk

Unclear funding source

Other bias

Unclear risk

Unclear risk of other bias

Xiao 2008

Methods

Randomised clinical trial with 2 arms: three dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3‐DCRT) plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE. Parallel‐group design

Participants

60 people with unresectable primary hepatic carcinoma. TACE + 3‐DCRT = 30; TACE = 30

Median age: not reported

Male/female: 45/15

Recruitment: January 2002 to June 2006

Inclusion criteria:

Chinese Medical Association guideline:

  • KPS ≥ 70

  • Child‐Pugh class A or B

  • I‐IIIa with no liver cancer metastasis

Interventions

TACE: femoral artery by Seldinger technique

3‐DCRT: total average dose = 55 Gy

Outcomes

  1. Short‐term effects

  2. Survival rate

  3. Toxic and side effects

Notes

Country of the study: China

We were unable to make a contact with the corresponding author to request missing data.

Funding: unclear

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Allocation sequence was generated by random table number.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

The method used to conceal the allocation was not described.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

The trial was not blinded, so that the allocation was known during the trial.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Outcome was assessed by apparatus.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

There were insufficient data to assess attrition bias.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

The study did not report cancer‐related mortality, quality of life, or serious adverse events.

For profit bias

Unclear risk

Unclear funding source.

Other bias

Unclear risk

Unclear risk of other bias.

Xue 1995

Methods

Randomised clinical trial including 4 arms: transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) with immediate administration of doxorubicin versus TACE with delayed administration of doxorubicin versus TACE plus external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) versus EBRT alone. Parallel‐group design

Participants

82 people with hepatocellular carcinoma

Average age: 48.3 years

Male/female: 69/13

Recruitment: March 1991 to April 1993

Interventions

TACE with immediate administration of doxorubicin (20 participants) versus TACE with delayed administration of doxorubicin (20 participants) versus EBRT + TACE (21 participants) versus EBRT alone (21 participants)

Outcomes

  1. Tumour regression

  2. Survival

  3. Change of alpha‐fetoprotein

Notes

Child‐Pugh A: 36
Child‐Pugh B: 46

Country of the study: China

We were unable to locate a contact email for the corresponding author to request missing data.

Funding: unclear

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

The study was described as a randomised clinical trial, but the method of randomisation was not mentioned.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

The method used to conceal the allocation was not described.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

The trial was not blinded, so that the allocation was known during the trial.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Outcome assessment was not blinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

There were insufficient data to assess attrition bias.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

The trial did not report cancer‐related mortality, quality of life, or serious adverse events.

For profit bias

Unclear risk

Unclear funding source

Other bias

Unclear risk

Unclear risk of other bias

Zhang 2012

Methods

Randomised clinical trial with 2 arms: transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) + Gamma Knife versus TACE. Parallel‐group design

Participants

259 people with primary hepatocellular carcinoma. Gamma Knife + TACE = 135; TACE = 124

Median age: 52 years

Male/female: 240/55

Recruitment: not mentioned

Inclusion criteria

Chinese Medical Association guideline:

  • Child‐Pugh class A or B

  • TNM ≥ II

TACE + Gamma Knife: elevated alpha‐fetoprotein: 101; single lesion: 92
TACE: elevated alpha‐fetoprotein: 95; single lesion: 86.

Interventions

TACE: femoral artery by Seldinger technique. 5‐fluorouracil 500 mg to 1000 mg, DDP 200 mg to 300 mg, Epi‐ADM 30 mg to 50 mg, iodinated oil 5 mL to 20 mL.
Gamma Knife: cobalt‐60, 3 to 5 Gy once every other day, 8 to 12 times; total average rate 36 to 50 Gy.

Outcomes

  1. Short‐term effects

  2. Survival rate

  3. alpha‐fetoprotein (+→‐)

  4. Adverse events

Notes

Country of the study: China

We were unable to make contact with the corresponding author to request missing data.

Funding: unclear

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

The study is described as a randomised clinical trial, but the method of randomisation is not mentioned.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

The method used to conceal the allocation was not described.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

The trial was not blinded, so that the allocation was known during the trial.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Outcomes were assessed by apparatus.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

There were insufficient data to assess attrition bias.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

The study did not report cancer‐related mortality, quality of life, or serious adverse events.

For profit bias

Unclear risk

Unclear funding source

Other bias

Unclear risk

Unclear risk of other bias

Zhao 2006

Methods

Randomised clinical trial with 2 arms: three dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3‐DCRT) plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE

Participants

96 people with inoperable primary liver cancer. TACE + 3‐DCRT = 49; TACE = 47

Median age: 52 years

Male/female: 59/37

Recruitment: January 1998 to April 2000

Diagnostic criteria:

  • KPS ≥ 70

  • Normal liver function

  • No TACE or RT contraindicated

  • Early stage of liver portal area of the liver cancer

  • Not suitable for surgery, such as liver cancer merger of liver cirrhosis

  • Voluntary choice of TACE and/or 3‐DCRT

  • No portal vein tumour thrombus

  • No distant metastases

  • No ascites

  • Gross tumour volume < 6 cm

79 participants had pathologic diagnosis; others were diagnosed by clinical symptoms, imaging, and alpha‐fetoprotein.

Interventions

Planning scan by spiral computed tomography, design CTV, and PTV.
The machine is 2100C linear accelerator.
3‐DCRT: 45 to 55 Gy; treatment is administered every other day

Outcomes

  1. alpha‐fetoprotein

  2. Short‐term effects

  3. Survival rate

  4. Toxic and adverse effects

Notes

Country of the study: China

We contacted the corresponding author on 19 March 2016 to provide missing data, but have not yet received any feedback.

Funding: unclear

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

The study is described as a randomised clinical trial, but the method of randomisation is not mentioned.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

The method used to conceal the allocation was not described.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

The trial was not blinded, so that the allocation was known during the trial.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Outcome assessment was not blinded.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

There were insufficient data to assess attrition bias.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

The study did not report cancer‐related mortality, quality of life, or serious adverse events.

For profit bias

Unclear risk

Unclear funding source

Other bias

Unclear risk

Unclear risk of other bias

Epi‐ADM: doxorubicin and epirubicin; cGy: centigray; CTV: clinical target volume; DDP: cisplatin; Gy: gray; KPS: Karnofsky performance score; PTV: planning target volume; THP: tetrahydropalmatine; TLC: total leukocytic count; TNM: tumour, node and metastasis.

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study

Reason for exclusion

Bush 2016

All included participants were eligible for transplantation (participants were required to have disease within the Milan or San Francisco criteria, without vascular invasion).

Kang 2014

Radiotherapy was part of the therapeutic strategy in the 3 randomised arms, thus it was not possible to formally assess the added benefit or harm of radiotherapy in these trial participants.

Lan 2005

Not randomised

Li 2003

Not randomised

Wang 2006

Not randomised

Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]

NCT01730937

Trial name or title

Sorafenib tosylate with or without stereotactic body radiation therapy in treating patients with liver cancer

Methods

Phase III trial

Participants

People with hepatocellular carcinoma unsuitable for resection, radiofrequency ablation, or transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE)

Interventions

Experimental: Arm 1 (sorafenib tosylate): Sorafenib tosylate given orally twice a day on days 1 to 28. Treatment repeats every 28 days for up to 5 years in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Experimental: Arm 2 (stereotactic body radiotherapy and sorafenib tosylate): stereotactic body radiotherapy administered every 24 to 72 hours for a total of 5 fractions over 5 to 15 days. Within 1 to 5 days post‐stereotactic body radiotherapy, treatment with sorafenib tosylate commences, given orally twice a day on days 1 to 28. Treatment repeats every 28 days for up to 5 years in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

Outcomes

Primary outcome measures:

  • Overall survival

Secondary outcome measures:

  • Time to progression

  • Progression‐free survival

Health‐related quality of life assessments measured by FACT‐Hep

Starting date

April 2013

Contact information

Christopher M Iannuzzi; [email protected]

Notes

Inclusion criteria:

  • Patients must have a diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma by at least 1 of the following criteria within 360 days prior to study entry: pathologically (histologically or cytologically) proven diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (biopsies are recommended, and are to be submitted for research evaluation if patients consent); at least 1 solid liver lesion or vascular tumor thrombosis (involving portal vein, inferior vena cava, and/or hepatic vein) > 1 cm with arterial enhancement and delayed washout on multiphasic computed tomography or MRI in the setting of cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B or C without cirrhosis. For patients whose current disease is vascular only: enhancing vascular thrombosis (involving portal vein, inferior vena cava, and/or hepatic vein) demonstrating early arterial enhancement and delayed washout on multiphasic computed tomography (CT) or MRI in a patient with known hepatocellular carcinoma (diagnosed previously < 720 days) using the above criteria.

  • Measurable hepatic disease or presence of vascular tumour thrombosis (involving portal vein, inferior vena cava, and/or hepatic vein), or both, which may not be measurable as per RECIST on liver CT or MRI, within 28 days of registration.

  • Appropriate for protocol entry based upon the following minimum diagnostic workup: history/physical examination including examination for encephalopathy, ascites, weight, height, and blood pressure within 14 days prior to study entry; assessment by radiation oncologist and medical oncologist or hepatologist who specialises in treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma within 28 days prior to study entry; pre‐randomisation scan (required for all patients): CT scan chest/abdomen/pelvis with multiphasic liver CT scan or multiphasic liver MRI scan within 28 days prior to study entry. MRI of abdomen with contrast and pelvis is permitted.

  • Zubrod performance status 0 to 2 within 28 days prior to study entry.

  • Absolute neutrophil count >= 1500 cells/mm3.

  • Platelets >= 70,000 cells/mm3.

  • Haemoglobin >= 8.0 g/dL (note: the use of transfusion or other intervention to achieve haemoglobin >= 8.0 g/dL is acceptable).

  • Total bilirubin < 2 mg/dL.

  • International normalised ratio < 1.7.

  • Albumin >= 28 g/L.

  • Aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase < 6 times upper limit of normal.

  • Serum creatinine =< 1.5 x upper limit of normal or creatinine clearance >= 60 mL/min.

  • Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage: intermediate (B) or advanced (C) within 14 days prior to study entry.

  • Child‐Pugh score A within 14 days prior to study entry.

  • Women of childbearing potential and male participants must agree to practice adequate contraception while on study and for at least 6 months following the last dose of radiation therapy and for at least 28 days following the last dose of sorafenib (whichever is later).

  • Unsuitable for resection or transplant or radiofrequency ablation.

  • Unsuitable for or refractory to TACE or drug‐eluting beads for any of the following reasons:

    • Technical contraindications: arteriovenous fistula, including surgical portosystemic shunt or spontaneous portosystemic shunt.

    • Severe reduction in portal vein flow due to tumour portal vein, inferior vena cava, or atrial invasion or bland portal vein occlusion.

    • Medical contraindications including congestive heart failure, angina, severe peripheral vascular disease.

    • Presence of extrahepatic disease.

    • No response post‐TACE (or drug‐eluting beads) or progressive hepatocellular carcinoma despite TACE; prior TACE or drug‐eluting beads is allowed but must be > 28 days from study entry.

    • Serious toxicity following prior TACE (or drug‐eluting beads); prior TACE or drug‐eluting beads must be > 28 days from study entry.

    • Other medical comorbidities making TACE (or drug‐eluting beads) unsafe or risky, or both (e.g. combination of relative contraindications including age > 80 years, tumour > 10 cm, > 50% replacement of the liver by hepatocellular carcinoma, extensive multinodular bilobar hepatocellular carcinoma, biliary drainage).

  • People treated with prior surgery are eligible for this study if they otherwise meet eligibility criteria.

  • Person must be able to provide study‐specific informed consent prior to study entry.

Exclusion criteria:

  • Prior invasive malignancy (except non‐melanomatous skin cancer) unless disease‐free for a minimum of 2 years (note that carcinoma in situ of the breast, oral cavity, or cervix are all permissible).

  • Prior sorafenib use > 60 days. Note that prior chemotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma or a different cancer is permitted.

  • Prior radiotherapy to the region of the liver that would result in overlap of radiation therapy fields.

  • Prior selective internal radiotherapy/hepatic arterial yttrium therapy, at any time.

  • Severe, active comorbidity, defined as follows.

    • Unstable angina or congestive heart failure, or both requiring hospitalisation within the 6 months prior to registration.

    • Transmural myocardial infarction within the 6 months prior to study entry.

    • Unstable ventricular arrhythmia within the 6 months prior to study entry.

    • Acute bacterial or fungal infection requiring intravenous antibiotics within 28 days prior to study entry.

    • Hepatic insufficiency resulting in clinical jaundice, encephalopathy, and/or variceal bleed within 60 days prior to study entry.

    • Bleeding due to any cause requiring transfusion within 60 days prior to study entry.

  • Thrombolytic therapy within 28 days prior to study entry. Subcutaneous heparin is permitted.

  • Known bleeding or clotting disorder.

  • Uncontrolled psychotic disorder.

  • Pregnancy or women of childbearing potential and men who are sexually active and not willing/able to use medically acceptable forms of contraception; this exclusion is necessary because the treatment involved in this study may be significantly teratogenic.

  • Any 1 hepatocellular carcinoma > 15 cm.

  • Total maximal sum of hepatocellular carcinomas or a single conglomerate hepatocellular carcinoma > 20 cm.

  • More than 5 discrete intrahepatic parenchymal foci of hepatocellular carcinoma.

  • Direct tumour extension into the stomach, duodenum, small bowel, or large bowel.

  • Measureable common or main branch biliary duct involvement with hepatocellular carcinoma.

  • Extrahepatic metastases or malignant nodes (that enhance with typical features of hepatocellular carcinoma) > 3.0 cm, in sum of maximal diameters (e.g. presence of one 3.4‐centimetre metastatic lymph node or two 2‐centimetre lung lesions); note that benign non‐enhancing periportal lymphadenopathy is not unusual in the presence of hepatitis and is permitted, even if the sum of enlarged nodes is > 2.0 cm.

  • Use of regular phenytoin, carbamazepine, Hypericum perforatum (also known as St. John's wort), or rifampin.

  • Use of combination antiretroviral therapy for HIV, as these agents may modulate cytochrome P450 isozymes.

  • Prior liver transplant.

NCT01901692

Trial name or title

Transarterial chemoembolisation plus radiotherapy or sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma with major vascular invasion (START)

Methods

Randomised phase II trial

Participants

People with hepatocellular carcinoma invading major intrahepatic vessels

Country: Korea

Interventions

transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) + external beam radiotherapy versus sorafenib

Outcomes

Primary endpoint

  • progression‐free survival

Secondary endpoints

  • Response rate [ Time Frame: at 3 months after randomisation ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

  • Time to failure of treatment

  • Progression‐free survival

  • Treatment‐related adverse events

  • Overall survival

Starting date

July 2013

Contact information

Young‐Suk Lim, Associate Professor, Asan Medical Center

Notes

Estimated enrolment: 90

Inclusion criteria:

  • Age > 19 years.

  • Child‐Pugh class A liver function.

  • Performance status: ECOG score 0 or 1.

  • Hepatocellular carcinoma confirmed by dynamic computed tomography (CT) or MRI, or by biopsy.

  • Hepatocellular carcinoma invasion of first or second branch portal vein or hepatic vein or inferior vena cava.

  • Reserved unilateral portal blood flow at least partially.

  • Hepatocellular carcinoma size larger than 1 cm and less than 50% of total liver volume.

  • No extrahepatic metastasis.

  • Adequate haematopoietic function:

    • haemoglobin ≥ 8.5 g/dL;

    • absolute neutrophil count ≥ 750/mm3;

    • platelet count ≥ 30,000/mm3.

  • Creatinine < 1.5 mg/dL.

  • No plan for pregnancy or breastfeeding. Active contraception.

  • Willing to give informed consent.

NCT01963429

Trial name or title

Comparison between radiofrequency ablation and hypofractionated proton beam radiation for recurrent/residual hepatocellular carcinoma

Methods

Phase III trial

Participants

People with recurrent/residual hepatocellular carcinoma

Interventions

Experimental: Arm A (radiofrequency ablation)

Experimental: Arm B (proton beam radiotherapy)

Outcomes

Primary outcome measures:

  • Local progression‐free survival

Secondary outcome measures:

  • Disease‐free survival

Other outcome measures:

  • Overall survival

Starting date

October 2013

Contact information

Joong Won Park, PhD; [email protected]

Notes

Estimated enrolment: 144

Inclusion criteria:

  • hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosed as (i) the presence of risk factors including hepatitis B or C virus and liver cirrhosis, a serum alpha‐fetoprotein level greater than 200 IU/mL and a radiologically compatible feature with hepatocellular carcinoma in 1 or more computed tomography (CT)/MRI/angiograms, or (ii) the presence of risk factors including hepatitis B or C virus and liver cirrhosis, a serum alpha‐fetoprotein level less than 200 IU/mL, and a radiologically compatible feature with hepatocellular carcinoma in 2 or more computed tomography (CT)/MRI/angiograms, or (iii) histological confirmation.

  • hepatocellular carcinoma patients who had recurrent or residual tumour after other treatments.

  • No evidence of extrahepatic metastasis.

  • The largest diameter of tumour should be less than 3 cm, and the number of tumours ≤ 2.

  • No previous treatment to target tumours by other forms of radiotherapy.

  • Liver function of Child‐Pugh class A or B7 (Child‐Pugh score of ≤ 7).

  • Age ≥ 18 years.

  • Performance status of 0 to 2 on the ECOG score.

  • White blood cell count ≥ 2000/mm3; haemoglobin level ≥ 7.5 g/dL; platelet count ≥ 50,000/mm3; and adequate hepatic function (total bilirubin ≤ 3.0 mg/dL; aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase < 5.0× upper limit of normal; no ascites).

  • No serious comorbidities other than liver cirrhosis.

  • Written informed consent.

Exclusion criteria:

  • Evidence of extrahepatic metastasis.

  • Age < 18 years.

  • Liver function of Child‐Pugh class B8‐9 and C (Child‐Pugh score of > 7) or uncontrolled cases of active chronic hepatitis B.

  • Previous history of other forms of radiotherapy adjacent to target tumours.

  • Poor performance status of 3 to 4 on the ECOG score.

  • Pregnant or breastfeeding status.

  • Previous history of uncontrolled other malignancies within 2 years.

NCT02323360

Trial name or title

A trial on stereotactic body radiotherapy after incomplete transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus exclusive TACE for treatment of inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma

Methods

Phase III trial

Participants

People with inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma

Interventions

Experimental: Stereotactic body radiation therapy

Active comparator: transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE)

Outcomes

Primary outcome measures:

  • Local control

Secondary outcome measures:

  • Progression free‐survival

  • Overall survival

  • Toxicity (incidence of acute and late complications)

Starting date

November 2014

Contact information

Marta Scorsetti, MD, PhD; [email protected]

Notes

Estimated enrolment: 80

Inclusion criteria:

  • Age > 18 years.

  • Karnofsky index > 70%.

  • Child‐Turcotte‐Pugh A or B liver score.

  • An initial diagnosis of primary hepatocellular carcinoma or recurrence.

  • A technically unresectable lesion or medically contraindicated surgery or a case in which surgery was declined.

  • Hepatocellular carcinoma (single nodule ≤ 5 cm or max 3 nodules ≤ 3 cm) diagnosed by histology or non‐invasive EASL criteria.

  • Baseline computed tomography (CT) or MRI and bone scan without evidence of radiologically definable major vascular invasion or extrahepatic disease.

  • Haemoglobin > 10.5.0 g/%, white blood cell count > 3000 cells/mm3, platelets > 50,000 cells/mm3, bilirubin < 2 mg/dL, aspartate and alanine aminotransferase levels < 5 times upper normal limit, and prothrombin time‐international normalised ratio ≤ 2.

  • Serum creatinine < 1.7 mg/dL.

  • Previously incomplete transcatheter arterial embolisation or TACE with radiologically defined residual disease.

  • Informed consent.

Exclusion criteria:

  • Extrahepatic disease and refractory ascites.

  • Previous abdominal radiation therapy.

  • Haemorrhage/bleeding event = grade 3 within 4 weeks of enrolment in the study.

  • Pregnant or breastfeeding women.

  • People with uncontrolled infections or HIV seropositive patients.

  • Mental conditions rendering the person incapable of understanding the nature, scope, and consequences of the study.

NCT02640924

Trial name or title

Proton radiotherapy versus radiofrequency ablation for patients with medium or large hepatocellular carcinoma

Methods

Phase III trial

Participants

People with medium (> 3, ≤ 5 cm) or large (> 5, ≤ 7 cm) treatment‐naive hepatocellular carcinoma

Interventions

Proton beam radiotherapy versus radiofrequency ablation

Outcomes

Primary outcome measures:

  • Local control rate (treatment in‐field control rate) (time frame: three years)

Secondary outcome measures:

  • Overall survival rate

  • Intrahepatic control rate

  • Distant metastasis‐free survival rate

  • Local control rate (treatment in‐field control rate) (time frame: five years).

  • Number of participants with treatment‐related adverse events as assessed by CTCAE v4.0.

  • Patient‐report outcome: quality of life as assessed by the FACT‐Hep.

Starting date

January 2016

Contact information

Bing‐Shen Huang, MD; [email protected]

Notes

Inclusion criteria:

  • Pathologically confirmed hepatocellular carcinoma or lesion with typical triphasic computed tomography (CT) or MRI imaging features for hepatocellular carcinoma.

  • Single tumour and tumour size > 3 cm, ≤ 7 cm in diameter.

  • People unsuitable for resection or unwilling to accept surgery.

  • Age ≥ 20 years old.

  • ECOG performance status score of 0 or 1.

  • Child‐Pugh score ≤ 8.

  • Willing to sign informed consent regarding participation in this study.

Exclusion criteria:

  • People who have received any prior treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma.

  • Pregnant or breastfeeding women.

  • Tumour adjacent to bowel < 1 cm.

  • Extrahepatic metastasis.

  • Extrahepatic invasion.

  • Portal or hepatic vein tumour invasion/thrombosis.

  • Uncontrolled ascites.

  • Glomerular filtration rate < 30 mL/min.*

  • Platelet count < 50,000/L.*

  • Prior invasive malignancy (except non‐melanomatous skin cancer) unless disease‐free for a minimum of 5 years.

  • Ongoing, medically significant active infection.

  • MRI incompatible devices.

*Baseline laboratories results must be within the protocol range prior to signing informed consent. Repeat lab tests are permitted to evaluate eligibility during the screening period.

NCT02762266

Trial name or title

Transarterial chemoembolisation compared with stereotactic body radiation therapy or stereotactic ablative radiation therapy in treating patients with residual or recurrent liver cancer undergone initial transarterial chemoembolisation

Methods

Phase III trial

Participants

People with residual or recurrent liver cancer who have undergone initial transarterial chemoembolisation

Interventions

Active comparator: Arm I ‐ transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE)

Experimental: Arm II (stereotactic body radiotherapy)

Outcomes

Primary objectives:

  1. To determine the freedom from local progression of TACE versus stereotactic body radiotherapy in people with persistent hepatocellular carcinoma after TACE.

Secondary objectives:

  1. To determine the progression‐free survival of TACE versus stereotactic body radiotherapy in people with persistent hepatocellular carcinoma after initial TACE.

  2. To determine the overall survival of TACE versus stereotactic body radiotherapy for persistent hepatocellular carcinoma.

  3. To determine the toxicities associated with TACE or stereotactic body radiotherapy for persistent hepatocellular carcinoma.

Starting date

May 2016

Contact information

Rachel Freiberg; [email protected]

Notes

Inclusion criteria:

  • Confirmed hepatocellular carcinoma by 1 of the following: histopathology; 1 radiographic technique that confirms a lesion >= 1 cm with arterial hyper‐vascularisation with washout on delayed phase.

  • Radiographic evidence of persistent, progressive, or recurrent disease in an area previously treated with TACE and determined from 3 months after initial TACE; this evaluation should be within 6 weeks of date of study eligibility.

  • Unifocal liver tumours not to exceed 7.5 cm in greatest axial dimension; multifocal lesions will be restricted to lesions that can be treated within a single target volume within the same liver segment and to an aggregate of 10 cm as long as the dose constraints to normal tissue can be met.

  • ECOG performance status 0, 1, or 2.

  • People with liver disease classified as Child Pugh class A or B, with score =< 9.

  • Life expectancy >= 6 months.

  • Albumin >= 2.4 g/dL.

  • Total bilirubin =< 3 mg/dL.

  • International normalised ratio =< 1.5.

  • Creatinine =< 2.0 mg/dL.

  • Ability of the research participant or authorised legal representative to understand and be willing to sign a written informed consent document.

Exclusion criteria:

  • Prior radiotherapy to the upper abdomen.

  • Prior radioembolisation to the liver.

  • Prior radiofrequency ablation to index lesion.

  • Liver transplant.

  • Active gastrointestinal bleed within 2 weeks of study enrolment.

  • Ascites refractory to medical therapy (mild‐to‐moderate ascites is allowed).

  • Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding.

  • Administration of chemotherapy within the previous month.

  • Extrahepatic metastases.

  • Participation in another concurrent treatment protocol.

  • Prior history of malignancy other than hepatocellular carcinoma, dermatologic basal cell or squamous cell carcinoma.

NCT02794337

Trial name or title

Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE + stereotactic body radiotherapy for unresectable hepatocellular cancer (TACE ‐ stereotactic body radiotherapy)

Methods

Phase III trial

Participants

People with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Interventions

Active comparator: drug‐eluting beads ‐ TACE arm

Experimental: drug‐eluting beads ‐ TACE + stereotactic body radiotherapy arm

Outcomes

Primary outcome measures:

  • In‐field progression‐free survival

Secondary outcome measures:

  • Cause‐specific survival

  • Response assessment after treatment

  • Quality of life

  • Toxicity assessment

Starting date

December 2014

Contact information

Supriya Chopra; [email protected]

Notes

Inclusion criteria:

  • Diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. While desirable, tissue diagnosis is not mandatory. In the absence of tissue diagnosis imaging findings characteristic of hepatocellular carcinoma will be used, i.e. in high‐risk population a nodule with arterial phase enhancement and washout during portovenous phase will be considered as diagnostic of hepatocellular carcinoma. In patients where 1 imaging is inconclusive, another imaging modality will be used. However, if second imaging is also inconclusive, and alpha‐fetoprotein is within the non‐diagnostic or borderline range, then tissue diagnosis will be deemed mandatory.

  • Barcelona Stage B/Barcelona A not deemed suitable for surgery or refuse surgery. Child Pugh A/Select Child Pugh B (score 7/10).

  • ECOG performance status 0 to 1.

  • Total number of measurable target lesions ≤ 2, can be encompassed within a single hepatic field or 2 different hepatic fields without exceeding safe dose limit constraints.

  • Optimal predicted liver volume reserve > 700 cc. No contraindication for TACE. Tumour considered to be sufficiently away from gastrointestinal structures to deliver safe radiation dose (> 1 cm).

  • Consenting to molecular banking of tumour tissue (optional).

Exclusion criteria:

  • Metastatic or nodal disease on staging investigations.

  • Child C cirrhosis or previous history of liver failure. Expected life span < 6 months.

  • Active variceal bleeding or other signs of hepatic decompensation.

  • Portal venous thrombosis rendering patients unsuitable for TACE. However, if patient is suitable for superselective TACE, then can be considered for trial inclusion.

CTCAE: Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; EASL: European Association for the Study of the Liver; ECOG: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; FACT‐Hep: Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy ‐ Hepatobiliary; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; RECIST: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours.

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 All‐cause mortality (at 1 year) Show forest plot

9

786

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.41, 0.62]

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (at 1 year).

Comparison 1 External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (at 1 year).

1.1 Studies using three dimensional conformal radiation therapy

8

527

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.54 [0.43, 0.68]

1.2 Studies using stereotactic radiotherapy

1

259

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.40 [0.25, 0.64]

2 Complete response Show forest plot

7

620

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.14 [1.47, 3.13]

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE, Outcome 2 Complete response.

Comparison 1 External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE, Outcome 2 Complete response.

2.1 Studies using three dimensional conformal radiation therapy

6

361

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.13 [1.34, 3.37]

2.2 Studies using stereotactic radiotherapy

1

259

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.17 [1.12, 4.21]

3 Complete response + partial response Show forest plot

7

620

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.58 [1.40, 1.78]

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE, Outcome 3 Complete response + partial response.

Comparison 1 External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE, Outcome 3 Complete response + partial response.

3.1 Studies using three dimensional conformal radiation therapy

6

361

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.53 [1.31, 1.79]

3.2 Studies using stereotactic radiotherapy

1

259

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.65 [1.36, 1.99]

4 Elevated alanine aminotransferase Show forest plot

3

232

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.41 [1.08, 1.84]

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE, Outcome 4 Elevated alanine aminotransferase.

Comparison 1 External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE, Outcome 4 Elevated alanine aminotransferase.

5 Elevated total bilirubin Show forest plot

2

172

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.69 [1.34, 5.40]

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE, Outcome 5 Elevated total bilirubin.

Comparison 1 External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE, Outcome 5 Elevated total bilirubin.

Open in table viewer
Comparison 2. External beam radiotherapy versus transarterial chemoembolisation

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 All‐cause mortality Show forest plot

3

152

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.21 [0.97, 1.50]

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 External beam radiotherapy versus transarterial chemoembolisation, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality.

Comparison 2 External beam radiotherapy versus transarterial chemoembolisation, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality.

Study flow diagram.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Study flow diagram.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Trial Sequential Analysis comparing external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE alone on the outcome 'all‐cause mortality at one year'. A subgroup of studies used three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) of n = 1029 patients was calculated based upon a proportion of mortality of 50.3% of patients in the TACE group, a relative risk reduction of 20% in the EBRT + TACE group, an alpha (type I error) of 5%, a beta (type II error) of 10%, and a diversity of 0%. The blue curve presents the cumulative meta‐analysis Z‐score, and the inward‐sloping dotted red curves present the adjusted threshold for statistical significance according to the two‐sided trial sequential monitoring boundaries.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 4

Trial Sequential Analysis comparing external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE alone on the outcome 'all‐cause mortality at one year'. A subgroup of studies used three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) of n = 1029 patients was calculated based upon a proportion of mortality of 50.3% of patients in the TACE group, a relative risk reduction of 20% in the EBRT + TACE group, an alpha (type I error) of 5%, a beta (type II error) of 10%, and a diversity of 0%. The blue curve presents the cumulative meta‐analysis Z‐score, and the inward‐sloping dotted red curves present the adjusted threshold for statistical significance according to the two‐sided trial sequential monitoring boundaries.

Trial Sequential Analysis comparing external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) versus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) on the outcome 'all‐cause mortality at one year'. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) of n = 808 patients was calculated based upon a proportion of mortality of 57% of patients in the TACE group, a relative risk reduction of 20% in the EBRT group, an alpha (type I error) of 5%, a beta (type II error) of 10%, and a diversity of 0%. The blue curve presents the cumulative meta‐analysis Z‐score, and the inward‐sloping dotted red curves present the adjusted threshold for statistical significance according to the two‐sided trial sequential monitoring boundaries.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 5

Trial Sequential Analysis comparing external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) versus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) on the outcome 'all‐cause mortality at one year'. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) of n = 808 patients was calculated based upon a proportion of mortality of 57% of patients in the TACE group, a relative risk reduction of 20% in the EBRT group, an alpha (type I error) of 5%, a beta (type II error) of 10%, and a diversity of 0%. The blue curve presents the cumulative meta‐analysis Z‐score, and the inward‐sloping dotted red curves present the adjusted threshold for statistical significance according to the two‐sided trial sequential monitoring boundaries.

Trial Sequential Analysis comparing external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE alone on the outcome 'complete response plus partial response ‐ subgroup of studies using three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy'. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) of n = 951 patients was calculated based upon a proportion of response of 52.5% of patients in the TACE group, a relative risk reduction of 20% in the TACE + EBRT group, an alpha (type I error) of 5%, a beta (type II error) of 10%, and a diversity of 0%. The blue curve presents the cumulative meta‐analysis Z‐score, and the inward‐sloping red curves present the adjusted threshold for statistical significance according to the two‐sided trial sequential monitoring boundaries.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 6

Trial Sequential Analysis comparing external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE alone on the outcome 'complete response plus partial response ‐ subgroup of studies using three‐dimensional conformal radiotherapy'. The diversity‐adjusted required information size (DARIS) of n = 951 patients was calculated based upon a proportion of response of 52.5% of patients in the TACE group, a relative risk reduction of 20% in the TACE + EBRT group, an alpha (type I error) of 5%, a beta (type II error) of 10%, and a diversity of 0%. The blue curve presents the cumulative meta‐analysis Z‐score, and the inward‐sloping red curves present the adjusted threshold for statistical significance according to the two‐sided trial sequential monitoring boundaries.

Comparison 1 External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (at 1 year).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality (at 1 year).

Comparison 1 External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE, Outcome 2 Complete response.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE, Outcome 2 Complete response.

Comparison 1 External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE, Outcome 3 Complete response + partial response.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE, Outcome 3 Complete response + partial response.

Comparison 1 External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE, Outcome 4 Elevated alanine aminotransferase.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE, Outcome 4 Elevated alanine aminotransferase.

Comparison 1 External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE, Outcome 5 Elevated total bilirubin.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE, Outcome 5 Elevated total bilirubin.

Comparison 2 External beam radiotherapy versus transarterial chemoembolisation, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 External beam radiotherapy versus transarterial chemoembolisation, Outcome 1 All‐cause mortality.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE alone for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus transarterial chemoembolisation(TACE) versus TACE alone for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Patient or population: people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma
Setting: specialist hospitals
Intervention: EBRT + TACE
Comparison: TACE

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with TACE

Risk with EBRT + TACE

All‐cause mortality (at maximum 1‐year follow‐up)

Study population

RR 0.51
(0.41 to 0.62)

786
(9 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1

456 per 1000

233 per 1000
(187 to 283)

Health‐related quality of life

No data were available for this outcome.

Serious adverse events

No data were available for this outcome.

Complete response plus partial response

Length of follow‐up: 1 year

Study population

RR 1.58
(1.40 to 1.78)

620
(7 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
LOW 1

518 per 1000

819 per 1000
(726 to 923)

Elevated alanine aminotransferase

Length of follow‐up: 1 year

Study population

RR 1.41
(1.08 to 1.84)

232
(3 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 2

319 per 1000

449 per 1000
(344 to 586)

Elevated total bilirubin

Length of follow‐up: 1 year

Study population

RR 2.69
(1.34 to 5.40)

172
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW 3

108 per 1000

292 per 1000
(145 to 586)

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; RCT: randomised clinical trial

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1Downgraded two levels (‐2) due to: i) within‐study risk of bias: high risk of bias in all included trials; ii) publication bias: cannot be assessed.
2Downgraded three levels (‐3) due to: i) within‐study risk of bias: high risk of bias in all included trials; ii) publication bias: cannot be assessed; iii) heterogeneity: large heterogeneity index (93%); iv) imprecision: small number of trials.
3Downgraded three levels (‐3) due to: i) within‐study risk of bias: high risk of bias in all included trials; ii) publication bias: cannot be assessed; iii) imprecision: small number of trials.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE alone for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma
Summary of findings 2. External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) versus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) versus transarterial chemoembolisation(TACE) for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Patient or population: people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma
Setting: specialist hospitals
Intervention: EBRT
Comparison: TACE

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with TACE

Risk with EBRT

All‐cause mortality (at 1 year)

Study population

RR 1.21
(0.97 to 1.50)

152
(3 RCTs)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW1

570 per 1000

689 per 1000
(553 to 854)

Serious adverse events

No data were available for this outcome.

Complete response plus partial response

Length of follow‐up: 1 year

10 out of 20 trial participants attained partial response in the TACE arm.

3 out of 21 trial participants attained a response in the EBRT arm.

41 (1 RCT)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
VERY LOW1

Elevated alanine aminotransferase

No data were available for this outcome.

Elevated total bilirubin

No data were available for this outcome.

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; RCT: randomised clinical trial

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

1Downgraded three levels (‐3) due to i) within‐study risk of bias: high risk of bias in all included trials; ii) publication bias: cannot be assessed; iii) imprecision: small number of trials.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings 2. External beam radiotherapy (EBRT) versus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma
Table 1. Explanations for the 'Summary of findings' table

Examples from table

Explanation

Outcomes

The tables provide the findings for the most important outcomes for someone making a decision. These include potential benefits and harms, whether the included studies provide data for these outcomes or not. Additional findings may be reported elsewhere in the review.

Assumed control group risk

Assumed control group risks can be based either on the control group risks reported in the included studies or on epidemiological data from elsewhere. When only one control group risk is provided, it is normally the median control group risk across the studies that provided data for that outcome.

Risk is the probability of an outcome occurring. The control group risk is the risk of an outcome occurring in the comparison group (without the intervention).

Corresponding intervention group risk

Risk is the probability of an outcome occurring. The intervention group risk is the risk of an outcome occurring in the group receiving the intervention.

Relative effect

Relative effect or RR (risk ratio)

Relative effects are ratios. Here the relative effect is expressed as a risk ratio.

Risk is the probability of an outcome occurring. A RR is the ratio between the risk in the intervention group and the risk in the control group. If the risk in the control group is 10% (100 per 1000) and the risk in the intervention group is 1% (10 per 1000), the RR is 10/100 or 0.10.

If the RR is exactly 1.0, this means that there is no difference between the occurrence of the outcome in the intervention and the control group. It is unusual for the RR to be exactly 1.0, and understanding what it means if it is above or below this value depends on whether the outcome being counted is judged to be good or bad.

If the RR is greater than 1.0, the intervention increases the risk of the outcome. If it is a good outcome (e.g. the birth of a healthy baby), a RR > 1.0 indicates a desirable effect for the intervention, whereas if the outcome is bad (e.g. death), a RR > 1.0 indicates an undesirable effect.

If the RR is less than 1.0, the intervention decreases the risk of the outcome. This indicates a desirable effect if it is a bad outcome (e.g. death) and an undesirable effect if it is a good outcome (e.g. birth of a healthy baby).

What is the difference between absolute and relative effects?

The effect of an intervention can be described by comparing the risk of the intervention group with the risk of the control group. Such a comparison can be made in different ways.

One way to compare two risks is to calculate the difference between the risks. This is the absolute effect.

Consider the risk for blindness in a person with diabetes over a five‐year period. If the risk for blindness is found to be 20 in 1000 (2%) in a group of people treated conventionally and 10 in 1000 (1%) in people treated with a new drug, the absolute effect is derived by subtracting the intervention group risk from the control group risk: 2% ‐ 1% = 1%. Expressed in this way, it can be said that the new drug reduces the five‐year risk for blindness by 1% (absolute effect is 10 fewer per 1000).

Another way to compare risks is to calculate the ratio of the two risks. Given the data above, the relative effect is derived by dividing the two risks, with the intervention risk being divided by the control risk: 1% ÷ 2% = ½ (0.50). Expressed in this way, as the 'relative effect', the five‐year risk for blindness with the new drug is 1/2 the risk with the conventional drug.

Here the table presents risks as x per 1000 (or 100, etc.) instead of %, as this tends to be easier to understand. Whenever possible, the table presents the relative effect as the RR.

The absolute effect is usually different for groups that are at high and low risk, whereas the relative effect is often the same, therefore, when it is relevant, we have reported indicative risks for groups at different levels of risk. Two or three indicative control group risks and the corresponding intervention group risks are presented when there are important differences across different populations.

Mean difference

The mean difference (MD) is the average difference between the intervention group and the control group across studies. Here a weighted MD is used, which means the results of some of the studies make a greater contribution to the average than the results of others. Studies with more precise estimates for their results (narrower confidence intervals) are given more weight.

This way of measuring effect is used when combining or comparing data for continuous outcomes such as weight, blood pressure, or pain measured on a scale. When different scales are used to measure the same outcome, e.g. different pain scales, a standardised mean difference (SMD) may be provided. This is a weighted mean difference standardised across studies giving the average difference in standard deviations for the measures of that outcome.

Confidence interval

A confidence interval (CI) is a range around an estimate that conveys how precise the estimate is; in this example the result is the estimate of the intervention group risk. The CI is a guide to how sure we can be about the quantity we are interested in (here the true absolute effect). The narrower the range between the two numbers, the more confident we can be about what the true value is; the wider the range, the less sure we can be. The width of the CI reflects the extent to which chance may be responsible for the observed estimate (with a wider interval reflecting more chance).

95% confidence interval

As explained above, the CI indicates the extent to which chance may be responsible for the observed numbers. In the simplest terms, a 95% CI means that we can be 95% confident that the true size of effect is between the lower and upper confidence limit (e.g. 0 and 3 in the blindness drugs example mentioned above). Conversely, there is a 5% chance that the true effect is outside of this range.

Not statistically significant

Statistically significant means that a result is unlikely to have occurred by chance. The usual threshold for this judgement is that the results, or more extreme results, would occur by chance with a probability of less than 0.05 if the null hypothesis (no effect) was true. When results are not statistically significant, as in this example, this is stated to alert users to the possibility that the results may have occurred by chance.

No. of participants (studies)

The table provides the total number of participants across studies and the number of studies that provided data for that outcome. This indicates how much evidence there is for the outcome.

Quality of the evidence

The quality of the evidence is a judgement about the extent to which we can be confident that the estimates of effect are correct. These judgements are made using the GRADE system, and are provided for each outcome. The judgements are based on the type of study design (randomised trials versus observational studies), the risk of bias, the consistency of the results across studies, and the precision of the overall estimate across studies.

For each outcome, the quality of the evidence is rated as high, moderate, low, or very low using the following definitions:

  • high quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect;

  • moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate;

  • low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate;

  • very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.

A "‐" indicates that the information is not relevant.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Explanations for the 'Summary of findings' table
Comparison 1. External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 All‐cause mortality (at 1 year) Show forest plot

9

786

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.51 [0.41, 0.62]

1.1 Studies using three dimensional conformal radiation therapy

8

527

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.54 [0.43, 0.68]

1.2 Studies using stereotactic radiotherapy

1

259

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.40 [0.25, 0.64]

2 Complete response Show forest plot

7

620

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.14 [1.47, 3.13]

2.1 Studies using three dimensional conformal radiation therapy

6

361

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.13 [1.34, 3.37]

2.2 Studies using stereotactic radiotherapy

1

259

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.17 [1.12, 4.21]

3 Complete response + partial response Show forest plot

7

620

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.58 [1.40, 1.78]

3.1 Studies using three dimensional conformal radiation therapy

6

361

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.53 [1.31, 1.79]

3.2 Studies using stereotactic radiotherapy

1

259

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.65 [1.36, 1.99]

4 Elevated alanine aminotransferase Show forest plot

3

232

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.41 [1.08, 1.84]

5 Elevated total bilirubin Show forest plot

2

172

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.69 [1.34, 5.40]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. External beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) versus TACE
Comparison 2. External beam radiotherapy versus transarterial chemoembolisation

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 All‐cause mortality Show forest plot

3

152

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.21 [0.97, 1.50]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. External beam radiotherapy versus transarterial chemoembolisation