The effectiveness of ablative and non-surgical therapies for early hepatocellular carcinoma: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
hepatocellular carcinoma
microwave ablation
network meta-analysis
percutaneous ethanol injection
radiofrequency ablation
systematic review
Journal
Cancer medicine
ISSN: 2045-7634
Titre abrégé: Cancer Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101595310
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Nov 2023
Historique:
revised:
26
09
2023
received:
24
01
2023
accepted:
15
10
2023
pubmed:
30
10
2023
medline:
30
10
2023
entrez:
30
10
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Non-surgical therapies are frequently used for patients with early or very early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of ablative and non-surgical therapies for patients with small HCC. Nine databases were searched (March 2021) along with clinical trial registries. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any ablative or non-surgical therapy versus any comparator in patients with HCC ≤3 cm were eligible. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The effectiveness of therapies was compared using NMA. Threshold analysis was undertaken to identify which NMA results had less robust evidence. Thirty-seven eligible RCTs were included (including over 3700 patients). Most were from China (n = 17) or Japan (n = 7). Sample sizes ranged from 30 to 308 patients. The majority had a high RoB or some RoB concerns. No RCTs were identified for some therapies and no RCTs reported quality of life outcomes. The results of the NMA and treatment effectiveness rankings were very uncertain. However, the evidence demonstrated that percutaneous ethanol injection was worse than radiofrequency ablation for overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.45, 95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.16-1.82), progression-free survival (HR: 1.36, 95% CrI: 1.11-1.67), overall recurrence (relative risk [RR]: 1.19, 95% CrI: 1.02-1.39) and local recurrence (RR: 1.80, 95% CrI: 1.19-2.71). The threshold analysis suggested that robust evidence was lacking for some comparisons. It is unclear which treatment is most effective for patients with small HCC because of limitations in the evidence base. It is also not known how these treatments would impact on quality of life. Further high quality RCTs are needed to provide robust evidence but may be difficult to undertake.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND & AIMS
OBJECTIVE
Non-surgical therapies are frequently used for patients with early or very early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of ablative and non-surgical therapies for patients with small HCC.
METHODS
METHODS
Nine databases were searched (March 2021) along with clinical trial registries. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any ablative or non-surgical therapy versus any comparator in patients with HCC ≤3 cm were eligible. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The effectiveness of therapies was compared using NMA. Threshold analysis was undertaken to identify which NMA results had less robust evidence.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Thirty-seven eligible RCTs were included (including over 3700 patients). Most were from China (n = 17) or Japan (n = 7). Sample sizes ranged from 30 to 308 patients. The majority had a high RoB or some RoB concerns. No RCTs were identified for some therapies and no RCTs reported quality of life outcomes. The results of the NMA and treatment effectiveness rankings were very uncertain. However, the evidence demonstrated that percutaneous ethanol injection was worse than radiofrequency ablation for overall survival (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.45, 95% credible interval [CrI]: 1.16-1.82), progression-free survival (HR: 1.36, 95% CrI: 1.11-1.67), overall recurrence (relative risk [RR]: 1.19, 95% CrI: 1.02-1.39) and local recurrence (RR: 1.80, 95% CrI: 1.19-2.71). The threshold analysis suggested that robust evidence was lacking for some comparisons.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
It is unclear which treatment is most effective for patients with small HCC because of limitations in the evidence base. It is also not known how these treatments would impact on quality of life. Further high quality RCTs are needed to provide robust evidence but may be difficult to undertake.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37902128
doi: 10.1002/cam4.6643
pmc: PMC10709740
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
20759-20772Subventions
Organisme : Health Technology Assessment Programme
ID : NIHR131224
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Dec 1;3(12):1683-1691
pubmed: 28983565
J Hepatocell Carcinoma. 2022 Dec 07;9:1247-1261
pubmed: 36514693
J Hepatol. 2014 Dec;61(6):1304-11
pubmed: 25064436
Ann Intern Med. 2019 Apr 16;170(8):538-546
pubmed: 30909295
J Hepatol. 2021 Mar;74(3):603-612
pubmed: 33031846
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Oct 07;(4):CD007611
pubmed: 19821432
Cancer. 2001 Sep 15;92(6):1516-24
pubmed: 11745230
J Hepatol. 2018 Jul;69(1):182-236
pubmed: 29628281
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 May;3(5):317-325
pubmed: 29503247
BMJ. 2020 Oct 26;371:m3544
pubmed: 33106289
Anticancer Res. 2011 Jun;31(6):2291-5
pubmed: 21737654
JAMA Oncol. 2020 Feb 1;6(2):255-263
pubmed: 31774468
Radiology. 2012 Feb;262(2):689-700
pubmed: 22157201
J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2018 Jun;181(3):843-867
pubmed: 30449954
Medicine (Baltimore). 2021 Jan 8;100(1):e23678
pubmed: 33429736
Ann Oncol. 2018 Oct 1;29(Suppl 4):iv238-iv255
pubmed: 30285213
Gastroenterology. 2005 Jul;129(1):122-30
pubmed: 16012942
Radiol Med. 2007 Apr;112(3):377-93
pubmed: 17447018
J Hepatol. 2012 Oct;57(4):794-802
pubmed: 22634125
Br J Surg. 2016 Mar;103(4):348-56
pubmed: 26780107
HPB (Oxford). 2021 Apr;23(4):495-505
pubmed: 33309569
Ann Oncol. 2003 Nov;14(11):1648-53
pubmed: 14581273
J Hepatocell Carcinoma. 2016 Oct 05;3:41-53
pubmed: 27785449
Med Decis Making. 2013 Jul;33(5):607-17
pubmed: 23104435
Radiology. 2003 Jul;228(1):235-40
pubmed: 12759473
Surg Endosc. 2014 Dec;28(12):3429-34
pubmed: 24935203
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2004 Aug;26(8):496-8
pubmed: 15555343
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 26;1:CD006745
pubmed: 25620061
Oncol Lett. 2010 Sep;1(5):855-859
pubmed: 22966394
Radiol Med. 2014 May;119(5):298-308
pubmed: 24277510
J Hepatol. 2022 Mar;76(3):681-693
pubmed: 34801630
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 28;3:CD011650
pubmed: 28351116
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Jan;29(1):193-200
pubmed: 24224779
Arab J Gastroenterol. 2011 Sep;12(3):113-8
pubmed: 22055587
Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2005 Jan 12;85(2):80-3
pubmed: 15774210
Oncol Lett. 2016 Aug;12(2):951-955
pubmed: 27446375
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Apr;95(15):e3185
pubmed: 27082558
Radiology. 2009 Sep;252(3):905-13
pubmed: 19567647
Gut. 2005 Aug;54(8):1151-6
pubmed: 16009687
Br J Surg. 2017 Dec;104(13):1775-1784
pubmed: 29091283
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jan 4;1:CD013345
pubmed: 34981511
Ann Surg. 2010 Dec;252(6):903-12
pubmed: 21107100
Ann Surg. 2005 Jul;242(1):36-42
pubmed: 15973099
Radiology. 2007 Aug;244(2):599-607
pubmed: 17641378
Gastroenterology. 2004 Dec;127(6):1714-23
pubmed: 15578509
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2008;43(6):727-35
pubmed: 18569991
BMJ Open. 2018 Oct 18;8(10):e021269
pubmed: 30341113
Cancer Med. 2023 Nov;12(22):20759-20772
pubmed: 37902128
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Dec 19;(12):CD003046
pubmed: 24357457
Radiology. 2002 May;223(2):331-7
pubmed: 11997534
Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2005 Oct;27(10):623-5
pubmed: 16438875