Premium
Arsenic trioxide combined with transarterial chemoembolization for primary liver cancer: A meta‐analysis
Author(s) -
Lv XiuHe,
Wang ChunHui,
Xie Yan
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
journal of gastroenterology and hepatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.214
H-Index - 130
eISSN - 1440-1746
pISSN - 0815-9319
DOI - 10.1111/jgh.13789
Subject(s) - medicine , meta analysis , relative risk , arsenic trioxide , adverse effect , confidence interval , randomized controlled trial , subgroup analysis , gastroenterology , liver cancer , survival rate , cancer , surgery , arsenic , materials science , metallurgy
Background and Aim The benefit of combination therapy of arsenic trioxide (As 2 O 3 ) and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is debated. This meta‐analysis was conducted to determine whether As 2 O 3 &TACE therapy achieves better therapeutic effects compared with TACE alone for primary liver cancer. Methods A systematic search of both English and Chinese databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials. The main outcomes were therapeutic responses, survival rates, improvement in quality of life, and adverse events. All data analyses in this study were carried out using Review Manager software and STATA software. Results Eighteen randomized controlled trials involving 1412 participants were included. The pooled objective response rate was significantly higher in the As 2 O 3 &TACE group compared with the TACE group (relative risk [RR] 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16–1.58, P < 0.0001), and the pooled clinical benefit rate was also significantly higher (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08–1.29, P = 0.0002). A higher pooled result was obtained from the combination group for 1‐year survival rate (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.23–1.53, P < 0.00001). As 2 O 3 &TACE therapy was not superior to TACE alone for improvement in quality of life (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.98–1.36, P = 0.09). There was no significant difference in the risk of adverse effects. When a subgroup analysis was performed, both administration methods of As 2 O 3 (intravenous or arterial) were effective for all evaluating indicators except the improvement in quality of life. Conclusions Adjuvant As 2 O 3 therapy combined with TACE achieves better therapeutic effects compared with TACE alone. Both the intravenous administration of As 2 O 3 and the arterial administration of As 2 O 3 were good options for clinical practice.