Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2021 / Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 6

The position of transarterial chemoembolization with drug-eluting beads and yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Consensus statements from a Delphi-method expert panel in Turkey

Pages
732–739
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Meta-analyses in this field indicate comparable overall survival (OS) with TACE and TARE, while reporting a longer time to progression and a higher downstaging effect with TARE treatment.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PURPOSE Clinical studies conducted in different geographic regions using different methods to compare transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and transarterial radioembolization (TARE) have demonstrated discordant results.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In terms of isolated procedure costs, treatment with TARE is 2 to 3 times more, and in some countries even more, expensive than TACE.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Meta-analyses in this field indicate comparable overall survival (OS) with TACE and TARE, while reporting a longer time to progression and a higher downstaging effect with TARE treatment.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

PURPOSE Clinical studies conducted in different geographic regions using different methods to compare transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and transarterial radioembolization (TARE) have demonstrated discordant results. Meta-analyses in this field indicate comparable overall survival (OS) with TACE and TARE, while reporting a longer time to progression and a higher downstaging effect with TARE treatment. In terms of isolated procedure costs, treatment with TARE is 2 to 3 times more, and in some countries even more, expensive than TACE. However, relevant literature indicates that TARE is more advantageous compared to TACE regarding the need for repeat procedures, costs of complication management, total hospital stay and quality of life. Heterogeneity of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients as well as the shortcomings of clinical classifications, randomized clinical trials and cost-effectiveness studies make it difficult to choose between treatment alternatives in this field. As in other countries, these challenges lead to differences in treatment choice across different centers in Turkey. METHODS The present expert panel used two round modified Delphi method to investigate the resources and clinical parameters referenced while selecting patients for drug-eluting beads (DEB)-TACE and TARE treatment modalities in Turkish clinical practice. The cost-effectiveness parameters and comparisons of these treatments have also been evaluated at a prediction level. RESULTS The panelists stated that they most commonly use the BCLC staging system for the management of HCC patients in Turkey. However, they did not find any of the staging systems or treatment guidelines sufficient enough for their clinical practice in terms of covering the down-staging intent of treatments. Since living donor transplant preference is higher in Turkey than the rest of the Western countries, down-staging treatments are thought to be more prioritized in Turkey than that in other Western countries. The panelists reached a consensus that TARE may provide improved OS and reduce the number of repeat procedures compared to DEB-TACE in intermediate-stage patients with a single tumor spanning a diameter above 5 cm who experience recurrence after previous treatment with TACE and most TACE-naïve patient groups in intermediate stage. CONCLUSION Based on the consensus on OS and the number of procedures, the panelists assumed that TARE would be more cost-effective than DEB-TACE in most groups of TACE-naïve patients in intermediate stage and in those with a single tumor spanning a diameter above 5 cm. It was also stated that the predicted cost-effectiveness advantage of TARE could be more pronounced in patients with a tumor diameter greater than 7 cm.

🔖

Cite This Article

KÜÇÜK, N. Ö., ER, Ö., ÇERMİK, T. F., TÜRKMEN, C., AKARCA, U. S., BİLGİÇ, S., PARILDAR, M., BOZKURT, M. F., CANTAŞDEMİR, M., NUMAN, F., ÇAKAOĞLU, Y., KAYA, G. Ç., ILGIT, E., AKHAN, O. (2022). The position of transarterial chemoembolization with drug-eluting beads and yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Consensus statements from a Delphi-method expert panel in Turkey. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 27 - Sayı: 6, 732–739. https://ajindex.com/articles/487274

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (2)

  1. Forner A, Llovet JM, Bruix J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet 2012; 379:1245–1255. [Crossref] 2. Kinoshita A, Onoda H, Fushiya N, Koike K, Nishino H, Tajiri H. Staging systems for hepatocellular carcinoma: Current status and future perspectives. World J Hepatol 2015; 7:406–424. [Crossref] 3. Marreo J, Kudo M, Brunowicki JP. The challenge of prognosis and staging for hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncologist 2010; 15(suppl 4):23–33. [Crossref] 4. Bruix J, Sherman M. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 2011; 53:1020–1022. [Crossref] 5. Ekinci O, Baran B, Ormeci AC, et al. Current state and clinical outcome in Turkish patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Hepatol 2018; 10:51–61. [Crossref] 6. 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. J Hepatol 2012; 56:908–943. [Crossref] 7. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology 2020,
  2. Benson AB, D'Angelica MI, Abbott DE et al. Guidelines Insights: Hepatobiliary Cancers, Version 2.2019. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019;17:302–310. 8. Heimbach JK, Kulik LM, Finn RS, et al. AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2018; 67:358–380. [Crossref] 9. EASL 2018 European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2018; 69:182–236. 10. Gordan JD, Kennedy EB, Abou-Alfa GK, et al. Systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: ASCO guideline. J Clin Oncol 2020; 38:4317–4345. [Crossref] 11. Heimbach JK, Kulik LM, Finn RS, et al. AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2018; 67:358–380. [Crossref] 12. Song JE, Kim DY. Conventional vs drug-eluting beads transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Hepatol 2017; 9:808–814. [Crossref] 13. Cappelli A, Pettinato C, Golfieri R. Transarterial radioembolization using yttrium-90 microspheres in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a review on clinical utility and developments. J Hepatocell Carcinoma 2014; 1:163–182. [Crossref] 14. Salem R, Lewandowski RJ, Kulik L, et al. Radioembolization results in longer time-to-progression and reduced toxicity compared with chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2011; 140:497–507. [Crossref] 15. Casadei Gardini A, Tamburini E, Iñarrairaegui M, Frasinetti