Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Department of Hygiene and Dietetics, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland.
2nd Department of General Surgery, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Aug 9;8(8):CD012757. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012757.pub2.
The liver is affected by two groups of malignant tumours: primary liver cancers and liver metastases. Liver metastases are significantly more common than primary liver cancer, and five-year survival after radical surgical treatment of liver metastases ranges from 28% to 50%, depending on primary cancer site. However, R0 resection (resection for cure) is not feasible in most people; therefore, other treatments have to be considered in the case of non-resectability. One possible option is based on the concept that the blood supply to hepatic tumours originates predominantly from the hepatic artery. Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) of the peripheral branches of the hepatic artery can be achieved by administering a chemotherapeutic drug followed by vascular occlusive agents and can lead to selective necrosis of the cancer tissue while leaving normal liver parenchyma virtually unaffected. The entire procedure can be performed without infusion of chemotherapy and is then called bland transarterial embolisation (TAE). These procedures are usually applied over a few sessions. Another possible treatment option is systemic chemotherapy which, in the case of colorectal cancer metastases, is most commonly performed using FOLFOX (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) and FOLFIRI (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan) regimens applied in multiple sessions over a long period of time. These therapies disrupt the cell cycle, leading to death of rapidly dividing malignant cells. Current guidelines determine the role of TAE and TACE as non-curative treatment options applicable in people with liver-only or liver-dominant metastatic disease that is unresectable or non-ablatable, and in people who have failed systemic chemotherapy. Regarding the treatment modalities in people with colorectal cancer liver metastases, we found no systematic reviews comparing the efficacy of TAE or TACE versus systemic chemotherapy.
To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of transarterial embolisation (TAE) or transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) compared with systemic chemotherapy in people with liver-dominant unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases.
We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and three additional databases up to 4 April 2024. We also searched two trials registers and the European Medicines Agency database and checked reference lists of retrieved publications.
We included randomised clinical trials assessing beneficial and harmful effects of TAE or TACE versus systemic chemotherapy in adults (aged 18 years or older) with colorectal cancer liver metastases.
We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality; overall survival (time to mortality); and any adverse events or complications. Our secondary outcomes were cancer mortality; health-related quality of life; progression-free survival; proportion of participants dying or surviving with progression of the disease; time to progression of liver metastases; recurrence of liver metastases; and tumour response measures (complete response, partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease). For the purpose of the review and to perform necessary analyses, whenever possible, we converted survival rates to mortality rates, as this was our primary outcome. For the analysis of dichotomous outcomes, we used the risk ratio (RR); for continuous outcomes, we used the mean difference; and for time to event outcomes, we calculated hazard ratios (HRs), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the standardised mean difference with 95% CIs when the trials used different instruments. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. We based our conclusions on outcomes analysed at the longest follow-up.
We included three trials with 118 participants randomised to TACE versus 120 participants to systemic chemotherapy. Four participants were excluded; one due to disease progression prior to treatment and three due to decline in health. The trials reported data on one or more outcomes. Two trials were performed in China and one in Italy. The trials differed in terms of embolisation techniques and chemotherapeutic agents. Follow-up ranged from 12 months to 50 months. TACE may reduce mortality at longest follow-up (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94; 3 trials, 234 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. TACE may have little to no effect on overall survival (time to mortality) (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.01; 1 trial, 70 participants; very low-certainty evidence), any adverse events or complications (3 trials, 234 participants; very low-certainty evidence), health-related quality of life (2 trials, 154 participants; very low-certainty evidence), progression-free survival (1 trial, 70 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and tumour response measures (presented as the overall response rate) (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.96; 3 trials, 234 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. No trials reported cancer mortality, proportion of participants dying or surviving with progression of the disease, and recurrence of liver metastases. We found no trials comparing the effects of TAE versus systemic chemotherapy in people with colorectal cancer liver metastases.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence regarding effectiveness of TACE versus systemic chemotherapy in people with colorectal cancer liver metastases is of very low certainty and is based on three trials. Our confidence in the results is limited due to the risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision. It is very uncertain whether TACE confers benefits with regard to reduction in mortality, overall survival (time to mortality), reduction in adverse events or complications, improvement in health-related quality of life, improvement in progression-free survival, and tumour response measures (presented as the overall response rate). Data on cancer mortality, proportion of participants dying or surviving with progression of the disease, and recurrence of liver metastases are lacking. We found no trials assessing TAE versus systemic chemotherapy. More randomised clinical trials are needed to strengthen the body of evidence and provide insight into the benefits and harms of TACE or TAE in comparison with systemic chemotherapy in people with liver metastases from colorectal cancer.
肝脏受两组恶性肿瘤影响:原发性肝癌和肝转移瘤。肝转移瘤比原发性肝癌更为常见,根治性手术治疗肝转移瘤的 5 年生存率为 28%至 50%,取决于原发癌的部位。然而,大多数人无法进行 R0 切除术(治愈性切除);因此,对于不可切除的患者,需要考虑其他治疗方法。一种可能的选择是基于这样一种概念,即肝肿瘤的血液供应主要来自肝动脉。肝动脉外周分支的经动脉化疗栓塞(TACE)可以通过给予化疗药物,然后给予血管闭塞剂来实现,可以导致癌组织的选择性坏死,而正常肝实质几乎不受影响。整个过程可以在不输注化疗药物的情况下进行,然后称为单纯经动脉栓塞(TAE)。这些程序通常进行几次。另一种可能的治疗选择是全身化疗,对于结直肠癌转移,最常用的是 FOLFOX(亚叶酸、5-氟尿嘧啶和奥沙利铂)和 FOLFIRI(亚叶酸、5-氟尿嘧啶和伊立替康)方案,在很长一段时间内进行多次输注。这些疗法扰乱了细胞周期,导致快速分裂的恶性细胞死亡。目前的指南确定 TAE 和 TACE 作为不可治愈的治疗选择,适用于不可切除或不可消融的仅肝或肝优势转移性疾病以及全身化疗失败的患者。关于结直肠癌肝转移患者的治疗方式,我们没有发现系统评价比较 TAE 或 TACE 与全身化疗的疗效。
评估经动脉栓塞(TAE)或经动脉化疗栓塞(TACE)与全身化疗相比在治疗不可切除的结直肠癌肝转移患者肝优势疾病中的有益和有害影响。
我们检索了 Cochrane 肝胆组对照试验注册库、CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase 和另外三个数据库,检索截止日期为 2024 年 4 月 4 日。我们还检索了两个试验注册库和欧洲药品管理局数据库,并检查了检索出版物的参考文献列表。
我们纳入了评估 TAE 或 TACE 与全身化疗在成人(18 岁或以上)结直肠癌肝转移患者中的有益和有害影响的随机临床试验。
我们使用了标准的 Cochrane 方法。我们的主要结局是全因死亡率;总生存时间(至死亡时间);以及任何不良事件或并发症。我们的次要结局是癌症死亡率;健康相关生活质量;无进展生存期;疾病进展或死亡的患者比例;肝转移进展时间;肝转移复发;以及肿瘤反应测量(完全缓解、部分缓解、稳定疾病和进展性疾病)。为了进行综述和进行必要的分析,只要可能,我们将生存率转换为死亡率,因为这是我们的主要结局。对于二分类结局,我们使用风险比(RR);对于连续结局,我们使用均数差;对于时间至事件结局,我们计算了危险比(HR),均使用 95%置信区间(CI)。我们使用标准化均数差和 95%CI 来处理试验使用不同工具的情况。我们使用 GRADE 来评估每个结局的证据确定性。我们基于最长随访时间分析的结局得出结论。
我们纳入了三项试验,共 118 名患者被随机分配至 TACE 组,120 名患者被分配至全身化疗组。有 4 名患者被排除;1 名因治疗前疾病进展,3 名因健康状况恶化。试验报告了一项或多项结局的数据。两项试验在中国进行,一项在意大利进行。试验在栓塞技术和化疗药物方面存在差异。随访时间从 12 个月到 50 个月不等。TACE 可能在最长随访时间降低死亡率(RR 0.86,95%CI 0.79 至 0.94;3 项试验,234 名参与者;极低确定性证据),但证据非常不确定。TACE 可能对总生存时间(至死亡时间)(HR 0.61,95%CI 0.37 至 1.01;1 项试验,70 名参与者;极低确定性证据)、任何不良事件或并发症(3 项试验,234 名参与者;极低确定性证据)、健康相关生活质量(2 项试验,154 名参与者;极低确定性证据)、无进展生存期(1 项试验,70 名参与者;极低确定性证据)和肿瘤反应测量(呈现为总反应率)(RR 1.81,95%CI 1.11 至 2.96;3 项试验,234 名参与者;极低确定性证据)几乎没有影响,但证据非常不确定。没有试验报告癌症死亡率、疾病进展或死亡的患者比例,以及肝转移的复发。我们没有发现比较 TAE 与全身化疗在结直肠癌肝转移患者中的效果的试验。
关于 TACE 与全身化疗在结直肠癌肝转移患者中的有效性的证据确定性非常低,仅基于三项试验。由于偏倚风险、不一致性、间接性和不精确性,我们对结果的信心有限。非常不确定 TACE 是否能带来益处,包括降低死亡率、总生存时间(至死亡时间)、减少不良事件或并发症、改善健康相关生活质量、改善无进展生存期以及肿瘤反应测量(呈现为总反应率)。缺乏癌症死亡率、疾病进展或死亡的患者比例以及肝转移复发的数据。我们没有发现评估 TAE 与全身化疗的试验。需要更多的随机临床试验来加强证据基础,并深入了解 TACE 或 TAE 与全身化疗在结直肠癌肝转移患者中的益处和危害。