©Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2026.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Feb 27, 2026; 18(2): 114378
Published online Feb 27, 2026. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v18.i2.114378
Published online Feb 27, 2026. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v18.i2.114378
Table 2 Comparative therapeutic outcomes, n (%)
| Response | Synchronous group (n = 56) | Sequential group (n = 50) | χ2 | P value |
| CR | 23 (41.07) | 17 (34.00) | ||
| PR | 21 (37.50) | 19 (38.00) | ||
| SD | 6 (10.71) | 8 (16.00) | ||
| PD | 6 (10.71) | 6 (12.00) | ||
| ORR | 44 (78.57) | 36 (72.00) | 0.616 | 0.433 |
| DCR | 50 (89.29) | 44 (88.00) | 0.043 | 0.835 |
- Citation: Yu Y, Yuan W, Lei J, Zhao CB, Tao CG, Liu SH, Wang BL. Synchronous vs sequential combination of transarterial chemoembolization and microwave ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma: Efficacy and prognosis. World J Gastrointest Surg 2026; 18(2): 114378
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v18/i2/114378.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v18.i2.114378