Transarterial radioembolization vs chemoembolization for hepatocarcinoma patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies

Ref.	Arm	Sample size	Recruitment period	Study design	Region	CP (A/B/C)	BCLC (A/B/C/D)	Quality
Ahmad et al[13]	Y90RE	24	1990-2003	R	United States	NA	NA	M
	TACE	52
Kooby et al[14]	Y90RE	27	1996-2006	R	United States	13/14/0	NA	H
	TACE	44				22/22/0
Carr et al[15]	Y90RE	99	1992-2005	R	United States	NA	NA	M
	TACE	691
Salem et al[16]	Y90RE	123	1999-2008	R	United States	67/54/2	43/65/13/2	H
	TACE	122				67/53/2	47/61/12/2
Lance et al[17]	Y90RE	38	2008-2010	R	United States	31/7/0	NA	H
	TACE	35				24/11/0
Moreno-Luna et al[18]	Y90RE	61	1998-2008	R	United States	53/8/0	12/35/14/0	H
	TACE	55				44/11/0	23/13/19/0
Pitton et al[19]	Y90RE	12	2010-2012	RCT	Germany	10/2/0	0/12/0/0	H
	TACE	12				9/3/0	1/11/0/0
El Fouly et al[20]	Y90RE	44	2009-2011	R	Egipt/Germany	37/7/0	NA	M
	TACE	42				33/9/0
Kolligs et al[21]	Y90RE	13	2009-2012	RCT	Germany/Spain	9/3/1	5/5/3/0	M
	TACE	15				9/4/2	4/8/3/0
Akinwande et al[22]	Y90RE	20	2007-2013	R	United States	7/11/2	0/0/20/0	M
	TACE	28				14/13/1	0/0/28/0

CP: Child-Pugh; BCLC: Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; Y90RE: Yttrium-90 radioembolization; TACE: Transarterial chemoembolization; R: Retrospective; RCT: Randomized controlled trial; NA: Not available; H: High; M: Moderate.

Table 2 Risk of bias assessment and quality of included studies

	Selection		Comparability		Outcome		Overall quality
Observational studies1
Ahmad et al[13]	++		+		++		5
Kooby et al[14]	+++		++		++		7
Carr et al[15]	++		++		++		6
Salem et al[16]	++++		++		+++		9
Lance et al[17]	+++		++		++		7
Moreno-Luna et al[18]	++++		++		+++		9
El Fouly et al[20]	++		+		+++		6
Akinwande et al[22]	++		+		++		5
Randomized controlled trials2
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Pitton et al[19]	L	L	L	U	L	L	L	H
Kolligs et al[21]	L	H	U	U	H	L	L	M

¹Study quality assessment performed by means of Newcastle/Ottawa scale (each asterisk represents if the respective criterion within the subsection was satisfied);

²Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias across 7 domains: (1) random sequence generation; (2) allocation concealment; (3) blinding of participants and personnel; (4) blinding of outcome assessment; (5) incomplete outcome data; (6) selective reporting; and (7) other bias. L: Low; H: High; U: Unclear; M: Moderate.

Table 3 Odds ratios and heterogeneity of 1-year, 2-year and 3-year survival rate

Survival estimate	No. of studies	No. of patients	OR (95%CI)	P-value	Heterogeneity
					I2	P
1-yr SR	9	1481	1.01 (0.78-1.31)	0.93	0%	0.71
2-yr SR	7	1382	1.43 (1.08-1.89)	0.01	0%	0.93
3-yr SR	5	1261	1.48 (1.03-2.13)	0.04	0%	0.44

SR: Survival rate; OR: Odds ratio.