Conventional transarterial chemoembolization vs microsphere embolization in hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis

Figure 1 Flow chart of search strategy for study inclusion. c-TACE: Conventional transarterial chemoembolization; HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma.

Figure 2 Microsphere embolization (90Y or DEB) vs conventional transarterial chemoembolization for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in terms of overall survival rates. A: Meta-analysis of 1-year results; B: Meta-analysis of 2-year results; C: Meta-analysis of 3-year results. M-H: Mantel-Haenszel.

Figure 3 Microspheres embolization (90Y or DEB) vs conventional transarterial chemoembolization for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in terms of tumor response. A: Meta-analysis of complete response results; B: Meta-analysis of partial response results; C: Meta-analysis of stable disease results; D: Meta-analysis of progressive disease results.

Figure 4 Microsphere embolization (90Y or DEB) vs compare conventional transarterial chemoembolization for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in term of α-fetoprotein response.

Figure 5 Microsphere embolization (90Y or DEB) vs conventional transarterial chemoembolization for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in terms of tumor progression rate.

Figure 6 Microsphere embolization (90Y or DEB) vs conventional transarterial chemoembolization for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in terms of complications.

Figure 7 Funnel plots in this study. A: Funnel plot of 1-year overall survival rate; B: Funnel plot of 3-year recurrence-free survival rate; C: Funnel plot of tumor progression rate; D: Funnel plot of stable disease; E: Funnel plot of complications.