Search

Background and aims: The existing evidence has indicated that hyperthermia ablation (HA) and HA combined with transarterial chemoembolization (HATACE) are the optimal alternative to surgical resection for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the COVID‐19 crisis. However, the evidence for decision‐making is lacking in terms of comparison between HA and HATACE. Herein, a comprehensive evaluation was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of HATACE with monotherapy. Materials and Methods: Worldwide studies were collected to evaluate the HATACE regimen for HCC due to the practical need for global extrapolation of applicative population. Meta‐analyses were performed using the RevMan 5.3 software (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Results: Thirty‐six studies involving a large sample of 5036 patients were included finally. Compared with HA alone, HATACE produced the advantage of 5‐year overall survival (OS) rate (OR:1.90; 95%CI:1.46,2.46; p < 0.05) without increasing toxicity (p ≥ 0.05). Compared with TACE alone, HATACE was associated with superior 5‐year OS rate (OR:3.54; 95%CI:1.96,6.37; p < 0.05) and significantly reduced the incidences of severe liver damage (OR:0.32; 95%CI:0.11,0.96; p < 0.05) and ascites (OR:0.42; 95%CI:0.20,0.88; p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis results of small (≤3 cm) HCC revealed that there were no significant differences between the HATACE group and HA monotherapy group in regard to the OS rates (p ≥ 0.05). Conclusions: Compared with TACE alone, HATACE was more effective and safe for HCC. Compared with HA alone, HATACE was more effective for non‐small‐sized (>3 cm) HCC with comparable safety. However, the survival benefit of adjuvant TACE in HATACE regimen was not found for the patients with small (≤3 cm) HCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A combination of programmed cell death protein‐1 (PD‐1)/programmed cell death ligand‐1 (PD‐L1) inhibitors and radiotherapy (RT) is increasingly being used to treat non‐small‐cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the safety and efficacy of this approach remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to summarize the related research. Methods: We searched the China Biology Medicine, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and PubMed databases for all the relevant studies. The Stata software, version 12.0 was used for the meta‐analysis. Results: The study included 20 clinical trials that enrolled 2027 patients with NSCLC. Compared with non‐combination therapy, combination therapy using PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors and RT was associated with prolonged overall survival (OS) (1‐year OS: odds ratio [OR] 1.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35–2.33, p = 0.000; 2‐year OS: OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.35–2.33, p = 0.000) and progression‐free survival (PFS) (0.5‐year PFS: OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.13–2.98, p = 0.014; 1‐year PFS: OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.29–3.38, p = 0.003; 2‐year PFS: OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.13–5.37, p = 0.023). Combination therapy also improved the objective response rate (OR 2.76, 95% CI 1.06–7.19, p = 0.038) and disease control rate (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.21–2.68, p = 0.004). This meta‐analysis showed that compared with non‐combination therapy, combination therapy using PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors and RT did not increase the serious adverse event rates (≥grade 3); however, this approach increased the rate of grade 1–2 immune‐related or radiation pneumonitis. Subgroup analyses revealed that the sequence of PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors followed RT outperformed in which concurrent PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitor and RT followed PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitor. Combination of stereotactic body RT or stereotactic radiosurgery with PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors may be more effective than a combination of conventional RT with PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors in patients with advanced NSCLC. Conclusion: Combination therapy using PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors and RT may improve OS, PFS, and tumor response rates without an increase in serious adverse events in patients with advanced NSCLC. However, combination therapy was shown to increase the incidence of mild pneumonitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Malignant melanomas (MMs) were the fifth most common cancer in men and the sixth most common cancer in women in 2018, respectively. These are characterized by high metastatic rates and poor prognoses. We systematically reviewed safety and efficacy of carbon‐ion radiotherapy (CIRT) for treating MMs. Eleven studies were eligible for review, and the data showed that MM patients showed better local control with low recurrence and mild toxicities after CIRT. Survival rates were slightly higher in patients with cutaneous or uveal MMs than in those with mucosal MMs. CIRT in combination with chemotherapy produced higher progression‐free survival rates than CIRT only. In younger patients, higher rates of distant metastases of gynecological MMs were observed. The data indicated that CIRT is effective and safe for treating MMs; however, a combination with systemic therapy is recommended to ensure the best possible prognosis for MMs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]