Comparison of efficacy and safety of conventional transarterial chemoembolization and drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization in unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

• The efficacy and safety of DEB-TACE and c-TACE in the treatment of patients with ICC remains controversial. • DEB-TACE was more effective than c-TACE with similar adverse effects before and after propensity score matching. • The research provided evidence for the selection of type of TACE in unresectable ICC patients. The efficacy and safety of drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE) and conventional TACE (c-TACE) in the treatment of patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) remained controversial. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety between c-TACE and DEB-TACE among patients with ICC. Between June 10, 2016 and November 19, 2022, consecutive patients with pathological diagnoses of ICC were divided into the DEB-TACE group and the c-TACE group based on the type of TACE treatment they received. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used to compare overall survival (OS) between the two groups. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the characteristics between the c-TACE group and the DEB-TACE group. A total of 132 patients were included in this study, with 64 patients in the c-TACE group and 68 patients in the DEB-TACE group. The median OS for c-TACE and DEB-TACE was 5 and 12 months, respectively. The objective response rate (ORR) for c-TACE and DEB-TACE was 0 % and 66.2 %, respectively; the disease control rate (DCR) was 37.5 % and 91.2 %. There were no significant differences between c-TACE and DEB-TACE among adverse effects at 3 months after treatment (P > 0.05). The results remained consistent after PSM. The Cox regression demonstrated that the DEB-TACE was an independent protective factor for OS. Patients in the DEB-TACE group had longer OS and higher ORR and DCR than those in the c-TACE group, but no significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding adverse effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]