Re-evaluating Transarterial Chemoembolization Failure/Refractoriness: A Survey by Chinese College of Interventionalists

Background and Aims The recognition of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) failure/refractoriness among Chinese clinicians remains unclear. Using an online survey conducted by the Chinese College of Interventionalists (CCI), the aim of this study was to explore the recognition of TACE failure/refractoriness and review TACE application for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment in clinical practice. Methods From 27 August 2020 to 30 August 2020 during the CCI 2020 annual meeting, a survey with 34 questions was sent by email to 264 CCI clinicians in China with more than 10 years of experience using TACE for HCC treatment. Results A total of 257 clinicians participated and responded to the survey. Most participants agreed that the concept of “TACE failure/refractoriness” has scientific and clinical significance (n=191, 74.3%). Nearly half of these participants chose TACE-based combination treatment as subsequent therapy after so-called TACE failure/refractoriness (n=88, 46.1%). None of the existing TACE failure/refractoriness definitions were widely accepted by the participants; thus, it is necessary to re-define this concept for the treatment of HCC in China (n=235, 91.4%). Most participants agreed that continuing TACE should be performed for patients with preserved liver function, presenting portal vein tumor thrombosis (n=242, 94.2%) or extrahepatic spread (n=253, 98.4%), after the previous TACE treatment to control intrahepatic lesion(s). Conclusions There is an obvious difference in the recognition of TACE failure/refractoriness among Chinese clinicians based on existing definitions. Further work should be carried out to re-define TACE failure/refractoriness.