Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) versus hepatectomy in hepatocellular carcinoma with macrovascular invasion: a meta-analysis of 1683 patients.

For hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with macrovascular invasion (MaVI), hepatectomy and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) remain the main treatment options in Asia. However, which could achieve better survivals remains controversial. In present study, we conducted a meta-analysis to clarify the survival benefits and safety of hepatectomy versus TACE in HCC patients with MaVI. The PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases were searched for eligible studies. There were no prospective studies identified. 8 retrospective studies from Asia with 1683 patients met our inclusion criteria were included in meta-analysis. The overall survival (OS) is higher in hepatectomy group than TACE group (HR=1.61, 95%CI=1.23-2.10, =0.0005). Hepatectomy was superior over TACE in 1-year (OR=2.27, 95%CI=1.26-4.08, =0.006) and 3-year (OR=3.04, 95%CI=2.17-4.26, <0.00001) respectively, but not in 5-year (OR=7.34, 95%CI=0.78-68.16, =0.08) survival rate. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that hepatectomy was superior over TACE for patients with PVTT (HR=1.50, 95%CI=1.14-1.98, =0.004), but not for patients with HVTT/IVC (HR=2.39, 95%CI=0.88-6.49, =0.09). There was not significantly difference between two groups in peri-operative mortality. Our results indicated that, compared to TACE, hepatectomy might be a better treatment option for resectable HCC patients with MaVI. Being lack of high-quality studies, more well-designed multi-center randomized trials are needed to confirm our finding.