How to prophylactically alleviate postembolization syndrome following transarterial chemoembolization?: Protocol of a double blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Are Published Cancer Care Trial Protocols With Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions Concordant With SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018? A Scoping Review on Published Trial Protocols Between 2019 and 2022

BACKGROUND

The SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018 was created to guide the design and reporting of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) clinical trial protocols. This study aims to investigate the extent of concordance with this guideline in the relevant field of cancer care research.

METHODS

A scoping review of TCM cancer trial protocols published in English and Chinese since January 2019 was conducted. Five major academic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) were searched. Concordance with the SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018 was assessed by descriptive analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-three TCM cancer care trial protocols were identified, comprising 23 acupuncture, 26 Chinese herbal medicine (CHM), and 4 Tai Chi/Qigong (TCQ) interventions. The majority of the checklist items had a low rate of concordance, especially in the reporting of quality control and safety, dosage, TCM diagnostic patterns, possible interactions between Western Medicine and TCM interventions, and TCM-related outcome assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018 guideline was established through extensive Delphi consultation, there are low rates of concordance between published TCM cancer care clinical trial protocols with the guideline. Further research is necessary to understand the low rate of concordance and how scientific rigors of reporting can be improved in TCM cancer care research.

Recent Advances in Locoregional Therapy of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is responsible for 90% of primary hepatic cancer cases, and its incidence with associated morbidity and mortality is growing worldwide. In recent decades, there has been a revolution in HCC treatment. There are three main types of locoregional therapy: radiofrequency ablation, transarterial chemoembolisation, and transarterial radioembolisation. This article summarises recent advances in locoregional methods.

Creating and Testing a Model to Predict Postoperative Discomfort in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Receiving Transarterial Chemoembolisation

Background: Abdominal pain is a frequent adverse event in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE). However, there remains uncertainty regarding the determinants of post-TACE pain. Objectives: We aimed to create and verify a prediction model for postoperative pain in patients with HCC after TACE treatment. Methods: This prospective study included all patients with HCC undergoing TACE in our hospital. According to the time of treatment, the dataset was divided into two cohorts (development and validation) in a 3: 2 ratio. After TACE, the participants used a visual analog scale to quantify their pain level at rest over a 24-hour period. The age, gender, tumor location, tumor size and number, medication administration route, and presence of portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) were recorded in all patients. Results: In total, 137 (mean age: 60.3 ± 10.1 years; 78.1% male) and 91 (mean age: 61.1 ± 10.5 years; 73.6% male) patients were included in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Furthermore, 46.0% and 39.6% of the patients experienced acute moderate to severe pain after TACE in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. The tumor location, the drug delivery method, and the presence of PVTT were independently associated with post-TACE pain, all of which were combined to develop a prediction model based on a logistic equation. The discrimination of this risk score was satisfactory in both the development (area under the curve (AUC): 0.693, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.609 to 0.769, P < 0.001) and validation (AUC: 0.652, 95% CI: 0.544 to 0.748, P = 0.002) cohorts. There was no significant difference between the two cohorts (difference: 0.042, 95% CI: -0.081 to 0.164, P = 0.506). The risk score had good specificity for predicting post-TACE pain in both the development (83.8% (95% CI: 73.4% to 91.3%)) and validation (76.4% (95% CI: 63.0% to 86.8%)) cohorts. Conclusions: The presence of PVTT, the tumor location, and the drug administration method were risk factors for post-TACE discomfort. A prediction model based on these risk factors was useful for identifying patients who were vulnerable to post-TACE pain. However, further studies are required to validate these findings and optimize the model’s performance.