TY - JOUR T1 - Hepatic resection versus transarterial chemoembolisation for intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma:a predicted mortality risk-based decision analysis JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2020.10.07.20166769 SP - 2020.10.07.20166769 AU - Siyu Chen AU - Linbin Lu AU - Xinyu Hu AU - Shan Lin AU - Lijun Zhu Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/09/21/2020.10.07.20166769.abstract N2 - Background The selection criterion for hepatic resection(HR) in intermediate-stage(IM) hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC) is still controversial. This study aims to compare transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) and HR in the range of predicted overall mortality(OM).Methods In all, 946 consecutive patients with IM-HCC were categorised in HR and TACE group. We performed multivariable Cox regression model to predict OM in HR patients. To evaluate the HR impact on OM concerning baseline characteristics, we test the interaction between predicted OM risk and HR status. The cut-off values were determined by two-piece-wise linear regression model and decision curve analysis. Also, the inverse probability of treatment weight was performed to minimise potential differences as a sensitivity analysis.Results Totally, 23.0% (n=225) of patients received HR. The 5-yr overall survival rate was higher in the HR group versus the TACE group (52.3% vs 22.8%; P<0.0001). In the HR group, five predictors (all<0.05) were selected to calculate the 5-yr OM risk. This model also used to predict the 5-yr OM-free survival rate. The line of HR and TACE was crossing with predicted OM risk at 100%. The benefit of HR versus TACE decreased progressively as predicted OM risk>55%. When OM risk >80%, HR was not significantly superior to TACE (HR:0.61;95%CI:0.31,1.21), and both HR and TACE did not increase net benefit.Conclusions Hepatic resection was superior to transarterial chemoembolisation for intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma at the 5-yr OM risk<80%.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementnoneAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study protocol (2017-FXY-129) was approved by the Ethics Committee of SYSUCCAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe raw data were freely obtained from the Dryad Digital Repository database (www.Datadryad.org; https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.pd44k8r). https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.pd44k8r ER -