Radiofrequency ablation with or without transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 2 Stratified analysis of the pooled associations for overall survival and radiofrequency ablation rates comparing transarterial chemoembolization/radiofrequency ablation with radiofrequency ablation alone

Outcome	Potential modifiers		No. of studies	No. of events/patients		Heterogeneity test	RR (95%CI)
				RFA + TACE	RFA
1-yr OS rate	Tumor size, cm	< 3	1	65/69	59/70	NA	1.12 (0.99, 1.26)
		3–5	3	121/128	109/128	I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.66	1.11 (1.02, 1.21)1
		> 5	3	57/68	30/46	I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.80	1.28 (1.02, 1.61)1
	Study location	China	5	208/227	171/208	I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.77	1.12 (1.04, 1.20)1
		Japan	2	35/38	27/36	I2 = 11.2%, P = 0.29	1.17 (0.96, 1.43)
3-yr OS rate	Tumor size, cm	< 3	2	87/115	69/113	I2 = 83.2%, P = 0.02	1.21 (0.79, 1.83)
		3–5	2	81/113	70/113	I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.68	1.17 (0.99, 1.39)1
		> 5	2	18/37	9/34	I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.66	1.77 (0.95, 3.31)
	Study location	China	3	122/181	95/181	I2 = 18.7%, P = 0.29	1.29 (1.05, 1.58)1
		Japan	3	64/84	53/79	I2 = 33.4%, P = 0.22	1.12 (0.90, 1.39)
1-yr	Tumor size, cm	< 3	3	102/125	88/123	I2 = 10.7%, P = 0.33	1.11 (0.96, 1.28)
RFS rate		3–5	2	88/113	68/113	I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.83	1.30 (1.09, 1.55)1
		> 5	1	11/18	5/16	NA	1.96 (0.87, 4.42)
	Study location	China	3	141/181	108/181	I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.55	1.29 (1.12, 1.49)1
		Japan	3	60/75	53/71	I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.70	1.04 (0.89, 1.23)
3-year	Tumor size, cm	< 3	3	67/128	47/123	I2 = 84.3%, P < 0.01	1.45 (0.59, 3.54)
RFS rate		3–5	1	63/94	42/95	NA	1.52 (1.16, 1.98)1
		> 5	2	34/49	11/28	I2 = 51.0%, P = 0.15	1.56 (0.70, 3.47)
	Study location	China	4	128/212	66/193	I2 = 41.2%, P = 0.16	1.63 (1.19, 2.24)1
		Japan	2	36/59	34/53	I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.52	0.90 (0.71, 1.19)

¹Denotes significant or marginally significant. TACE: Transarterial chemoembolization; RFA: Radiofrequency ablation.