. 2024 Dec 10;13(23):e70196. doi: 10.1002/cam4.70196

TABLE 3.

Outcomes.

Reference, year	Median FU, months (range)	Median OS, months, (range)	1‐y OS (%)	2‐y OS (%)	3‐ y OS (%)	5‐y OS (%)	Median PFS months, (range)	1‐y PFS (%)	2‐y PFS (%)	Tumor Response/Local Control (%)	Acute Toxicity G≥3, % (scale)	Findings
Laughlin et al, 2022 ²⁷	9.0 ^a	NR	NR	NR	16.0	0.0	NR	NR	NR	LP 17.0 DP 38.0	NRS (CTCAE 5.0)	Improved OS after nCRT + OLT compared to dCRT or aCRT
Koh et al, 2021 ²⁸	13.0 (2.0–119.0) ^a	16.0 (13.0–19.0) ^a	66.0	NR	NR	NR	9.0 (7.0–11.0) ^a	37.0	NR	1‐y FFLP 70.0	HAE 1.6 (CTCAE 4.0)	Improved OS and PFS after CRT (compared to RT) or with BED >59.0 GY
Jethwa et al, 2020 ¹⁰	13.0 (6.0–29.0)	12.0 (2.3–73.2)	NR	33.0	20.0	7.0	9.0 (1.7–73.2)	NR	21.0	2‐ y LP 27.0 2‐y DM 33.0	GI 13.0 (CTCAE 4.0)	Improved OS and PFS with BED >59.5 Gy
Hung et al, 2020 ¹¹	16.0 (3.0–36.0)	20.6	83.0 ^a	32.0 ^a	NR	NR	12.1	47.0 ^a	NR	1‐y LC 88.0 1‐y DMF 68.0	GI 10.0 HAE 21.7 (CTCAE 4.0)	Improved OS, PFS, LC, and DMF after CRT compared to RT alone
Sebastian et al, 2019 ²⁹	17.0 ^a	14.0 (11.0–20.0)	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	Improved OS after SBRT compared to CRT or TARE
Bisello et al, 2018 ⁸	NR	13.5	60.1	24.4	NR	NR	10.5	44.1	9.9	NR	GI 13.2 HAE 8.1 (RTOG)	Improved PFS after 2D‐CRT compared to 3D‐CRT
Verma et al, 2018 ³¹	10.0 (0–114.0) ^a	13.6 (12.3–15.7)	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	Improved OS after CRT compared to CHT
Verma et al, 2017 ³⁰	9.0 (0.0–123.0) ^a	12.9 (11.0–14.7)	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	Improved OS after CRT compared to CHT
Kim et al, 2017 ¹⁵	14.2 (2.4–114.6) ^a	18.4 (4.4–114.6) ^a	62.6 ^a	52.1	NR	NR	15.5 (1.6–114.6) ^a	56.3 ^a	53.3	NR	(CTCAE 4.03) NR	Improved PFS after CRT compared to RT
Jackson et al, 2016 ³²	11.3 (2.0–121.8) ^a	12.7	NR	25.8	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	Improved OS after CRT compared to CHT
Lee et al, 2016 ²¹	NR	9.6 (5.4–30.4)	NR	NR	NR	NR	6.8 (4.5–19.8)	NR	NR	PR 27.8 SD 72.2	GI 5.6 HAE 50.0 (NCI CTC 4.0)	/
Chen et al, 2015 ²²	9.4 (2.4–47.4) ^a	13.5 (9.4–17.7)	NR	NR	NR	NR	8.8 (5.2–10.7)	NR	NR	LP 62.0 DM 18.0 ^a	GI 8.8 HAE 17.4 ^a (NCI CTC 3.0)	Improved OS and PFS with CRT compared to RT alone
Phelip et al, 2014 ²³	27.9 (± 8.0) ^a	13.5 (7.8–22.6)	NR	NR	NR	NR	7.5 (2.8–12.5)	NR	NR	PD: 56.0	GI 11.8 HAE 23.0 (NCI‐CTC 2.0)	Similar PFS and OS after CRT or CHT
Moureau‐Zabotto et al, 2013 ¹⁴	12.0 (1.0–83.0) ^a	NRS	66.7 ± 11.1	NRS	NR	NR	NRS	44.4 ± 11.7	NRS	NRS	GI 22.0 Systemic 15.0 (NCI CTC 3.0) ^b	Similar OS after CRT compared to RT
Yoshioka et al, 2014 ²⁵	NR	15.0 (12.0–17.0)	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	Improved OS after surgery plus RT/CHT compared to CRT/CHT
Yi et al, 2014 ²⁶	NR	10.5 (2.1–80.0) ^c	36.8	NR	NR	1.9	7.5 (5.7–9.2) ^c	NR	NR	PR 19.8 SD 69.8 PD 10.4	GI 9.4 HAE 21.7 (NCI CTC 3.0)	Improved OS after CRT compared to BSC
Habermehl et al, 2012 ²⁴	13.0	13.6 (4.0–34.8)	NR	NR	NR	NR	3.1 (2.3–24.8)	NR	NR	NR	NRS	Improved OS after surgery plus CRT compared to CRT and RT
Median	13.0	13.5	63.1	29.4	18.0	1.9	8.2	44.1	21.0		GI 10.9 HAE 21.7

BED biological equivalent dose; BSC best supportive care, CHT chemotherapy, CI confidence interval, CR complete response, CRT chemoradiation, DFS disease free survival, DM distant metastasis, DMF distant metastasis free; FFLP freedom from Local Progression; FU follow‐up, GI gastrointestinal, HAE hematological, HR hazard ratio, LP local Progression, NCI CTC National Cancer Institute–Common Toxicity Criteria, NR not reported, NRS not reported separately, OLT orthotopic liver transplant, OS overall survival, PD progressive disease, PFS progression‐free survival, PR partial response, RECIST Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, RT radiotherapy, RTOG Radiation Therapy Oncology Group, SD stable disease, TARE trans‐arterial radioembolization.

^{^a}

Related to the whole population included in the analysis, therefore not included in the final calculation of the median;

^{^b}

Pain, fever, asthenia.

^{^c}

Median OS and PFS are express in weeks in the original paper (median OS 42.6 (8.3–320.1), median PFS 29.9 (22.9–36.8)).