Skip to main content
. 2022 Aug 11;11(16):4696. doi: 10.3390/jcm11164696

Table 1.

Included Studies, Study Characteristics, and Cancer Patient numbers.

Author, Year Patient Numbers Study Characteristics
Awad et al., 2020 [9] 14 CP/111 MTs * (12.6% **) MT files, mortality predictors study, any history of cancer
Cho et al., 2020 [10] 27 CP/378 MTs (7.2%) MT files, active CP vs. NCP *3
Ciolli et al., 2021 [11] 14 CP/305 MTs (4.5%) MT files, active CP vs. NCP (+/− history of cancer)
Jeon et al., 2021 [19] 62 CRS MT files, MT technique comparison in CRS
Joshi et al., 2022 [6] 19 CP/95 matched NCP MT files, 1:5 propensity-matched analysis
Jung et al., 2018 [12] 19 CRS/329 MTs (5.7%) MT files, CRS vs. non-CRS
Lee et al., 2019 [13] 26 CP/253 MTs (10.2%) MT files, active CP vs. NCP, history of cancer excluded
Lee et al., 2021 [14] 34 CRS/341 MTs (9.9%) MT files, CRS vs. non-CRS
Mattingly et al., 2022 [8] 25 CP/284 MTs (8.8%) MT files, active CP vs. NCP
Merlino et al., 2021 [15] 21 CP *4/173 MTs (12.1%) MT files, active CP vs. NCP vs. remote CP
Murthy et al., 2013 [20] 193CP/6766 IVT+MTs (2.8%) IVT files, ICD codes, IVT+MT, active CP vs. NCP
Oki et al., 2020 [7] 12 CP/124 MTs (9.6%) MT files, active CP vs. NCP
Ozaki et al., 2021 [16] 19 CP/300 MTs (6.3%) MT files, active CP vs. NCP
Pana et al., 2021 [21] 1330 CP/34,420 MTs (3.8%) IS files, ICD codes, active CP +/− metastasis vs. NCP
Rinaldo et al., 2019 [22] 857 CP/17,268 MTs (4.9%) IS files, ICD codes, active CP vs. NCP
Sallustio et al., 2019 [17] 24 CP/24 matched NCP MT files, 1:1 matched analysis
Verschoof et al., 2022 [23] 124 CP/2583 MTs (4.8%) MR CLEAN Registry, active CP vs. NCP
Yoo et al., 2021 [18] 42 CP *4/685 MTs (6.1%) MT files, active CP vs. NCP vs. remote CP

* MTs: all MT patients. ** Data was available for 111 out of 134 MTs, a percentage possibly not representative of the CP fraction. *3 Non-cancer patients. *4 Only patients with active cancer.