Crossmark

Conventional vs. DEB vs. DSM: Which technique for palliative TACE in intermediate-stage HCC? Results on 70 patients in terms of efficacy and tolerance

Crossref DOI link: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-025-02069-w

Published Online: 2025-08-06

Update policy: https://doi.org/10.1007/springer_crossmark_policy

Authors

Giurazza, Francesco https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9080-8833
Carrubba, Claudio

Punzi, Ernesto

Tortora, Raffaella

Guarracino, Marco

Brangi, Fiorella

Falaschi, Federica

Migliaccio, Carla

Corvino, Fabio

Vennarecci, Giovanni

Di Costanzo, Giuseppe Giovanni

Lombardi, Giulio

Niola, Raffaella
License Information

Text and Data Mining valid from 2025-08-06

Version of Record valid from 2025-08-06
More Information

Article History

Received: 9 April 2025

Accepted: 16 July 2025

First Online: 6 August 2025

Declarations

:

: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

: All patients gave written informed consent to participate in the study and data analysis; all written consents are available in the archives of Vascular and Interventional Radiology Dept of Cardarelli Hospital of Naples.

: All patients gave written informed consent for data publication.

: The study adhered to the principles of the Declarations of Helsinki and Istanbul. The study was approved by the ethical review board (DEL:233/2024) considering its prospective design.

: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

: Informed consent was obtained from all patients included in the study, if clinical conditions allowed.

Document is current

Any future updates will be listed below