Transarterial Chemoembolization Plus Thermal Ablation in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: The Phase 3 TORCH Randomized Clinical Trial
In brief
Adding radiofrequency ablation to TACE more than doubles median survival in unresectable HCC
In the phase 3 TORCH trial, patients receiving TACE followed by selective radiofrequency ablation lived a median of 88.6 months versus 35.1 months with TACE alone, and progression-free survival more than doubled (17.7 vs 7.3 months). Benefits were strongest in low-to-moderate tumor burden, with only a modest increase in severe adverse events, prompting consideration of sequential TACE-ablation as a new standard for liver-confined HCC.
- Journal
- JAMA Oncology (Q1)
- Published
- 1 September 2026
- Study design
- Narrative review / expert opinion
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
- Authors
- Ning Lyu, Jun-Zhe Yi, Xin-Tong Wu, Yi-Min Zhang, Tao Pan, Lu-Wen Mu, et al.
- PMID
- 42530948
- DOI
- 10.1001/jamaoncol.2026.2366
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Oncology and Radiation Oncology (top studies of the week, 2 August 2026): Phase III RCT, practice-changing for HCC locoregional therapy
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the standard of care for liver-confined hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that is not amenable to curative treatment; however, TACE has demonstrated unsatisfactory survival benefits. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether combining TACE with subsequent thermal ablation improves clinical outcomes compared with TACE alone in patients with liver-confined unresectable HCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The open-label, phase 3 TORCH randomized clinical trial was conducted from May 2015 to August 2024 at 2 tertiary medical centers in China. Patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B HCC were enrolled. The data cutoff was October 31, 2025. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either TACE combined with subsequent selective radiofrequency ablation (TACE-ablation) or TACE alone. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS), assessed per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), treatment response and PFS per modified RECIST, untreatable PFS, and safety. RESULTS: Among 241 patients included in the intention-to-treat population, 121 received TACE-ablation (median [IQR] age, 59.0 [51.0-66.0] years; 108 [89.3%] male), and 120 received TACE alone (mean [IQR] age, 58.0 [50.0-64.0]; 106 [88.3] male). The number of patients with 6-and-12 tumor burden scores of lower than 6, 6 to 12, and more than 12 points were 34 (28.1%), 79 (65.3%), and 8 (6.6%) in the TACE-ablation group and 31 (25.8%), 76 (63.3%), and 13 (10.8%) in the TACE alone group, respectively. At the data cutoff, the median PFS per RECIST, version 1.1, was 17.7 months (95% CI, 11.4-23.1 months) in the TACE-ablation group vs 7.3 months (95% CI, 6.4-10.4 months) in the TACE alone group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.65; P < .001). TACE-ablation also resulted in statistically significant prolonged untreatable PFS compared with TACE (35.1 months vs 12.3 months; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.27-0.58; P < .001). Median OS was 88.6 months (95% CI, 43.1 months to not estimable) with TACE-ablation and 35.1 months (95% CI, 25.4-45.5 months) with TACE alone (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.34-0.73; P < .001). Clinically meaningful improvements in both PFS and OS were observed in patients with low to moderate tumor burden scores (≤6 and 6-12 points). Grade 3 and 4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 23 patients (23.2%) in the TACE-ablation group and 24 (18.3%) in the TACE alone group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, TACE combined with subsequent thermal ablation demonstrated superior survival outcomes than TACE alone in patients with liver-confined unresectable HCC. Sequential TACE-ablation could serve as a feasible treatment option for such patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02435953.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.