This systematic review evaluates whether percutaneous hepatic perfusion is more effective and safer compared to best available care for patients with liver cancer.

One randomised controlled trial and one case series were included. Percutaneous hepatic perfusion might be more effective than best available care in terms of overall progression-free and hepatic progression-free survival. No evidence was identified regarding the quality of life, and overall survival did not improve due to percutaneous hepatic perfusion. Serious, well-recognised complications regarding safety were shown. Three of four deaths were attributed to percutaneous hepatic perfusion. Procedure-related complications were observed in the majority of patients, and many discontinued percutaneous hepatic perfusion.

The available evidence is insufficient and with too limited internal and external validity to demonstrate clinical benefits of percutaneous hepatic perfusion in patients with liver cancer compared to best available care.