## 3 Results
### Overall Survival and Mean Absorbed Doses  
The Kaplan-Meier curves of overall survival according to the tumor type for the entire cohort of patients are reported in Figure 4a. The HCC, CCC or mixed HCC/CCC showed similar OS while metastases (i.e., \"mets\" in Figure 4a) were statistically significantly different; thus, they were excluded for the subsequent analysis. The remaining patients were grouped together and will be referred to as HCC/CCC patients. The Kaplan-Meier curves for the HCC/CCC patients are reported in Figure 4b-d according to the pre-TARE tumor mean absorbed dose for (a) manual, and post-TARE tumor mean absorbed dose with (b) rigid and (c) deformable registration approaches. Higher mean absorbed doses were statistically significantly associated to good prognosis irrespective of tumor type except for metastatic patients.  
The best cutoffs of D\({}_{\text{T,m}}\), D\({}_{\text{T,r}}\) and D\({}_{\text{T,d}}\) were 110, 90 and 85 Gy, respectively. Confusion matrices (Figure 5) for HCC/CCC patients (having a similar survival) revealed that the mislabeled rates were 13%, 16% and 7% using each specific cutoff for the following comparison groups: D\({}_{\text{T,m}}\) vs. D\({}_{\text{T,r}}\), D\({}_{\text{T,m}}\) vs. D\({}_{\text{T,d}}\), D\({}_{\text{T,r}}\) vs. D\({}_{\text{T,d}}\), respectively. Accordingly, for the same comparison groups, the concordance of values above/below the specific group cutoff was 87%, 84% and 93%, respectively. This means that a pre-treatment dose higher than 110 Gy is a good predictor of a post-treatment dose higher than 90 Gy and 85 Gy for  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Var.1** & **Var.2** & **ICC §** & **Pearson §** & **CCCo (95\% CI)** \\ \hline D\({}_{\text{T,r}}\) & D\({}_{\text{T,d}}\). & 0.875 & 0.908 & 0.875 (0.826; 0.911) \\ D\({}_{\text{T,m}}\) & D\({}_{\text{T,r}}\) & 0.590 & 0.707 & 0.605 (0.491; 0.699) \\ D\({}_{\text{T,m}}\) & D\({}_{\text{T,d}}\) & 0.486 & 0.721 & 0.524 (0.418; 0.617) \\ V\({}_{\text{T,r}}\) & V\({}_{\text{T,d}}\) & 0.990 & 0.995 & 0.990 (0.986; 0.993) \\ V\({}_{\text{T,m}}\) & V\({}_{\text{T,r}}\) & 1.000 & 1.000 & 1.000 (1.000; 1.000) \\ V\({}_{\text{T,m}}\) & V\({}_{\text{T,d}}\) & 0.990 & 0.995 & 0.990 (0.986; 0.992) \\ D\({}_{\text{NTL,r}}\) & D\({}_{\text{NTL,d}}\). & 0.869 & 0.876 & 0.790 (0.713; 0.846) \\ D\({}_{\text{NTL,m}}\) & D\({}_{\text{NTL,r}}\) & 0.820 & 0.843 & 0.821 (0.748; 0.873) \\ D\({}_{\text{NTL,m}}\) & D\({}_{\text{NTL,d}}\) & 0.787 & 0.842 & 0.789 (0.713; 0.846) \\ V\({}_{\text{NTL,r}}\) & V\({}_{\text{NTL,d}}\) & 0.927 & 0.940 & 0.927 (0.894; 0.950) \\ V\({}_{\text{NTL,m}}\) & V\({}_{\text{NTL,r}}\) & 0.996 & 0.996 & 0.996 (0.994; 0.997) \\ V\({}_{\text{NTL,m}}\) & V\({}_{\text{NTL,d}}\) & 0.929 & 0.944 & 0.929 (0.897; 0.951) \\ D\({}_{\text{L,r}}\) & D\({}_{\text{L,d}}\). & 0.930 & 0.931 & 0.929 (0.897; 0.952) \\ D\({}_{\text{L,m}}\) & D\({}_{\text{L,r}}\) & 0.860 & 0.907 & 0.862 (0.807; 0.903) \\ D\({}_{\text{L,m}}\) & D\({}_{\text{L,d}}\) & 0.859 & 0.925 & 0.863 (0.810; 0.902) \\ V\({}_{\text{L,r}}\) & V\({}_{\text{L,d}}\) & 0.959 & 0.971 & 0.959 (0.941; 0.972) \\ V\({}_{\text{L,m}}\) & V\({}_{\text{L,r}}\) & 0.998 & 0.998 & 0.998 (0.997; 0.999) \\ V\({}_{\text{L,m}}\) & V\({}_{\text{L,d}}\) & 0.957 & 0.971 & 0.957 (0.938-0.971) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: ICC of volumes and mean absorbed doses vs. the methods of VOI delineation and propagation. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals (CI) of CCCo are reported. §8 All values were statistically significant (\(p<0.001\)).  
the rigid and deformable registration, respectively; thus, a pre-treatment dose higher than 110 Gy can be used to predict higher survival.  
Figure 3: [PERSON]–[PERSON] plots for tumor (i.e., panels (**a**,**b**)), whole liver (i.e., panels (**c**,**d**)) and NTL (i.e., panels (**e**,**f**)) mean absorbed doses according to the contouring approach.