SynthesisCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2020
A systematic review and network meta-analysis of second-line therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma.
Synthesis in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of regorafenib in second-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Advancing Systemic Treatment beyond First Line for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Current oncology reports · 2026Review
- Combining Sorafenib and Immunosuppression in Liver Transplant Recipients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (hcc) following sorafenib failure, it is unclear which treatment is most efficacious, as treatments in the second-line setting have not been directly compared and no standard therapy exists. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (nma) aimed to compare the clinical benefits and toxicities of these treatments. Methods: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (rcts) was conducted to identify phase iii rcts in advanced hcc following sorafenib failure. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of placebo were examined for heterogeneity. Primary outcomes of interest were extracted for results, including overall survival (os), progression-free survival (pfs), objective response rate (orr), grade 3/4 toxicities, and subgroups. An nma was conducted to compare both drugs through the intermediate placebo. Comparisons were expressed as hazard ratios (hrs) for os and pfs, and as risk difference (rd) for orr and toxicities. Subgroup analyses for os and pfs were also performed. Results: Two rcts were identified (1280 patients) and compared through an indirect network; celestial (cabozantinib vs. placebo) and resorce (regorafenib vs. placebo). Baseline characteristics of patients in both trials were similar. Both trials also had similar placebo outcomes. Cabozantinib, compared with regorafenib, showed similar os [hazard ratio (hr): 1.21; 95% confidence interval (ci): 0.90 to 1.62], pfs (hr: 1.02; 95% ci: 0.78 to 1.34) and orr (-3.0%; 95% ci: -7.6% to 1.7%). Both treatments showed similar toxicities, but there were marginally higher risks of grade 3/4 hand-foot syndrome (5%; 95% ci: 0.1% to 9.8%), diarrhea (4.8%; 95% ci: 1.1% to 8.5%), and anorexia (4.4%; 95% ci: 0.8% to 8.0%) for cabozantinib. Subgroup results for os and pfs were consistent with overall results. Conclusions: Overall, this nma determined that cabozantinib and regorafenib have similar clinical benefits and toxicities for second-line hcc.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.