Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33977088›Full record

ArticleLiver cancer2021

What Can Be Done to Solve the Unmet Clinical Need of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients following Lenvatinib Failure?

Atsushi Hiraoka, Takashi Kumada, Toshifumi Tada, Kazuya Kariyama, Joji Tani, Shinya Fukunishi, Masanori Atsukawa, Masashi Hirooka, Kunihiko Tsuji, Toru Ishikawa and 23 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Liver cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

33 authors.

Atsushi HiraokaGastroenterology Center, Ehime Prefectural Central Hospital, Ehime, Japan.
Takashi KumadaDepartment of Nursing, Gifu Kyoritsu University, Ogaki, Japan.
Toshifumi TadaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Himeji Red Cross Hospital, Hyogo, Japan.
Kazuya KariyamaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Okayama City Hospital, Okayama, Japan.
Joji TaniDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kagawa university, Kagawa, Japan.
Shinya FukunishiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka Medical College, Osaka, Japan.
Masanori AtsukawaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan.
Masashi HirookaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Metabology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Ehime, Japan.
Kunihiko TsujiCenter of Gastroenterology, Teine Keijinkai Hospital, Sapporo, Japan.
Toru IshikawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Saiseikai Niigata Hospital, Niigata, Japan.
Koichi TakaguchiDepartment of Hepatology, Kagawa Prefectural Central Hospital, Takamatsu, Japan.
Ei ItobayashiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Asahi General Hospital, Asahi, Japan.
Kazuto TajiriDepartment of Gastroenterology, Toyama University Hospital, Toyama, Japan.
Noritomo ShimadaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Otakanomori Hospital, Kashiwa, Japan.
Hiroshi ShibataDepartment of Gastroenterology, Tokushima Prefectural Central Hospital, Tokushima, Japan.
Hironori OchiHepato-biliary Center, Matsuyama Red Cross Hospital, Matsuyama, Japan.
Kazuhito KawataDepartment of Hepatology, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu, Japan.
Satoshi YasudaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ogaki Municipal Hospital, Gifu, Japan.
Hidenori ToyodaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ogaki Municipal Hospital, Gifu, Japan.
Hideko OhamaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Osaka Medical College, Osaka, Japan.
Kazuhiro NousoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Okayama City Hospital, Okayama, Japan.
Akemi TsutsuiDepartment of Hepatology, Kagawa Prefectural Central Hospital, Takamatsu, Japan.
Takuya NaganoDepartment of Hepatology, Kagawa Prefectural Central Hospital, Takamatsu, Japan.
Norio ItokawaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan.
Korenobu HayamaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan.
Taeang AraiDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan.
Michitaka ImaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Saiseikai Niigata Hospital, Niigata, Japan.
Yohei KoizumiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Metabology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Ehime, Japan.
Shinichiro NakamuraDepartment of Internal Medicine, Himeji Red Cross Hospital, Hyogo, Japan.
Kouji JokoHepato-biliary Center, Matsuyama Red Cross Hospital, Matsuyama, Japan.
Kojiro MichitakaGastroenterology Center, Ehime Prefectural Central Hospital, Ehime, Japan.
Yoichi HiasaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Metabology, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Ehime, Japan.
Masatoshi KudoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kindai University, Osaka, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimAn effective postprogression treatment of lenvatinib (LEN) against unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC) has not been established. We aimed to elucidate the clinical role of continuing LEN beyond progression of disease (PD).

methodsFrom March 2018 to October 2020, 99 u-HCC patients, in whom PD was confirmed (male:female = 78:21, median age 72 years, Child-Pugh A = 99, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage A:B:C = 2:43:54, LEN as first-line = 55), were enrolled (stopped LEN at PD [A group],

resultsMedian time to progression, best response, and modified albumin-bilirubin grade (mALBI) at both baseline and PD did not show significant difference between the groups. Postprogression treatment in the A group was best supportive care in 17, sorafenib in 4, regorafenib in 3, ramucirumab in 1, and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy in 1. After adjusting with IPW, the B group showed better prognosis in regard to OS after PD and OS after introducing LEN than the A group (10.8/19.6 vs. 5.8/11.2 months,

conclusionWhen ECOG PS and hepatic reserve function permit, continuing LEN treatment beyond PD, especially in u-HCC patients showed HFSR during LEN treatment, might be a good therapeutic option, at least until a more effective drug as a postprogression treatment after LEN failure is developed.

Indexed as

Beyond progression of diseaseHand-foot skin reactionHepatocellular carcinomaLenvatinibPostprogression treatment

Identifiers

PMID33977088
PMCPMC8077500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.