Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34884684›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2021

Revisiting Hepatic Artery Infusion Chemotherapy in the Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Ching-Tso Chen, Tsung-Hao Liu, Yu-Yun Shao, Kao-Lang Liu, Po-Chin Liang, Zhong-Zhe Lin

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Immunotherapy for advanced or recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ching-Tso ChenDepartment of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital Hsinchu Branch, Hsinchu 300195, Taiwan.
Tsung-Hao LiuDepartment of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei 100225, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-8891-4426
Yu-Yun ShaoDepartment of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei 100225, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-7334-1912
Kao-Lang LiuDepartment of Medical Imaging, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei 100225, Taiwan.
Po-Chin LiangDepartment of Medical Imaging, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei 100225, Taiwan.
Zhong-Zhe LinDepartment of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei 100225, Taiwan.
National Taiwan University · TWNational Taiwan University Hospital · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) is a well-established and common treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), particularly in East Asia. However, HAIC is not recognized internationally. Although several trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of HAIC, evidence corroborating its overall survival (OS) benefits compared with standard treatments is insufficient. Nevertheless, HAIC may provide prominent benefits in selected patients such as patients with portal vein thrombosis or high intrahepatic tumor burden. Moreover, HAIC has been combined with several therapeutic agents and modalities, including interferon-alpha, multikinase inhibitors, radiation therapy, and immunotherapy, to augment its treatment efficacy. Most of these combinations appeared to increase overall response rates compared with HAIC alone, but results regarding OS are inconclusive. Two prospective randomized controlled trials comparing HAIC plus sorafenib with sorafenib alone have reported conflicting results, necessitating further research. As immunotherapy-based combinations became the mainstream treatments for advanced HCC, HAIC plus immunotherapy-based treatments also showed encouraging preliminary results. The trials of HAIC were heterogeneous in terms of patient selection, chemotherapy regimens and doses, HAIC combination agent selections, and HAIC technical protocols. These heterogeneities may contribute to differences in treatment efficacy, thus increasing the difficulty of interpreting trial results. We propose that future trials of HAIC standardize these key factors to reveal the clinical value of HAIC-based treatments for HCC.

Indexed as

Hepatic ArteryAntineoplastic AgentsAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarcinoma, HepatocellularClinical Trials as TopicHumansInfusions, Intra-ArterialLiver NeoplasmsAntineoplastic Agentshepatocellular carcinomaimmunotherapyintra-arterial chemotherapytargeted therapy

Identifiers

PMID34884684
PMCPMC8657421
OpenAlexW3217804704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.