Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36359347›Full record

ReviewBiomedicines2022

The Evolving Scenario in the Assessment of Radiological Response for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Era of Immunotherapy: Strengths and Weaknesses of Surrogate Endpoints.

Paolo Giuffrida, Ciro Celsa, Michela Antonucci, Marta Peri, Maria Vittoria Grassini, Gabriele Rancatore, Carmelo Marco Giacchetto, Roberto Cannella, Lorena Incorvaia, Lidia Rita Corsini and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomedicines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

16 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Paolo GiuffridaSection of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Health Promotion Sciences Maternal and Infant Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, PROMISE, University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4628-1130
Ciro CelsaSection of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Health Promotion Sciences Maternal and Infant Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, PROMISE, University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5662-2162
Michela AntonucciSection of Radiology, Department of Biomedicine, Neuroscience and Advanced Diagnostics (BiND), University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy.
Marta PeriDepartment of Surgical, Oncological, and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy.
Maria Vittoria GrassiniSection of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Health Promotion Sciences Maternal and Infant Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, PROMISE, University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy.
Gabriele RancatoreSection of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Health Promotion Sciences Maternal and Infant Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, PROMISE, University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy.
Carmelo Marco GiacchettoSection of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Health Promotion Sciences Maternal and Infant Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, PROMISE, University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy.
Roberto CannellaSection of Radiology, Department of Biomedicine, Neuroscience and Advanced Diagnostics (BiND), University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3808-0785
Lorena IncorvaiaDepartment of Surgical, Oncological, and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1199-7286
Lidia Rita CorsiniDepartment of Surgical, Oncological, and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy.
Piera MoranaSection of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Health Promotion Sciences Maternal and Infant Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, PROMISE, University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy.
Claudia La MantiaSection of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Health Promotion Sciences Maternal and Infant Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, PROMISE, University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy.
Giuseppe BadalamentiDepartment of Surgical, Oncological, and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2478-8838
Giuseppe BrancatelliSection of Radiology, Department of Biomedicine, Neuroscience and Advanced Diagnostics (BiND), University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy.
Calogero CammàSection of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Health Promotion Sciences Maternal and Infant Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, PROMISE, University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy.
Giuseppe CabibboSection of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Health Promotion Sciences Maternal and Infant Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, PROMISE, University of Palermo, 90127 Palermo, Italy.
University of Palermo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a challenging malignancy characterised by clinical and biological heterogeneity, independent of the stage. Despite the application of surveillance programs, a substantial proportion of patients are diagnosed at advanced stages when curative treatments are no longer available. The landscape of systemic therapies has been rapidly growing over the last decade, and the advent of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has changed the paradigm of systemic treatments. The coexistence of the tumour with underlying cirrhosis exposes patients with HCC to competing events related to tumour progression and/or hepatic decompensation. Therefore, it is relevant to adopt proper clinical endpoints to assess the extent of treatment benefit. While overall survival (OS) is the most accepted endpoint for phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and drug approval, it is affected by many limitations. To overcome these limits, several clinical and radiological outcomes have been used. For instance, progression-free survival (PFS) is a useful endpoint to evaluate the benefit of sequential treatments, since it is not influenced by post-progression treatments, unlike OS. Moreover, radiological endpoints such as time to progression (TTP) and objective response rate (ORR) are frequently adopted. Nevertheless, the surrogacy between these endpoints and OS in the setting of unresectable HCC (uHCC) remains uncertain. Since most of the surrogate endpoints are radiology-based (e.g., PFS, TTP, ORR), the use of standardised tools is crucial for the evaluation of radiological response. The optimal way to assess the radiological response has been widely debated, and many criteria have been proposed over the years. Furthermore, none of the criteria have been validated for immunotherapy in advanced HCC. The coexistence of the underlying chronic liver disease and the access to several lines of treatments highlight the urgent need to capture early clinical benefit and the need for standardised radiological criteria to assess cancer response when using ICIs in mono- or combination therapies. Here, we review the most commonly used clinical and radiological endpoints for trial design, as well as their surrogacy with OS. We also review the criteria for radiological response to treatments for HCC, analysing the major issues and the potential future perspectives.

Indexed as

endpointsHCChepatocellular carcinomaimmunotherapymRECISTradiological criteriaRECIST 1.1systemic therapy

Identifiers

PMID36359347
PMCPMC9687474
OpenAlexW4308438676

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.