Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36776344›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2023

Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus: An updated meta-analysis and systematic review.

Wei Zhang, Deliang Ouyang, Zhangkan Huang, Xu Che

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Sorafenib with or without co-interventions for hepatocellular carcinoma.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors.

Wei ZhangDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital & Shenzhen Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Deliang OuyangDepartment of General Surgery, The Third Affiliated Hospital, Hengyang Medical School, University of South China, Hengyang, Hunan, China.
Zhangkan HuangDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital & Shenzhen Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.
Xu CheDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital & Shenzhen Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Shenzhen, Guangdong, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Sorafenib was the first drug approved for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, it is limited by poor efficacy for HCC with portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT). Some studies suggested that hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) could provide survival benefits to patients with advanced HCC with PVTT. Aim: The study aimed to compare the efficacy of HAIC versus sorafenib in patients with HCC accompanied by PVTT. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published until September 2022. Statistical analyses were performed using Stata SE 15 software. Results: Eight studies with 672 patients, 403 in the HAIC group and 269 in the sorafenib group, were included in the meta-analysis. The rates of complete response (RR=3.88, 95%CI:1.35-11.16, P=0.01), partial response (RR=3.46, 95%CI:1.94-6.18, P<0.0001), objective response rate (RR=4.21, 95%CI:2.44-7.28, P<0.00001) and disease control rate (RR=1.73, 95%CI:1.28-2.35, P=0.0004) were significantly higher in the HAIC group compared to the sorafenib group, whereas the progressive disease rate (RR=0.57, 95%CI:0.40-0.80, P=0.02) was significantly lower in the former. In contrast, the stable disease rate (RR=1.10, 95%CI (0.69-1.76), P=0.68) was similar in both groups. The overall survival (HR=0.50, 95%CI:0.40-0.63, P<0.05) and progression-free survival (HR=0.49, 95%CI:0.35-0.67, P<0.05) rates were significantly higher in the HAIC group compared to the sorafenib group. Conclusion: HAIC has better efficacy against HCC with PVTT than sorafenib and may be considered an alternative to the latter. However, more high-quality randomized control trials and longer follow-ups are needed to verify our findings.

Indexed as

hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapyhepatocellular carcinomameta-analysisportal vein tumor thrombosisprognosissorafenib

Identifiers

PMID36776344
PMCPMC9911796

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.