Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37025943›Full record

ArticleJHEP reports : innovation in hepatology2023

Efficacy and safety of frontline systemic therapy for advanced HCC: A network meta-analysis of landmark phase III trials.

Claudia Angela Maria Fulgenzi, Bernhard Scheiner, James Korolewicz, Charalampos-Vlasios Stikas, Alessandra Gennari, Bruno Vincenzi, Mark R Openshaw, Marianna Silletta, Matthias Pinter, Alessio Cortellini and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. New Scenarios in Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Claudia Angela Maria FulgenziDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK.
Bernhard ScheinerDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK.
James KorolewiczDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK.
Charalampos-Vlasios StikasDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK.
Alessandra GennariDivision of Oncology, Department of Translational Medicine, University of Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy.
Bruno VincenziMedical Oncology Department, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.
Mark R OpenshawUniversity Hospitals Birmingham Cancer Centre, Birmingham, UK.
Marianna SillettaMedical Oncology Department, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Rome, Italy.
Matthias PinterDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Alessio CortelliniDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK.
Lorenza ScottiDepartment of Translational Medicine, Università del Piemonte Orientale UPO, Novara, Italy.
Antonio D'AlessioDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK.
David J PinatoDepartment of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, UK.
Hammersmith Hospital · GBUniversità degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro” · ITCampus Bio Medico University Hospital · ITHumanitas University · ITMedical University of Vienna · ATNIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background & Aims: Direct comparisons across first-line regimens for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma are not available. We performed a network metanalysis of phase III of trials to compare first-line systemic treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma in terms of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, disease control rate, and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Methods: After performing a literature review from January 2008 to September 2022, we screened 6,329 studies and reviewed 3,009 studies, leading to identification of 15 phase III trials for analysis. We extracted odds ratios for objective response rate and disease control rate, relative risks for AEs, and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs for OS and PFS, and used a frequentist network metanalysis, with fixed-effect multivariable meta-regression models to estimate the indirect pooled HRs, odds ratios, relative risks, and corresponding 95% CIs, considering sorafenib as reference. Results: Of 10,820 included patients, 10,444 received active treatment and 376 placebo. Sintilimab + IBI350, camrelizumab + rivoceranib, and atezolizumab + bevacizumab provided the greatest reduction in the risk of death compared with sorafenib, with HRs of 0.57 (95% CI 0.43-0.75), 0.62 (95% CI 0.49-0.79), and 0.66 (95% CI 0.52-0.84), respectively. Considering PFS, camrelizumab + rivoceranib and pembrolizumab + lenvatinib were associated with the greatest reduction in the risk of PFS events compared with sorafenib, with HRs of 0.52 (95% CI 0.41-0.65) and 0.52 (95% CI 0.35-0.77), respectively. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapies carried the lowest risk for all-grade and grade ≥3 AEs. Conclusions: The combinations of ICI + anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, and double ICIs lead to the greatest OS benefit compared with sorafenib, whereas ICI + kinase inhibitor regimens are associated with greater PFS benefit at the cost of higher toxicity rates. Impact and Implications: In the last few years, many different therapies have been studied for patients with primary liver cancer that cannot be treated with surgery. In these cases, anticancer drugs (alone or in combination) are given with the intent to keep the cancer at bay and, ultimately, to prolong survival. Among all the therapies that have been investigated, the combination of immunotherapy (drugs that boost the immune system against the cancer) and anti-angiogenic agents (drugs that act on tumoural vessels) has appeared the best to improve survival. Similarly, the combination of two types of immunotherapies that activate the immune system at different levels has also shown positive results. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022366330.

Indexed as

First-line treatmentImmune checkpoint inhibitorsLiver cancerTargeted therapyTyrosine kinase inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID37025943
PMCPMC10070142
OpenAlexW4321190475

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.