ArticleCancer diagnosis & prognosis
Evaluation of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab
Article in Cancer diagnosis & prognosis. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib versus Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab in the Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aim: Atezolizumab/bevacizumab (Atez/BV) and lenvatinib (LEN) are the recommended first-line treatments for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Previous reports have suggested that the tolerability and therapeutic efficacy of LEN could be enhanced by modifying its administration method. Therefore, this study compared the efficacy and safety of Atez/BV, the standard LEN therapy (standard LEN), and modified LEN therapy (modified LEN). Patients and Methods: The overall survival (OS) and the rate of discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) were compared between groups treated with Atez/BV (n=36), standard LEN (n=30), and modified LEN (n=11). Results: Discontinuation due to AEs was required in 22.2%, 23.3%, and 9.1% of patients in the Atez/BV, standard LEN, and modified LEN groups (p=0.485). The median OS for the Atez/BV, standard LEN, and modified LEN groups was 523 [95% confidence interval (CI)=163-818], 382 (95%CI=330-547), and 604 (95% CI=257-656) days, respectively (log-rank test, p=0.949). Conclusion: Atez/BV and the standard and modified LEN regimens showed comparable efficacy and safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.