Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38645513›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2024

The emerging therapies are reshaping the first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Wei Peng, Yangxun Pan, Lan Xie, Zhoutian Yang, Zhiwei Ye, Jinbin Chen, Juncheng Wang, Dandan Hu, Li Xu, Zhongguo Zhou and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  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

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wei PengState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1604-5110
Yangxun PanState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Lan XieState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Zhoutian YangState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Zhiwei YeState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Jinbin ChenState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Juncheng WangState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Dandan HuState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Li XuState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Zhongguo ZhouState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Minshan ChenState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong, P. R. China.
Aiping FangDepartment of Nutrition, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510060, P. R. China.
Yaojun ZhangDepartment of Liver Surgery, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510060, P. R. China.
Sun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Given the superior performance of various therapies over sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and the absence of direct comparisons, it is crucial to explore the efficacy of these treatments in phase III randomized clinical trials. Objectives: The goal is to identify which patients are most likely to benefit significantly from these emerging therapies, contributing to more personalized and informed clinical decision-making. Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources and methods: PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and international conference databases have been searched from 1 January 2010 to 1 December 2023. Results: After screening, 17 phase III trials encompassing 18 treatments were included. In the whole-population network meta-analysis, the newly first-line tremelimumab plus durvalumab (Tre + Du) was found to be comparable with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo + Beva) in providing the best overall survival (OS) benefit [hazard ratio (HR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93-1.92]. Concerning OS benefits, sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar (Sint + Beva), camrelizumab plus rivoceranib (Camre + Rivo), and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (Lenva + Pemb) appear to exhibit similar effects to Tre + Du and Atezo + Beva. In the context of progression-free survival, Atezo + Beva seemed to outperform Tre + Du (HR: 0.66 CI: 0.49-0.87), while the effects are comparable to Sint + Beva, Camre + Rivo, and Lenva + Pemb. Upon comparison between Asia-Pacific and non-Asia-Pacific cohorts, as well as between hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infected and non-HBV-infected populations, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based treatments seemed to exhibit heightened efficacy in the Asia-Pacific group and among individuals with HBV infection. However, combined ICI-based therapies did not show more effectiveness than molecular-targeted drugs in patients without macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread. As for grades 3-5 adverse events, combined therapies showed comparable safety to sorafenib and lenvatinib. Conclusion: Compared with sorafenib and lenvatinib, combination therapies based on ICIs significantly improved the prognosis of advanced HCC and demonstrated similar safety. At the same time, the optimal treatment approach should be tailored to individual patient characteristics, such as etiology, tumor staging, and serum alpha-fetoprotein levels. With lower incidence rates of treatment-related adverse events and non-inferior efficacy compared to sorafenib, ICI monotherapies should be prioritized as a first-line treatment approach for patients who are not suitable candidates for ICI-combined therapies. Trial registration: PROSPERO, CRD42022288172.

Indexed as

first-linehepatocellular carcinomaimmune checkpoint inhibitorsmolecular-targeted therapynetwork meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID38645513
PMCPMC11032067
OpenAlexW4394980817

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.