SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2024
Is atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma superior to lenvatinib? a systematic review and meta‑analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis meta-analysis was dedicated to evaluating the effectiveness and safety of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) and Lenvatinib (LEN) as first-line systematic therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC).
methodsThe prospective protocol for this study was registered with the PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42022356874). Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE database Cochrane Library, and Web Science to determine all clinical controlled studies that reported Atez/Bev and LEN for treating u-HCC. We. evaluated as primary end-point overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), as well as other outcomes such as tumor response and adverse events (AEs).Quality assessment and data extraction of studies were conducted independently by three reviewers. Mean difference (MD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a fixed-effects or random-effects model. The meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3 software.
results12 retrospective cohort studies (RCSs) involving a total of 4948 patients were finally included. The results showed that compared with LEN, Atez/Bev can improve the patient's PFS (HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.72 ~ 0.88; p < 0.0001) and reduce the rate of overall AEs (OR = 0.46 95% CI: 0.38 ~ 0.55, p < 0.00001) and grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.36 ~ 0.51, p < 0.00001), while there is no difference between OS and treatment responses rate (objective response rate, disease control rate, complete response, partial response, progressive disease, and stable disease) between two groups. In addition, the subgroup analysis shows that Atez/Bev can promote the OS of patients with viral hepatitis. (HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67 ~ 0.95; p = 0.01), while LEN has an advantage in improving OS in patients with Child-Pugh grade B liver function (HR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.50 ~ 2.63; p < 0.00001).
conclusionCurrent evidence shows that compared with LEN, Atez/Bev has more advantages in PFS and safety in treating u-HCC and can improve the OS of patients with viral. LEN has advantages in improving the OS of patients with grade B liver function. However, more multicenter randomized controlled experiments are needed in the future to verify our results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38907884What 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.