SynthesisActa medica academica2024
An Efficacy and Safety Comparison of Regorafenib and Nivolumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Acta medica academica, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis systematic review aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of regorafenib and nivolumab, two FDA-approved second-line treatments for unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC).
methodsLiterature comparing the efficacy and safety of regorafenib and nivolumab in unresectable HCC patients was systematically searched across seven databases, including: PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost, EMBASE, and ProQuest, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. The search was done on April 2nd, 2023. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and ROBINS-1 tools. The selected studies were included in the qualitative data synthesis.
resultsThree trials found that HCC patients taking nivolumab had statistically insignificantly longer OS, TTP, and progression-free survival than those on regorafenib. Nivolumab increased ORR, with largely partial responses, and mixed DCR, with little statistical significance. All three studies showed that nivolumab had fewer side effects and improved tolerance. DISCUSSION: Three retrospective cohort studies with a total of 383 regorafenib-receiving cohorts and 230 nivolumab-receiving cohorts were included in the qualitative analysis. Nivolumab was found to be superior in regards of longer overall survival, longer time to progression, higher objective response rate, and lower adverse event occurrence. However, statistical significance was not achieved in most of the parameters.
conclusionsThe use of nivolumab is preferable as the second-line systemic therapy for unresectable HCC. More high-quality studies are urgently needed to generate quantitative analysis, and to encourage the formation of guidelines for second-line systemic therapy.
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.