SynthesisPloS one2024
Efficacy comparison of immune combination therapies in subgroups for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a lack of precision in the immunotherapy strategy tailored for patients exhibiting diverse clinical characteristics. This study aims to employ a rigorous network meta-analysis (NMA) approach to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of immune-combination therapies among patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, taking into account their varying clinico-characteristics.
methodsStudies were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. The included first-line phase III studies were categorized into three types: immunotherapy combined with anti-angiogenetic agents, immunotherapy combined with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and dual immunotherapy, with sorafenib serving as the control group. The primary endpoint used to assess efficacy was overall survival (OS), facilitating a comparative analysis among the three treatment modalities. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate the varying effectiveness for patients with diverse clinico-characteristics. Secondary outcome measures included progression-free survival, objective response rate, and toxicity assessment.
resultsA total of 6 studies were included in the NMA, encompassing a cohort of 3840 patients. The results revealed that immunotherapy combined with anti-angiogenetic agents exhibited a significantly enhanced therapeutic effect in terms of improving OS compared to sorafenib (HR = 0.61, 95% CrI, 0.42-0.90). Furthermore, based on various clinicopathological features, this combination therapy demonstrated superior OS responses in specific patient subgroups: BCLC C (HR = 0.63, 95% CrI, 0.42-0.93), ECOG 1 (HR = 0.57, 95% CrI, 0.36-0.91), with extrahepatic spread (EHS) (HR = 0.59, 95% CrI, 0.37-0.92), alpha fetoprotein (AFP)<400ng/ml (HR = 0.56, 95% CrI, 0.33-0.94) and viral hepatitis positivity (HR = 0.56, 95% CrI, 0.39-0.77) (especially HBV (HR = 0.58, 95% CrI, 0.40-0.85)). Importantly, the advantage of this combination therapy was even more pronounced in patients with viral hepatitis positivity. Also, the adverse events associated with immunotherapy combined with antiangiogenic drugs were moderate.
conclusionsImmunotherapy combined with anti-angiogenetic agents could represent the most effective first-line intervention for achieving improved OS, particularly in patients with viral hepatitis positivity.
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.