Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39160484›Full record

SynthesisBMC cancer2024

Efficacy and safety of second-line therapies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Fenping Lu, Kai Zhao, Miaoqing Ye, Guangyan Xing, Bowen Liu, Xiaobin Li, Yun Ran, Fenfang Wu, Wei Chen, Shiping Hu

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. [Chinese expert consensus on the use of standardized second-line drugs for primary hepatocellular carcinoma].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
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

10 authors.

Fenping Lu *Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Kai Zhao *Shaanxi Shuangbo Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine for Liver and Kidney Diseases, Xi'an, China.
Miaoqing YeShaanxi Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Xi'an, China.
Guangyan XingBeijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Bowen LiuBeijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Xiaobin LiBeijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Yun RanBeijing University of Chinese Medicine Affiliated Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Fenfang WuBeijing University of Chinese Medicine Affiliated Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Wei ChenDepartment of Pharmacy, Emergency General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Shiping HuBeijing University of Chinese Medicine Affiliated Shenzhen Hospital, Shenzhen, China. z13992030190@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe selection of appropriate second-line therapy for liver cancer after first-line treatment failure poses a significant clinical challenge due to the lack of direct comparative studies and standard treatment protocols. A network meta-analysis (NMA) provides a robust method to systematically evaluate the clinical outcomes and adverse effects of various second-line treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library to identify phase III/IV randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to March 11, 2024. The outcomes extracted were median overall survival (OS), median progression-free survival (PFS), time to disease progression (TTP), disease control rate (DCR), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse reactions. This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023427843) to ensure transparency, novelty, and reliability.

resultsWe included 16 RCTs involving 7,005 patients and 10 second-line treatments. For advanced HCC patients, regorafenib (HR = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.53-0.73) and cabozantinib (HR = 0.74, 95%CI: 0.63-0.85) provided the best OS benefits compared to placebo. Cabozantinib (HR = 0.42, 95%CI: 0.32-0.55) and regorafenib (HR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.31-0.68) also offered the most significant PFS benefits. For TTP, apatinib (HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.33-0.57), ramucirumab (HR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.34-0.57), and regorafenib (HR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.38-0.51) showed significant benefits over placebo. Regarding ORR, ramucirumab (OR = 9.90, 95% CI: 3.40-42.98) and S-1 (OR = 8.68, 95% CI: 1.4-154.68) showed the most significant increases over placebo. Apatinib (OR = 3.88, 95% CI: 2.48-6.10) and cabozantinib (OR = 3.53, 95% CI: 2.54-4.90) provided the best DCR benefits compared to placebo. Tivantinib showed the most significant advantages in terms of three different safety outcome measures.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that, in terms of overall efficacy and safety, regorafenib and cabozantinib are the optimal second-line treatment options for patients with advanced HCC.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularLiver NeoplasmsPyridinesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAnilidesAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedHumansPhenylurea CompoundsProgression-Free SurvivalRamucirumabTreatment OutcomeAnilidesAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedapatinibcabozantinibPhenylurea CompoundsPyridinesRamucirumabregorafenibEfficacyHepatocellular carcinomaNetwork meta-analysisSafetySecond-line

Identifiers

PMID39160484
PMCPMC11331808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.