ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2024
Efficacy of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy and its combination strategies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A network meta-analysis.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Current research status and future directions of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Current impact in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: The challenge remains.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Anticipation for hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy: A resurgence.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Advancing treatment strategies: Insights from network meta-analysis of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treatment strategies: Are transarterial approaches leading the way?World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Predicting Resistance and Survival of HCC Patients Post-HAIC: Based on Shapley Additive exPlanations and Machine Learning.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2025Article
- Current efficacy of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
- Advancing hepatocellular carcinoma treatment with hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the rapid progress of systematic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), therapeutic strategies combining hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) with systematic therapy arised increasing concentrations. However, there have been no systematic review comparing HAIC and its combination strategies in the first-line treatment for advanced HCC.
aimTo investigate the efficacy and safety of HAIC and its combination therapies for advanced HCC.
methodsA network meta-analysis was performed by including 9 randomized controlled trails and 35 cohort studies to carry out our study. The outcomes of interest comprised overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), tumor response and adverse events. Hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and agents were ranked based on their ranking probability.
resultsHAIC outperformed Sorafenib (HR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.42-0.72; HR = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.33-0.78; OR = 2.86, 95%CI: 1.37-5.98; OR = 5.45, 95%CI: 3.57-8.30; OR = 7.15, 95%CI: 4.06-12.58; OR = 2.89, 95%CI: 1.99-4.19; OR = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.25-0.92, respectively) and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) (HR = 0.50, 95%CI: 0.33-0.75; HR = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.39-0.98; OR = 3.08, 95%CI: 1.36-6.98; OR = 2.07, 95%CI: 1.54-2.80; OR = 3.16, 95%CI: 1.71-5.85; OR = 2.67, 95%CI: 1.59-4.50; OR = 0.16, 95%CI: 0.05-0.54, respectively) in terms of efficacy and safety. HAIC + lenvatinib + ablation, HAIC + ablation, HAIC + anti- programmed cell death 1 (PD-1), and HAIC + radiotherapy had the higher likelihood of providing better OS and PFS outcomes compared to HAIC alone. HAIC + TACE + S-1, HAIC + lenvatinib, HAIC + PD-1, HAIC + TACE, and HAIC + sorafenib had the higher likelihood of providing better partial response and objective response rate outcomes compared to HAIC. HAIC + PD-1, HAIC + TACE + S-1 and HAIC + TACE had the higher likelihood of providing better complete response and disease control rate outcomes compared to HAIC alone.
conclusionHAIC proved more effective and safer than sorafenib and TACE. Furthermore, combined with other interventions, HAIC showed improved efficacy over HAIC monotherapy according to the treatment ranking analysis.
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.