ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Improved survival with second-line hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy after atezolizumab-bevacizumab failure in hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is no established second-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following atezolizumab-bevacizumab (ate-beva) failure. This study assessed the efficacy of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) as a salvage therapy by comparing survival outcomes and treatment responses between HAIC as a first-line treatment and as a second-line option after ate-beva failure. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 100 patients with advanced HCC treated with HAIC between March 2022 and July 2024. Patients were categorized into two groups: those who received HAIC as initial therapy (first-line HAIC group) and those who received HAIC following ate-beva failure (post-ate-beva group). Survival outcomes were assessed with Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests, and factors associated with survival were identified through Cox regression analysis. Results: The post-ate-beva group exhibited longer overall survival (OS) (median OS 12.4 months) compared to the first-line HAIC group (median OS 6.8 months) (p = 0.073). Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly superior in the post-ate-beva group (median PFS 8.2 months) compared to the first-line HAIC group (median PFS 3.1 months) (p = 0.018). The objective response rate was also notably higher in the post-ate-beva group than in the first-line HAIC group (35.3% vs. 18.1%, p = 0.031). In multivariate analysis, HAIC following ate-beva failure, compared to first-line HAIC, was significantly associated with favorable outcomes for both OS (p = 0.014) and PFS (p = 0.006). Conclusion: The superior survival outcomes and treatment responses observed in the post-ate-beva group suggest that HAIC may be an effective second-line treatment option for advanced HCC following ate-beva therapy failure. However, due to the retrospective nature and small sample size of the study, further prospective studies with larger patient populations are needed to strengthen the evidence.
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.