SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2025
Quantitative evaluation of the efficacy and safety of first-line systemic therapies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to quantitatively evaluate the efficacy and safety of first-line systemic therapies for treating advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC).
methodsThe study included clinical trials of first-line systemic therapies for aHCC since the approval of sorafenib in 2007. Hazard function models were used to describe changes in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) over time. Monte Carlo simulation was used to compare OS and PFS for different treatments, including sorafenib, antiangiogenic therapies (AATs) (except sorafenib), immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapy, AAT + targeted therapy, AAT + chemotherapy, AAT + ICIs, and ICIs + ICIs. Furthermore, the objective response rate (ORR) and incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were analyzed.
resultsFifty studies comprising 12,918 participants were included. AAT + ICIs demonstrated a significant benefit in median OS (mOS), median PFS (mPFS), and ORR (20.5 [95% CI 17.5-24] months, 7.5 [95% CI 6.5-8.8] months, and 24% [95% CI 17%-30%], respectively). ICIs + ICIs and ICI monotherapy ranked second and third, respectively with an mOS of 20 (95% CI 18.5-21.5) months and 14.5 (95% CI 13.5-16) months, respectively. The OS, PFS, and ORR of patients treated with AAT, AAT + targeted therapy, and AAT + chemotherapy were similar to those of patients treated with sorafenib. A higher proportion of patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage C had a shorter OS. OS was associated with publication year, and PFS was associated with the proportion of patients with BCLC stage C. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events in the ICIs and ICIs + ICIs treatment groups was low.
conclusionsThe study results provide valuable information from which to base rational clinical drug use and serves as a reliable external control for evaluating new treatments for aHCC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39731592What 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.