ArticleAmerican journal of cancer research2025
Comparing health insurance-reimbursed lenvatinib and self-paid atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in American journal of cancer research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitor-based regimens versus tyrosine kinase inhibitors in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma stratified by etiology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Predictive Value of Nutrition Indices in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated With Lenvatinib.The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Ate/Bev) and lenvatinib (Len) are first-line therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). However, Ate/Bev's high cost limits its common use in real-life practice, while Len is usually covered by national health insurance (NHI). We conducted this study to compare their effectiveness and safety in real-world settings. We retrospectively evaluated 346 uHCC patients treated with first-line Ate/Bev (n=80) or Len (n=266) from December 2019 to December 2022, using 1:2 ratio propensity score matching (PSM) analyses. Compared to the Len group, the Ate/Bev group exhibited higher incidences of Child-Pugh class B (14.1% vs. 5.7%, P=0.014), larger main tumors (58.8% vs. 40.2%, P=0.003), and more main portal vein invasion (25% vs. 12.8%, P=0.008). Treatment-related adverse events were notably lower in the Ate/Bev group (56.3% vs. 72.3%, P=0.007). After PSM, no significant differences were observed in the objective response rate (21.9% vs. 21.6%, P=0.983), progression-free survival (5.1 vs. 6 months, P=0.783), and overall survival (13.3 vs. 14.1 months, P=0.945) between the Ate/Bev (n=73) and Len (n=142) groups. Patients in the Ate/Bev group received more sequential post-treatments compared to the Len group (45.2% vs. 24.6%, P=0.009). Len-based therapies (n=28, 84.8%) and mono- or combined-immunotherapy (n=19, 54.3%) were the most frequently administered sequential therapies following Ate/Bev and Len, respectively. Patients with uHCC who received first-line self-paid Ate/Bev seemed to have lower liver function reserve and more advanced tumor characteristics compared to those who underwent NHI-reimbursed Len. However, the treatment outcomes and safety profiles were similar between these two groups.
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.