SynthesisAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP2025
Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib versus Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab in the Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the leading form of primary liver cancer, is strongly associated with liver cirrhosis and major risk factors such as hepatitis B and C, alcohol consumption, obesity, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Despite treatment advancements, survival rates for unresectable HCC remain low. Lenvatinib and the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (ATE/BEV) show promise, but further studies are needed to compare their clinical outcomes. This study aims to assess the efficacy and safety of LEN and ATE/BEV in unresectable HCC patients.
methodsThis research was conducted using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) strategy. Literature searches were conducted through PubMed, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, SpringerLink, and Ebsco to gather studies on comparing LEN versus ATE/BEV for managing unresectable HCC. The quality assessment was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were evaluated using Review Manager 5.4 and RStudio 2024.04.1.
resultsTwelve retrospective studies were included, comprising 6,620 samples. There was no difference in the OS (HR=0.72; 95%CI: 0.44-1.18, p=0.20), PFS (HR=0.90; 95%CI: 0.75-1.07; p=0.23), ORR (OR=1.16; 95%CI:0.86-1.56; p=0.34) and DCR (OR=1.14; 95%CI:0.97-1.34; p=0.12) between groups. Moreover, in viral and non-viral patients group, LEN showed similar OS and PFS compared with ATE/BEV. In terms of safety, LEN exhibited higher incidences of decreased appetite (OR=2.95; 95%CI:1.12-7.79; p=0.03), diarrhea (OR=2.61; 95%CI:2.06-3.32; p<0.00001), fatigue (OR=1.48; 95%CI:1.27-1.73; P<0.00001), hand-foot syndrome (OR=7.73; 95%CI:4.84-12.33; P<0.00001), and showed lower incidences of increased aspartate aminotransferase (OR=0.44; 95%CI:0.28-0.69; p=0.0004) compared to ATE/BEV. Moreover, LEN showed similar AEs in grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR=1.15; 95%CI:0.29-4.55; p=0.84), hypertension (OR=1.39; 95%CI:0.84-2.28; p=0.20), proteinuria (OR=1.10; 95%CI:0.75-1.60; p=0.63) compared to ATE/BEV.
conclusionLEN was found to be non-inferior to ATE/BEV in terms of OS, PFS, ORR, DCR. However, LEN may be associated with a higher incidence of AEs.
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.