ReviewJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2025
Optimal sequencing of locoregional and systemic therapies for intermediate and advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2025. 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.
- Integrating Combination Therapy and Smart Embolic Materials to Overcome the Therapeutic Ceiling of Transarterial Chemoembolization in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2026Review
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
introductionTransarterial chemoembolization (TACE), anti-angiogenic drugs (AADs), and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are common therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Despite proven benefits of combined regimens, optimal sequencing remains unclear. This network meta-analysis evaluates safety and efficacy of therapeutic sequences in intermediate-advanced HCC.
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE, for studies published until February 1, 2025. Cochrane's tools and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the evaluation of bias. We performed data compilation and conducted a network meta-analysis to compare the relative efficacy of different treatments.
resultsA total of 56 studies (10,456 patients) evaluated 11 therapeutic sequences. Survival outcomes favored TACE-AADs-ICIs (TAI), which ranked highest for overall survival (OS: SUCRA 90.0%) and progression-free survival (PFS: SUCRA 91.3%). Tumor responses differed significantly across regimens: TACE-ICIs (TI) achieved the highest probability of complete response rate (CRR: SUCRA 83.9%), while AADs-ICIs-TACE (AIT) ranked first in objective response rate (ORR: SUCRA 85.8%). Notably, ICIs-AADs (IA) achieved superior disease control rate (DCR: SUCRA 88.1%). ICIs monotherapy (I) was associated with the lowest incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs: SUCRA 11.7%).
conclusionOur comprehensive network meta-analysis establishes a multidimensional efficacy-safety profile for sequential therapies in intermediate and advanced HCC management. TACE-initiated sequences (TAI/TIA) optimize survival (OS/PFS: SUCRA > 90%), while systemic-first regimens (AIT/IA) maximize tumor response (ORR/DCR: SUCRA > 85%). ICIs monotherapy exhibits the safest profile. Further clinical studies are warranted to determine optimal treatment sequencing for intermediate and advanced HCC.
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.