ArticleJHEP reports : innovation in hepatology2025
Randomized phase II study comparing two doses of regorafenib in second-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & Aims: The RESORCE trial confirmed regorafenib as a second-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients who tolerated sorafenib. However, its safety and efficacy in patients with diverse treatment histories remain unknown. The REGAIN study sought to assess regorafenib in patients not included in the RESORCE trial. Methods: This single-center, randomized, open-label, dose-comparison trial included patients with HCC who had previously received sorafenib 200 mg/day or 400 mg every other day (Arm A), lenvatinib (Arm B), or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Arm C). Patients were randomly assigned to receive regorafenib at the standard (160 mg/day) or reduced (80 mg/day) starting dose. For early safety assessment, discontinuation as the result of adverse events (AEs) during the first cycle among the first six patients in each dose group was defined as a measure of evaluation. The primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP), and efficacy was evaluated using mRECIST. Results: Thirty-six patients were enrolled (12 per arm). Although the study did not reach its originally planned sample size, it provided safety and exploratory efficacy data. Discontinuation in the first cycle as a result of AEs was observed in one patient (Arm C, standard-dose group). The efficacy outcomes were comparable between the standard- and reduced-dose groups: median TTP was 4.6 Conclusions: Regorafenib can be safely administered with varying treatment histories. Further investigation is warranted to validate the clinical utility of reduced starting dose, which may optimize treatment strategies for advanced HCC in real-world settings. Impact and implications: Sequencing and extending systemic therapies can improve the prognosis of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but comprehensive evidence on second-line and subsequent treatments remains limited. This study evaluated regorafenib in modern clinical scenarios, including patients intolerant to sorafenib and those previously treated with lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Regorafenib was safely administered at 160 mg/day and 80 mg/day, and an exploratory efficacy analysis found no significant difference between the two starting doses. These findings support the integration of regorafenib into personalized treatment strategies for advanced HCC, providing physicians specializing in liver cancer treatment with greater flexibility in selecting appropriate therapeutic sequences while also expanding treatment options for patients facing increasingly limited systemic therapy choices. Clinical Trials Registration: jRCTs031190103.
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.