SynthesisBMC cancer2025
The effectiveness and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors in conversion or neoadjuvant therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis and systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe adoption of immune checkpoint inhibitors in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and/or local therapy, including transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), has been utilized as neoadjuvant or conversion therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. However, the efficacy of different combinations in terms of conversion or neoadjuvant therapy varies.
methodsWe conducted a single-group rate meta-analysis to determine the conversion rate or resection rate, tumor response, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the therapeutic combinations. The tumor response and adverse events were also evaluated. The prognosis of patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery and surgery alone was also compared by evaluating HR and its 95%CI.
resultsForty-nine studies were included, with thirty-six studies involving 3497 patients focusing on conversion therapy and the remaining thirteen involving 569 patients focusing on neoadjuvant therapy. The meta-analysis revealed a conversion rate of 0.23 (95% CI: 0.18–0.29). Subgroup analyses based on different treatments revealed a conversion rate of patients receiving is the combination of ICIs, TKIs, and TACE or HAIC about 30%, while the conversion rate of patients receiving T + A is about 4%. When evaluated by modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (mRECIST), the objective response rate (ORR) is 0.62 (95% CI: 0.56–0.67), the disease control rate is 0.87 (95% CI: 0.84–0.90). The incidence of adverse events (AEs) and severe AEs is 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92–0.98) and 0.39 (95% CI: 0.32–0.46), respectively. The meta-analysis revealed a resection rate of 0.87 (95% CI: 0.85–0.90). The OS and RFS of patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery is similar to those receiving surgery alone.
conclusionOur study provides a comprehensive summary of the current evidence regarding the success rates of conversion therapy, including comparisons between different treatment regimens and associated adverse effects. Additionally, we present findings on the role and side effects of neoadjuvant therapy in resectable 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.