ArticleScience China. Life sciences2026
ESIRA, a novel framework integrating efficacy and safety for evaluating first-line treatments in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Science China. Life sciences, 2026. 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.
- Review Article: Biomarkers in Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Towards Precision Medicine.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Selecting first-line treatments for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) requires carefully balancing the survival benefits against the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs). However, conventional evaluation methods often fail to incorporate multiple clinical endpoints into a single unified framework. To address this limitation, we developed the Efficacy-Safety Integrated Ranking Algorithm (ESIRA), a quantitative framework that generates composite treatment rankings by assigning adjustable weights to efficacy and safety outcomes and calculating the Euclidean distance of each regimen to an ideal efficacy-safety profile. In a training cohort comprising 4,179 patients from eight randomized trials, treatment rankings varied markedly depending on the weighting scheme. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab ranked highest when the safety weight exceeded 0.7, whereas sintilimab plus bevacizumab and camrelizumab plus apatinib rose sharply in ranking when the efficacy weight exceeded 0.8. Sensitivity analysis identified 0.7:0.3 as the optimal efficacy-to-safety weight ratio, under which nivolumab plus ipilimumab achieved the highest composite Q-value (Q is the ranking function with higher values indicating higher ranks) (Q 0.60, 95%CI 0.54-0.68; P=0.192). The robustness of ESIRA was supported by internal consistency analyses within the training cohort. When efficacy weights were below 0.2, the rankings showed strong concordance with the safety endpoint (Spearman's correlation coefficient, Spearman's ρ>0.95), while prioritizing efficacy (weight>0.8) resulted in increasing correlations with efficacy endpoints (Spearman's ρ>0.9). In addition, ESIRA rankings were reproduced in two independent validation cohorts, further demonstrating consistency across heterogeneous datasets. By quantitatively integrating multiple clinical outcomes, ESIRA provides a structured approach to treatment selection that may better capture the trade-offs encountered in real-world clinical decision-making for advanced HCC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41634252What 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.