ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib vs. sorafenib as first-line treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and sorafenib as first-line treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma.
methodThe authors searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, CNKI, Wanfang, and other databases and compared the clinical efficacy of lenvatinib and sorafenib as first-line treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma. Two participants screened the literature, collated the data, and evaluated the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. RevMan 5.4 software was used for meta-analysis of the included studies.
resultsTen studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed that, in terms of efficacy, compared with sorafenib, lenvatinib prolongs PFS in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HR = 85.50, 95 % CI: 38.53‒189.73, p < 0.00001) and OS (HR = 36.73, 95 % CI: 20.28-66.52, p < 0.00001), and the differences were statistically significant. In terms of safety, the risk of toxicities in the lenvatinib group at any level of gastrointestinal toxicities, metabolism/nutrition toxicities, hematological toxicities, Renal/Urinary, Vascular toxicities, and endocrine toxicities was significantly higher in the lenvatinib group than in the sorafenib group. The risks of metabolism/nutrition toxicities, renal/urinary toxicities, and vascular toxicities above grade III were significantly higher than those in the sorafenib group. The Skin/Subcutaneous Tissue toxicities of any grade and above were significantly lower than those in the sorafenib group.
conclusionsAs a first-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma, lenvatinib can prolong PFS and OS and improve the clinical benefit rate and quality of life of patients. The increased risk of specific adverse events with lenvatinib requires diligent clinical oversight.
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.