ArticleGut and liver2026
Second-Line and Subsequent Therapies after Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab Treatment in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in Gut and liver, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aims: Optimal second-line (2L) and third-line (3L) systemic therapies after first-line (1L) atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (AtezoBev) for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain undefined. This prospective multicenter study evaluated the efficacy and safety of various 2L and 3L systemic therapies following AtezoBev. Methods: We enrolled 94 patients with advanced HCC who were intolerant of or progressed to 1L AtezoBev treatment from four hospitals in Korea. Five patients who did not receive 2L therapy were excluded, and the remaining 89 patients were analyzed. Survival outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Among the 89 analyzed patients, median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer in those who received 2L-lenvatinib compared to 2L-sorafenib (5.5 months vs 3.2 months: hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24 to 0.77; p=0.005) or 2L-regorafenib (4.7 months), while median overall survival (OS) did not differ significantly. Among 48 patients receiving 3L therapy, regorafenib showed a trend toward improved OS over sorafenib (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.11 to 1.02; p=0.051), supported by restricted mean survival time analysis (p=0.028). Adverse events differed across therapies, with skin reactions and proteinuria notably linked to regorafenib and lenvatinib. Sequential 2L-lenvatinib followed by 3L-sorafenib yielded significantly better PFS than 2L-sorafenib followed by 3L-regorafenib (5.49 months vs 2.99 months: HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.65; p=0.003). Longer AtezoBev exposure prior to 2L treatment was associated with improved OS (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.11; p=0.041). Conclusions: In advanced HCC following 1L AtezoBev failure, 2L lenvatinib prolonged PFS, and 3L regorafenib improved OS. These findings underscore the need to optimize sequential systemic therapies to enhance survival.
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.