ArticleMedicine2026
Repositioned donafenib versus standard regorafenib for second-line HCC treatment: A matched cohort study.
Article in Medicine, 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
Abstract
The dominance of bevacizumab plus immunotherapy in first-line advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has created opportunities for repositioning previously effective agents in treatment sequences. We compared donafenib, a first-line approved agent repositioned for second-line use, versus regorafenib, the established second-line standard, both combined with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors (immune checkpoint inhibitors). This retrospective matched cohort study analyzed patients with advanced HCC receiving either donafenib combined with PD-1 inhibitors or regorafenib combined with PD-1 inhibitors as second-line treatment after bevacizumab plus immunotherapy failure (2021-2024). Propensity score matching (1:1) balanced baseline characteristics. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival. After matching, 50 patients were included (25 per group). Donafenib combined with PD-1 inhibitors achieved median progression-free survival of 9.3 months versus 7.1 months for regorafenib combined with PD-1 inhibitors (hazard ratio 1.114, 95% confidence interval: 0.581-2.134, P = .745). Median overall survival was 25.8 versus 17.4 months, respectively (hazard ratio 1.517, 95% confidence interval: 0.685-3.359, P = .304). Objective response rate was 28.0% versus 20.0% (P = .742), and disease control rate was 56.0% versus 48.0% (P = .778). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 76.0% versus 84.0% of patients (P = .725), with grade 3/4 events in 16.0% versus 24.0%. Donafenib repositioned as second-line therapy demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety to standard regorafenib-based treatment in advanced HCC following bevacizumab plus immunotherapy failure. These findings support strategic repositioning of underutilized first-line agents and provide evidence for expanding second-line treatment options in advanced 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.