ArticleFrontiers in immunology2026
Efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization plus donafenib with or without camrelizumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with anti-VEGF/TKIs and TACE in uHCC: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
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
Purpose: To compare the efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization plus donafenib (TACE+D) and TACE plus donafenib combined with camrelizumab (TACE+D+C) in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC), using propensity score matching (PSM) to minimize selection bias. Methods: A single-center retrospective study analyzed 278 patients with uHCC who received treatment between 2021 and 2024, and they were divided into TACE+D and TACE+D+C groups. PSM was used to perform 1:1 matching (58 patients per group). Tumor response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were compared; Cox regression was used to identify prognostic factors. Results: After PSM, 58 patients were included in each group. Compared with the TACE+D group, the TACE+D+C group demonstrated a significantly higher partial response (PR) (37.93% vs 20.69%, Conclusion: The TACE+D+C group significantly improves ORR, PFS and OS in uHCC patients with a comparable safety profile to the TACE+D group, while the single-center retrospective design limits generalizability, warranting prospective studies.
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.