ArticleCancer management and research2026
Transarterial Chemoembolization Combined with Regorafenib and PD-1 Inhibitor as Second-Line Therapy for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
Article in Cancer management and research, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus regorafenib and PD-1 inhibitor (T-R-P) versus regorafenib plus PD-1 inhibitor (R-P) as the second-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). Methods: In this retrospective, single-center cohort study, 130 uHCC patients who received second-line therapy between February 2020 and July 2024 were enrolled. Among the 130 enrolled patients, 69 received T-R-P and 61 received R-P. Propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to minimize confounding factors. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to identify prognostic factors. Subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the treatment benefits in specific patient populations. Results: After PSM, the T-R-P regimen showed significantly improved OS (14.3 vs 8.1 months) and PFS (8.4 vs 4.3 months) compared to the R-P regimen (P < 0.001). According to mRECIST, ORR (56.5% vs 15.2%) and DCR (69.6% vs 37.0%) were also significantly higher with the T-R-P regimen. Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified the T-R-P regimen as an independent protective factor for both OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.33, P < 0.001) and PFS (HR = 0.39, P < 0.001). These consistent survival benefits in the T-R-P regimen were maintained in both the unmatched cohort and after IPTW. Subgroup analyses further confirmed the consistent survival benefits of the T-R-P regimen across the most predefined patient subgroups. No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study period. Conclusion: After PSM, the T-R-P regimen continued to demonstrate statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in both OS and PFS, coupled with a manageable safety profile, compared to the R-P regimen in patients with uHCC. These findings provide a rationale for considering the T-R-P regimen as a potential second-line treatment option.
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.