SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Efficacy of immune-based combinations across treatment lines in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With the rapid introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), optimal treatment sequencing remains unclear. Lacking direct comparisons, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of systemic therapies across first- and second-line settings. Methods: A frequentist network meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD420261296427) was performed using phase III RCTs from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science (up to January 2026) evaluating systemic HCC therapies. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Subgroup analysis compared treatment-naïve versus refractory populations. Results: Twelve RCTs comprising 8,138 patients were analyzed. For OS, ICI-anti-angiogenic combinations ranked highest, notably sintilimab plus IBI305 (HR = 0.57 vs. sorafenib; SUCRA = 0.94) and camrelizumab plus rivoceranib (HR = 0.62 vs. sorafenib; SUCRA = 0.89). Combinations consistently outperformed monotherapies in PFS and ORR. Crucially, subgroup analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in the magnitude of survival benefit between first-line (HR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.65-0.83) and second-line settings (HR = 1.09, 95%CI: 0.90-1.30) when compared to sorafenib (P = 0.0006). Regarding safety, ICI monotherapy/dual-blockade (e.g., pembrolizumab, nivolumab + ipilimumab) demonstrated better tolerability, whereas TKI-based combinations significantly increased Grade ≥3 TRAE rates. Conclusion: ICI-based combinations offer the most robust survival benefits in HCC via pharmacodynamic synergy, albeit with higher cumulative toxicity. The differing magnitude of survival benefit between first- and second-line settings when compared to sorafenib highlights their distinct clinical contexts. These findings support a tailored continuum of care, guiding optimal sequencing based on pharmacological efficacy and safety profiles. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261296427, identifier CRD420261296427.
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.