SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
A dual-level Bayesian network meta-analysis of first-line immunotherapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: strategy-level and regimen-level evidence.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Phase III trials of first-line immunotherapy-based combinations for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have yielded heterogeneous results, and head-to-head comparisons remain scarce. We evaluated mechanism-based strategy classes and individual regimens using a dual-level Bayesian network meta-analysis to provide a structured interpretation of the current evidence. Methods: We systematically searched the literature up to December 28, 2025, and identified 15 phase III randomised controlled trials. A dual-level Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using separate models at the strategy level (PD-(L)1 plus VEGF monoclonal antibody (VEGF(Ab)), PD-(L)1 plus tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), PD-(L)1 plus CTLA-4, and PD-(L)1 monotherapy) and the regimen level. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Results: Fifteen trials comprising 9,792 patients were included. At the strategy level, PD-(L)1 plus VEGF(Ab) showed the most favourable OS effect versus TKI monotherapy and the highest efficacy-oriented ranking, followed by PD-(L)1 plus CTLA-4 and PD-(L)1 plus TKI. PD-(L)1 plus TKI also improved PFS but was associated with a higher toxicity and discontinuation burden, whereas PD-(L)1 monotherapy showed the most favourable tolerability profile. At the regimen level, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, sintilimab plus IBI305, camrelizumab plus rivoceranib, and STRIDE showed OS benefit versus sorafenib. Conclusions: In this evidence network, PD-(L)1 plus VEGF(Ab) showed the most efficacy-oriented profile and was supported by relatively consistent regimen-level estimates. However, the clinical interpretation of strategy-level findings differed across classes: PD-(L)1 plus TKI required closer regimen-level assessment because of greater within-class variability and a less favourable toxicity profile, whereas PD-(L)1 plus CTLA-4 and PD-(L)1 monotherapy showed distinct benefit-risk patterns. This dual-level framework complements regimen-centric evidence by distinguishing strategy-level patterns from regimen-level findings and by supporting a structured interpretation of efficacy-toxicity trade-offs in first-line ICI-based therapy for advanced HCC. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251273309, identifier CRD420251273309.
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.