ArticleLiver cancer2026
Lenvatinib versus Sorafenib in First-Line Treatment of Older Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Subgroup Analysis of the REFLECT Trial.
Article in Liver cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01761266 (A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib), which is not on this 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.
A Multicenter, Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 3 Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib (E7080) Versus Sorafenib in First-Line Treatment of Subjects With Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma
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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In the open-label, phase 3 REFLECT trial, lenvatinib had noninferior overall survival (OS) to sorafenib, as well as improved progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). We report post hoc safety and efficacy in older patients. Methods: In REFLECT (NCT01761266), patients with histologically/cytologically confirmed uHCC were randomly assigned 1:1 to lenvatinib (12 mg/day [bodyweight ≥60 kg] or 8 mg/day [bodyweight <60 kg]) or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily in 28-day cycles. In this analysis, OS, PFS, ORR, and safety were evaluated in patients aged ≥65 and ≥75 years. Efficacy was evaluated per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors by masked independent imaging review. Results: By data cutoff (November 13, 2016), 401 patients (208 receiving lenvatinib, 193 receiving sorafenib) were aged ≥65 years; of them, 125 (58 receiving lenvatinib, 67 receiving sorafenib) were aged ≥75 years. In the age ≥65 group, median OS was 14.6 months (95% CI: 13.0-18.7) in the lenvatinib arm and 13.4 months (95% CI: 11.6-16.3) in the sorafenib arm (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.844; 95% CI: 0.664-1.074); the OS HR was 0.807 (95% CI: 0.634-1.028) after adjusting for baseline alpha-fetoprotein. Median PFS was 7.4 months (95% CI: 5.6-9.1) with lenvatinib and 5.4 months (95% CI: 3.6-5.5) with sorafenib (HR: 0.571; 95% CI: 0.432-0.755). ORRs were 42.8% (95% CI: 36.1-49.5) with lenvatinib and 14.5% (95% CI: 9.5-19.5) with sorafenib. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were hypertension (47.3%) in the lenvatinib arm and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (50.8%) in the sorafenib arm. The incidence of grade ≥3 TEAEs was 82.1% and 72.5% in the lenvatinib and sorafenib arm, respectively. Similar results were observed in patients aged ≥75 years. Conclusion: Consistent with the overall REFLECT population, older patients in the lenvatinib arm generally showed improved efficacy versus the sorafenib arm, supporting lenvatinib as an option for older patients with uHCC.
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.