Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42678589›Full record

ArticleTargeted oncology2026

Regorafenib as Second-Line Versus Later-Line Therapy in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Real-World Study with Exploratory Analysis of Prior Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Exposure.

Kwon Yong Tak, Hee Sun Cho, Jaejun Lee, Kyeungmo Yang, Ahlim Lee, Ji Won Han, Soon Kyu Lee, Hyun Yang, Heechul Nam, Hee Yeon Kim and 12 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Targeted oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

22 authors.

Kwon Yong TakDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Hee Sun ChoDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Jaejun LeeDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Kyeungmo YangDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Ahlim LeeDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Ji Won HanDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Soon Kyu LeeDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Hyun YangDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Heechul NamDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Hee Yeon KimDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Sung Won LeeDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Seok-Hwan KimDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Do Seon SongDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Myeong Jun SongDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Jung Hyun KwonDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
UIm ChangDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Soon Woo NamDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Chang Wook KimDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Jeong Won JangDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Si Hyun BaeDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea.
Hae Lim LeeDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea. atom069@naver.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3242-8883
Pil Soo SungDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222, Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 06591, Republic of Korea. pssung@catholic.ac.kr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5780-9607

Funding

Korea Health Industry Development Institute RS-2025-22852971Ministry of Health and Welfare RS-2026-25510921Ministry of Science and ICT RS-2025-02311629National Research Foundation of Korea RS-2026-25504267
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe therapeutic paradigm for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma has shifted with the global adoption of immune checkpoint inhibitor-based regimens, leading to the frequent use of multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitors in later treatment lines.

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the real-world efficacy and safety of regorafenib as a later-line salvage therapy compared with its conventional second-line application within contemporary clinical practice.

methodsThis study included 255 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with regorafenib between 2017 and 2026. Clinical outcomes, including objective response rate, disease control rate, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and time to progression, were compared between patients receiving regorafenib as a second-line versus later-line therapy.

resultsOf the 255 enrolled patients, 209 received regorafenib as a second-line therapy and 46 as a later-line therapy. The mean maintained dose was significantly lower in the later-line group than in the second-line group. The overall objective response rate and disease control rate were 11.0% and 39.2%, with no significant differences between the second-line and later-line groups in the objective response rate or disease control rate. The median OS, PFS, and time to progression showed no significant difference between the second-line group and the later-line group. Within the later-line group, prior immune checkpoint inhibitor history was not significantly associated with OS or PFS. Discontinuation because of adverse events and liver dysfunction was more frequent in the later-line group than in the second-line group, whereas the rate due to cancer progression was lower. An association was observed between the development of hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) and survival outcomes, with patients experiencing HFSR generally showing longer OS and PFS periods. Grade 3-4 HFSR was associated with the best outcomes for OS and PFS compared with the no HFSR group. On multivariate analysis, Child-Pugh class A, smaller tumor size, lower alpha-fetoprotein levels, and the absence of portal vein tumor thrombosis independently predicted longer OS.

conclusionsRegorafenib may remain a feasible salvage option in selected patients receiving later-line therapy, including those with prior immune checkpoint inhibitor exposure. Although the cumulative treatment burden leads to higher rates of toxicity-related discontinuation, observed OS and PFS did not differ significantly between treatment lines. However, the lack of significant differences in observed OS and PFS should be interpreted cautiously in the context of treatment-selection bias and small later-line subgroup size.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsLiver NeoplasmsPhenylurea CompoundsPyridinesAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSalvage TherapyTyrosine Kinase InhibitorsImmune Checkpoint InhibitorsPhenylurea CompoundsPyridinesregorafenibTyrosine Kinase Inhibitors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.