ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
HAIC combined with atezolizumab and bevacizumab versus lenvatinib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter propensity score matching analysis.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) combined with atezolizumab and bevacizumab (HTA) versus HAIC combined with lenvatinib (HL) in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: A multicenter retrospective study was conducted between June 2021 and June 2025, reviewing advanced HCC patients treated with either HTA or HL. To mitigate initial differences between the two groups, propensity score matching (PSM) was applied. Tumor response was assessed using the RECIST version 1.1 criteria. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary efficacy outcomes included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR). Safety was assessed by the incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs). Results: A total of 187 patients received HTA, and 119 patients received HL. Following PSM, 106 patients were assigned to each group. The HTA group demonstrated a significantly longer median OS (25.8 months vs. 16.4 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.62, Conclusion: HTA significantly improved overall survival compared to HL in patients with advanced HCC, with manageable safety profiles.
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.