ArticleHepatology international2026
Real-world outcomes of lenvatinib versus sorafenib as the second-line therapy after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a large-scale multicenter study in Korea.
Article in Hepatology international, 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAfter first‑line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (ATE + BEV) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), optimal second‑line (2L) therapy remains unclear. This study compared the real‑world effectiveness and hepatotoxicity of lenvatinib versus sorafenib as 2L treatment after ATE + BEV.
methodsThis retrospective, multicenter study used electronic medical record data from the Liver Cancer IN Korea (LINK) database. Patients who received 2L lenvatinib or sorafenib after ATE + BEV were included. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included time to treatment discontinuation (TTD), time to next treatment (TTNT), hepatotoxicity, and tumor marker dynamics. Analyses were conducted in the overall cohort, with additional propensity score (PS)-matched analyses performed.
resultsA total of 295 patients were included in the analysis (2L lenvatinib, n = 132; 2L sorafenib, n = 163). Median OS was significantly longer with lenvatinib (not reached) than with sorafenib (6.67 months [95% CI 5.32-17.31]; p = 0.001). Lenvatinib also showed significantly longer TTD (5.49 months [3.75-6.04] vs. 1.84 months [1.68-2.20]; p < 0.001) and TTNT (5.72 months [4.07-7.85] vs. 3.06 months [2.56-3.48]; p = 0.001). These findings were generally consistent after PS-matching. Incidence rates of laboratory-based hepatotoxicity were lower with lenvatinib. From 2L initiation to 3 months after 2L therapy, both AFP and PIVKA-II generally declined in both groups.
conclusionThese findings suggest that lenvatinib may be a promising 2L option following ATE + BEV in HCC, as evidenced by improved OS, longer treatment durability, and lower rates of laboratory-based hepatotoxicity compared with sorafenib. However, given the retrospective observational design, further prospective studies are warranted to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42726197What 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.