scholarly journals Surrogacy of Time to Progression for Overall Survival in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Systemic Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Liver Cancer ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takeshi Terashima ◽  
Tatsuya Yamashita ◽  
Tadashi Toyama ◽  
Kuniaki Arai ◽  
Kazunori Kawaguchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Time To Progression ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals Adjuvant Transarterial Chemoembolization Following Curative-Intent Hepatectomy Versus Hepatectomy Alone for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (12) ◽  
pp. 2984
Author(s):  
Stepan M. Esagian ◽  
Christos D. Kakos ◽  
Emmanouil Giorgakis ◽  
Lyle Burdine ◽  
J. Camilo Barreto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Transarterial Chemoembolization ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Curative Intent ◽  
Randomized Controlled

The role of adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for patients with resectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing hepatectomy is currently unclear. We performed a systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Random-effects meta-analysis was carried out to compare the overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of patients with resectable HCC undergoing hepatectomy followed by adjuvant TACE vs. hepatectomy alone in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Meta-regression analyses were performed to explore the effect of hepatitis B viral status, microvascular invasion, type of resection (anatomic vs. parenchymal-sparing), and tumor size on the outcomes. Ten eligible RCTs, reporting on 1216 patients in total, were identified. The combination of hepatectomy and adjuvant TACE was associated with superior OS (hazard ratio (HR): 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52 to 0.85; p < 0.001) and RFS (HR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.88; p < 0.001) compared to hepatectomy alone. There were significant concerns regarding the risk of bias in most of the included studies. Overall, adjuvant TACE may be associated with an oncologic benefit in select HCC patients. However, the applicability of these findings may be limited to Eastern Asian populations, due to the geographically restricted sample. High-quality multinational RCTs, as well as predictive tools to optimize patient selection, are necessary before adjuvant TACE can be routinely implemented into standard practice. PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42021245758.

scholarly journals Second-line treatments for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Giovanni Solimando ◽  
Nicola Susca ◽  
Antonella Argentiero ◽  
Oronzo Brunetti ◽  
Patrizia Leone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background & Aims A plethora of second-line therapies have been recently introduced for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment with promising results. A meta-analysis of second-line treatments for HCC has been performed to better tailor their use based on improved patient stratification and to identify the best available option. Methods Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating second-line treatment for advanced HCC in patients already treated with sorafenib. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and drug withdrawal due to adverse events. Network meta-analyses were performed considering placebo as the basis for comparison in efficacy and safety analyses. Subgroup stratification considered gender, age, sorafenib-responsiveness and drug tolerability, viral infection, macrovascular invasion, HCC extrahepatic spread, performance status, and alpha-fetoprotein levels. Results Fourteen phase II or III randomized controlled trials, involving 5,488 patients and 12 regimens, were included in the analysis. Regorafenib (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.50–0.79), cabozantinib (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.63–0.92), and ramucirumab (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.70–0.76) significantly prolonged OS compared with placebo. Cabozantinib (HR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.36–0.52), regorafenib (HR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.37–0.56), ramucirumab (HR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.43–0.68), brivanib (HR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.42–0.76), S-1 (HR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.46–0.77), axitinib (HR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.44–0.87), and pembrolizumab (HR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.57–0.90) significantly improved PFS compared with placebo. None of the compared drugs deemed undoubtedly superior after having performed a patients’ stratification. Conclusions The results of this network meta-analysis suggest the use of regorafenib and cabozantinib as second-line treatments in HCC.

Comparing active immunotherapy efficacy of PD-L1 ≥ 50% NSCLC patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21139-e21139
Author(s):  
Yi Hu ◽  
Xiaochen Zhao ◽  
Yuezong Bai ◽  
Longgang Cui ◽  
Fan Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Nsclc Patients

e21139 Background: Several therapies based on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been approved as the 1L standard of care for PD-L1≥ 50% advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, little is known about the difference in efficacy between different strategies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to help clinicians choose more reasonable treatment options. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase and major conference proceedings from January 2010 to December 2020 for randomized controlled trials that had available subgroup hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival according to PD-L1≥ 50%. Only drugs met primary outcome or approved by FDA were included for analysis. The primary outcome was the difference in overall survival (OS). HRs and 95% CI were calculated for the pooled OS using a random-effects model. p<0.05 was considered as statistical difference. Results: A total of 10 randomized controlled trials were included for this meta-analysis. The pooled HR and 95% CI for monotherapy, ICI plus chemotherapy and ICI plus ICI were 0.64 (0.55, 0.74), 0.64 (0.51, 0.79) and 0.70 (0.55, 0.90), respectively. There was no statistical differences between ICI monotherapy and ICI plus chemotherapy (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.77- 1.30), between ICI monotherapy and ICI plus ICI (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.69- 1.22) or between ICI plus chemotherapy and ICI plus ICI (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66- 1.27). Conclusions: For PD-L1≥ 50% NSCLC patients, active ICI monotherapies showed no different efficacy when compared with ICI combination therapies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document