Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Systemic Therapies for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis of Phase III Trials.

ABSTRACT: Aim/Background:After the introduction of sorafenib in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), different studies tried to evaluate whether other systemic therapies can improve survival. To provide a comprehensive indirect treatment comparison of efficacy and safety of novel drugs, a network meta-analysis (NMA) of phase III randomized controlled trials was performed. Methods:After pertinent literature search up to November 1, 2016, 6 studies were eligible for the analysis including 4,812 individual patients with advanced HCC: 2,454 received sorafenib, 577 received brivanib, 530 received sunitinib, 514 received linifanib, 358 received sorafenib + erlotinib and 379 received placebo. Frequentist NMA was used to compare treatments within a single analytical framework. Results:NMA showed that sorafenib alone, regardless of combination with erlotinib, and linifanib provide a significant survival advantage over placebo (p < 0.05) but without any significant difference between each other. Conversely, all regimens significantly ameliorate progression-free survival versus placebo (p < 0.05). The rank order of efficacy was: sorafenib ± erlotinib, linifanib, brivanib, sunitinib, and placebo. Sorafenib ± erlotinib was the regimen with the fewest number of adverse events that required discontinuation of treatment, whereas linifanib and brivanib resulted in the most adverse events. The risk-benefit summary identified one cluster of therapies with a similar balance between efficacy and safety which included sorafenib alone or in combination with erlotinib, having, at the same time, the highest efficacy and safety. Conclusions:Sorafenib remains the best systemic treatment for advanced HCC; linifanib also resulted in survival advantages over placebo but with a lower safety profile.

SUBMITTER: Cucchetti A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5704710 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of Systemic Therapies for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis of Phase III Trials.

Cucchetti Alessandro A Piscaglia Fabio F Pinna Antonio Daniele AD Djulbegovic Benjamin B Mazzotti Federico F Bolondi Luigi L

Liver cancer 20171019 4

<h4>Aim/background</h4>After the introduction of sorafenib in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), different studies tried to evaluate whether other systemic therapies can improve survival. To provide a comprehensive indirect treatment comparison of efficacy and safety of novel drugs, a network meta-analysis (NMA) of phase III randomized controlled trials was performed.<h4>Methods</h4>After pertinent literature search up to November 1, 2016, 6 studies were eligible for the a ...[more]

PMID: 29234637

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background & aimsDirect comparisons across first-line regimens for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma are not available. We performed a network metanalysis of phase III of trials to compare first-line systemic treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma in terms of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, disease control rate, and incidence of adverse events (AEs).MethodsAfter performing a literature review from January 2008 to September 2022, we screened 6,329 studies and reviewed 3,009 studies, leading to identification of 15 phase III trials for analysis. We extracted odds ratios for objective response rate and disease control rate, relative risks for AEs, and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs for OS and PFS, and used a frequentist network metanalysis, with fixed-effect multivariable meta-regression models to estimate the indirect pooled HRs, odds ratios, relative risks, and corresponding 95% CIs, considering sorafenib as reference.ResultsOf 10,820 included patients, 10,444 received active treatment and 376 placebo. Sintilimab + IBI350, camrelizumab + rivoceranib, and atezolizumab + bevacizumab provided the greatest reduction in the risk of death compared with sorafenib, with HRs of 0.57 (95% CI 0.43-0.75), 0.62 (95% CI 0.49-0.79), and 0.66 (95% CI 0.52-0.84), respectively. Considering PFS, camrelizumab + rivoceranib and pembrolizumab + lenvatinib were associated with the greatest reduction in the risk of PFS events compared with sorafenib, with HRs of 0.52 (95% CI 0.41-0.65) and 0.52 (95% CI 0.35-0.77), respectively. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapies carried the lowest risk for all-grade and grade ≥3 AEs.ConclusionsThe combinations of ICI + anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, and double ICIs lead to the greatest OS benefit compared with sorafenib, whereas ICI + kinase inhibitor regimens are associated with greater PFS benefit at the cost of higher toxicity rates.Impact and implicationsIn the last few years, many different therapies have been studied for patients with primary liver cancer that cannot be treated with surgery. In these cases, anticancer drugs (alone or in combination) are given with the intent to keep the cancer at bay and, ultimately, to prolong survival. Among all the therapies that have been investigated, the combination of immunotherapy (drugs that boost the immune system against the cancer) and anti-angiogenic agents (drugs that act on tumoural vessels) has appeared the best to improve survival. Similarly, the combination of two types of immunotherapies that activate the immune system at different levels has also shown positive results.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42022366330.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral systemic agents have been approved for use in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, it is unclear which treatment is superior in either the first- or second-line settings due to the paucity of head-to-head comparative trials. Therefore, we have conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis for the indirect comparison of the systemic agents in the first line and second line settings.MethodsRandomized clinical trials evaluating systemic agents in first and second line settings in aHCC from inception to April 2020 were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Databases and the annual ASCO and ESMO conferences from 2017 to 2020. Studies in English reporting clinical outcomes including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) were included. The primary outcomes of interest were pooled hazard ratios (HR) of OS and pooled odds ratios (OR) of ORR in first line studies and pooled HR of PFS and OR of ORR for second line studies. Additionally, OS for second line agents were reported in the qualitative analysis.ResultsOverall, first line studies comprised 8335 patients (13 studies) and second line studies comprised 4612 patients (11 studies). In the first line setting, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with the highest OS benefit over sorafenib (HR 0.58, 95% CI, 0.42-0.80; P-score 0.993). Additionally, lenvatinib was associated with the greatest ORR benefit (OR 3.34, 95% CI, 2.17-5.14; P-score 0.080) in the first line setting. In the second line setting, cabozantinib was associated with the highest PFS benefit over placebo (HR 0.44, 95% CI, 0.29-0.66; P-score 0.854) as well as the highest ORR benefit (OR 9.40, 95% CI, 1.25-70.83, P-score, 0.266).ConclusionAtezolizumab plus bevacizumab appears to have superior efficacy among first line agents whereas cabozantinib appears to be superior in the second line setting. Further studies are warranted to determine whether the type of prior therapy received affects the efficacy of subsequent second line therapy.

Project description:Background and aimsSystemic combinations have recently brought significant therapeutic benefits for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). To design the most effective combination regimens, a systematic review (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022321949) was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of systemic combinations on aHCC.MethodsWe retrieved all the studies from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms until December 21, 2022. The effect indicators (hazard ratio [HR], relative risk [RR], and median) were pooled by a fixed- or random-effects model. A subgroup analysis was conducted according to types and specific therapies.ResultsIn total, 88 eligible studies were selected from 7249 potential records. Each kind of combination treatment (chemotherapy plus chemotherapy, targeted plus immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy, targeted plus chemotherapy, and targeted plus targeted therapy) had a better objective response rate (ORR) in patients with aHCC, compared to the monotherapy mostly with sorafenib (RR: 1.57 [1.44-1.71]; I 2 = 30%). Of those, targeted plus ICI therapy showed better therapeutic efficiency in overall survival (median: 15.02 [12.67-17.38]), progression-free survival (median: 7.08 [6.42-7.74]), and ORR (RR: 1.81 [1.55-2.13]), compared to the monotherapy. Specifically, Atezo plus Beva showed all those benefits. Our pooled result showed all the combinations had increased ≥3 Grade treatment-related adverse events (TrAEs), with an RR of 1.25 [95% CI: 1.15-1.36], compared to the monotherapy.ConclusionThe systemic combinations, especially targeted plus ICI therapy, including Atezo plus Beva, significantly improve clinical outcomes but increase side effects in patients with aHCC. Future trials should concentrate on improvement in therapeutic efficiency and reduction of toxicity of targeted plus ICI therapy.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42022321949.

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, there has been rapid development in systemic therapeutic agents for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. However, most treatment modalities lack head-to-head comparisons, and the distinctions in their efficacy and safety have yet to be elucidated. Consequently, the accurate selection of a treatment regimen poses a significant challenge for clinicians.MethodsThis study incorporated twenty-three randomized controlled trials, encompassing fifteen first-line and eight second-line treatments, and involving a total of 14,703 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Results: In the context of first-line treatment, it was observed that the combination of a PD-1 inhibitor with bevacizumab (1/15) significantly extended overall survival in patients with advanced HCC. Furthermore, PD-1 inhibitors combined with TKIs (1/15) and PD-1 inhibitors combined with bevacizumab (2/15) exhibited enhanced efficacy in reducing the risk of progression-free survival events. In second-line therapy, the network meta-analysis revealed that all investigational agents prolonged progression-free survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma when compared to placebo. Cabozantinib ranked first (1/7) in this regard. However, this translated into an overall survival benefit only for cabozantinib, regorafenib, ramucirumab, and pembrolizumab, with regorafenib achieving the highest ranking (1/7).ConclusionIn the treatment of advanced HCC, the immune checkpoint inhibitor combined with bevacizumab regimen and the immune checkpoint inhibitor combined with TKI regimen stand out as the two most effective first-line treatment options. It is noteworthy that, for patients with absolute contraindications to VEGF inhibitors, dual immunotherapy is the preferred choice. For second-line treatment, regorafenib and cabozantinib are identified as the two most effective options.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier CRD42023440173.

Project description:BackgroundHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common cancer associated with a poor prognosis. Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds vascular endothelial growth factor, a mediator of tumor angiogenesis. Bevacizumab is currently under investigation as treatment for HCC. We performed a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced HCC.MethodsPubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched using the terms "bevacizumab AND hepatocellular carcinoma AND (advanced OR unresectable)". Phase II trials of bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced HCC were included. Outcomes of interest included progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS), tumor response, and toxicities.ResultsA total of 26 records were identified. Of these, 18 were excluded. Hence, eight trials involving 300 patients were included. Bevacizumab was given as monotherapy (n = 1 trial) or in combination with erlotinib (n = 4 trials), capecitabine (n = 1 trial), capecitabine+oxaliplatin (n = 1 trial), or gemcitabine+oxaliplatin (n = 1 trial). Most trials (five of eight) reported median PFS and OS between 5.3 months and 9.0 months and 5.9 and 13.7 months, respectively. The disease control rate was consistent in five of eight trials, ranging from 51.1% to 76.9%. The response and partial response rates ranged from 0 to 23.7%, but were around 20% in four trials. Only one patient had a complete response. Frequently reported Grade 3/4 toxicities were increased aspartate transaminase/alanine transaminase (13%), fatigue (12%), hypertension (10%), diarrhea (8%), and neutropenia (5%). Thirty patients experienced gastrointestinal bleeding (grade 1/2 = 18, grade 3/4 = 12), typically due to esophageal varices.ConclusionsBevacizumab shows promise as an effective and tolerable treatment for advanced HCC. The reported efficacy of bevacizumab appears to compare favorably with that of sorafenib, the only currently approved treatment for unresectable HCC. Phase III trials are warranted to comprehensively examine the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab for treatment of advanced HCC.

Project description:Nowadays, the vaccination with COVID-19 vaccines is being promoted worldwide, professionals and common people are very concerned about the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines. No published systematic review and meta-analysis has assessed the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines based on data from phase III clinical trials. Therefore, this study has estimated the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines and the differences between vaccine types. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, medRxiv databases and two websites were used to retrieve the studies. Random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled efficacy and safety with risk ratio (RR). A total of eight studies, seven COVID-19 vaccines and 158,204 subjects were included in the meta-analysis. All the vaccines had a good preventive effect on COVID-19 (RR = 0.17, 95% CI: 0.09-0.32), and the mRNA vaccine (RR = 0.05, 95% CI: 0.03-0.09) was the most effective against COVID-19, while the inactivated vaccine (RR = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.19-0.54) was the least. In terms of safety, the risk of overall adverse events showed an increase in the vaccine group after the first (RR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.03-2.05) or second (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.04-2.20) injection. However, compared with the first injection, the risk of local (RR = 2.64, 95% CI: 1.02-6.83 vs. RR = 2.25, 95% CI: 0.52-9.75) and systemic (RR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.21-1.46 vs. RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 0.84-3.01) adverse events decreased after the second injection. As for the mRNA vaccine, the risk of overall adverse events increased significantly, compared with the placebo, no matter whether it was the first (RR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.80-1.86) or the second (RR = 2.16, 95% CI = 2.11-2.20) injection. All the COVID-19 vaccines that have published the data of phase III clinical trials have excellent efficacy, and the risk of adverse events is acceptable. The mRNA vaccines were the most effective against COVID-19, meanwhile the risk and grade of adverse events was minimal, compared to that of severe symptoms induced by COVID-19.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Systemic Therapies for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis of Phase III Trials.

Publications

Efficacy and Safety of Systemic Therapies for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis of Phase III Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets