Comparative Effectiveness of Adjuvant Treatment for Resected Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
It is controversial whether adjuvant treatment could be recommended for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after curative hepatectomy. Thus, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess adjuvant treatment's benefit and determine the optimal adjuvant regimen.Methods
We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials comparing adjuvant therapy versus no active treatment after curative hepatectomy among patients with HCC. Pooled data on recurrence and overall survival (OS) were analyzed within pairwise meta-analysis and NMA.Results
Twenty-three eligible trials (3,940 patients) reporting eight treatments were included. The direct meta-analysis showed that adjuvant therapy prevented the recurrence (OR = 0.65; 95% CI: 0.55, 0.77; P = 0.177; I2 = 21.7%) and contributed to OS (HR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.54, 0.73; P = 0.087; I2 = 31.1%) in comparison to the observation. In the NMA, internal radiotherapy (IRT; OR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.77; SUCRA = 87.7%) followed by hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy (HAIC; OR = 0.6; 95% CI: 0.36, 0.97; SUCRA = 77.8%), and HAIC (HR = 0.44; 95% CI: 0.21, 0.87; SUCRA = 82.6%) followed by IRT (HR 0.54; 95% CI:0.36, 0.81; SUCRA = 69.7%) were ranked superior to other treatments in terms of preventing recurrence and providing survival benefit, respectively.Conclusions
The addition of adjuvant therapy lowers the risk of recurrence and provide survival benefit after surgical resection for HCC. HAIC and IRT are likely to be the two most effective adjuvant regimens.Systematic review registration
https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2020-11-0039/.
SUBMITTER: Liu Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8445365 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. We conducted network meta-regression within a Bayesian framework to compare and rank different treatment strategies for HCC through direct and indirect evidence from international studies. METHODS AND ANALYSES:We pooled the OR for 1-year, 3-year and 5-year overall survival, based on lesions of size ? 3?cm, 3-5?cm and ?5?cm, using five therapeutic options including resection (RES), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), microwave ablation (MWA), transcatheter arterial chemoembolisation (TACE) plus RFA (TR) and percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI). RESULTS:We identified 74 studies, including 26?944 patients. After adjustment for study design, and in the full sample of studies, the treatments were ranked in order of greatest to least benefit as follows for 5?year survival: (1) RES, (2) TR, (3) RFA, (4) MWA and (5) PEI. The ranks were similar for 1- and 3-year survival, with RES and TR being the highest ranking treatments. In both smaller (<3?cm) and larger tumours (3-5?cm), RES and TR were also the two highest ranking treatments. There was little evidence of inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence. CONCLUSION:The comparison of different treatment strategies for HCC indicated that RES is associated with longer survival. However, many of the between-treatment comparisons were not statistically significant and, for now, selection of strategies for treatment will depend on patient and disease characteristics. Additionally, much of the evidence was provided by non-randomised studies and knowledge gaps still exist. More head-to-head comparisons between both RES and TR, or other approaches, will be necessary to confirm these findings.
| S-EPMC6196801 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundCurrent guidelines recommend hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) screening in high-risk populations. However, the ideal HCC screening interval and screening modality have not been determined. This study aimed to compare the screening efficacy among different modalities with various intervals.MethodsPubMed and other nine databases were searched through June 30, 2021. Binary outcomes were pooled using risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Survival rates were also pooled using RR with 95% CIs because most eligible studies only provided the number of survival patients instead of hazard ratio.ResultsIn all, 13 studies were included. Two random controlled trials (RCTs) and six cohort studies compared screening intervals for ultrasonography (US) screening and found no significant differences between shorter (3- or 4-month) and longer (6- or 12-month) screening intervals in terms of early HCC proportion, HCC significant mortality, 1-year survival rate; screening at 6-month interval significantly increased the proportion of early HCC (RR = 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.08-1.26) and prolonged the 5-year survival rate (RR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.07-1.82) relative to the 12-month interval results. Three other RCTs and two cohort studies compared different screening modalities in cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B, which indicated no statistical differences in the proportion of early HCC (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.40-1.96) and HCC mortality (RR = 0.69, 95% CI: 0.23-2.09) between the biannual US and annual computed tomography (CT screening). Biannual US screening showed a lower proportion of early HCC than biannual magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (RR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.37-0.97) and biannual US combined with annual CT (RR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.13-1.51) screening. The proportion of early HCC in the contrast-enhanced US group was slightly higher than that in the B-mode US (RR = 1.08, 95% CI: 1.00-1.23) group.ConclusionsThe evidence suggests that 6 months may be the best HCC screening interval for US screening. The effectiveness of CT and MRI is better than US during same screening intervals. However, MRI and CT are more expensive than US, and CT also can increase the risk of radiation exposure. The selection of CT or MRI instead of US should be carefully considered.RegistrationNo. CRD42020148258 at PROSPERO website ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ).
| S-EPMC10309520 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecent randomized controlled trials (rcts) have contributed high-quality data about adjuvant therapy in curatively resected biliary tract cancer (btc); however, a standard approach to treating those patients still has not been developed.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of published studies and abstracts up to and including June 2018, choosing rcts involving patients with btc receiving adjuvant chemotherapy after complete surgical resection. Network meta-analysis methods were used for indirect comparisons of overall survival (os) and relapse-free survival (rfs) for various adjuvant therapies.ResultsFive rcts were included in qualitative synthesis, and three rcts (bilcap, prodige 12-accord 18, and bcat) had data sufficient for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Results from the indirect comparison demonstrated no significant improvement in os for capecitabine compared with gemcitabine or with gemcitabine-oxaliplatin (gemox), the hazard ratios (hrs) being 0.82 [95% confidence interval (ci): 0.53 to 1.27] and 0.86 (95% ci: 0.56 to 1.34) respectively. Similarly, no significant improvement in rfs was observed for capecitabine compared with gemcitabine or gemox.ConclusionsAlthough in the present analysis, we found no statistically significant improvements in os or rfs for capecitabine compared with gemox or gemcitabine, capecitabine can-until further prospective trials are completed-be considered the standard of care in the adjuvant setting based on a single randomized phase iii study.
| S-EPMC7096209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies are approved for adjuvant treatment of patients with resected melanoma; however, they have not been compared in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nivolumab with other approved treatments using available evidence from RCTs in a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA).MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted through May 2019 to identify relevant RCTs evaluating approved adjuvant treatments. Outcomes of interest included recurrence-free survival (RFS)/disease-free survival (DFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), all-cause grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs), discontinuations, and discontinuations due to AEs. Time-to-event outcomes (RFS/DFS and DMFS) were analyzed both assuming that hazard ratios (HRs) are constant over time and that they vary.ResultsOf 26 identified RCTs, 19 were included in the NMA following a feasibility assessment. Based on HRs for RFS/DFS, the risk of recurrence with nivolumab was similar to that of pembrolizumab and lower than that of ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, ipilimumab 10 mg/kg, or interferon. Risk of recurrence with nivolumab was similar to that of dabrafenib plus trametinib at 12 months, however, was lower beyond 12 months (HR [95% credible interval] at 24 months, 0.46 [0.27-0.78]; at 36 months, 0.28 [0.14-0.59]). Based on HRs for DMFS, the risk of developing distant metastases was lower with nivolumab than with ipilimumab 10 mg/kg or interferon and was similar to dabrafenib plus trametinib.ConclusionAdjuvant therapy with nivolumab provides an effective treatment option with a promising risk-benefit profile.
| S-EPMC7784366 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Malaria causes significant morbidity and mortality worldwide. There are several preventive measures that are currently employed, including insecticide-treated nets (ITNs, including long-lasting insecticidal nets and insecticidal-treated bed nets), indoor residual spraying (IRS), prophylactic drugs (PD), and untreated nets (UN). However, it is unclear which measure is the most effective for malaria prevention. We therefore undertook a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of different preventive measures on incidence of malaria infection.A systematic literature review was undertaken across four medical and life sciences databases (PubMed, Cochrane Central, Embase, and Web of Science) from their inception to July 2016 to compare the effectiveness of different preventive measures on malaria incidence. Data from the included studies were analysed for the effectiveness of several measures against no intervention (NI). This was carried out using an automated generalized pairwise modeling (GPM) framework for network meta-analysis to generate mixed treatment effects against a common comparator of no intervention (NI).There were 30 studies that met the inclusion criteria from 1998-2016. The GPM framework led to a final ranking of effectiveness of measures in the following order from best to worst: PD, ITN, IRS and UN, in comparison with NI. However, only ITN (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.32-0.74) showed precision while other methods [PD (RR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.004-15.43), IRS (RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.20-1.56) and UN (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.28-1.90)] demonstrating considerable uncertainty associated with their point estimates.Current evidence is strong for the protective effect of ITN interventions in malaria prevention. Even though ITNs were found to be the only preventive measure with statistical support for their effectiveness, the role of other malaria control measures may be important adjuncts in the global drive to eliminate malaria.
| S-EPMC5869791 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThere are currently many treatment options for patients with subacromial shoulder conditions (SSCs). Clinical decision-making regarding the best treatment option is often difficult. This study aims to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of treatment options for relieving pain and improving function in patients with SSCs.MethodsEight databases [including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, PEDro, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry] were searched from inception until April 2020. Randomised clinical/controlled trials of adult patients investigating the effects of nonsurgical (e.g. corticosteroid injections, therapeutic exercise, shockwave therapy) and surgical treatment for SSCs, compared with each other, placebo, usual care or no treatment, were retrieved. Pairs of reviewers screened studies independently, quality appraised eligible studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, extracted and checked data for accuracy. Primary outcomes were pain and disability in the short term (⩽3 months) and long term (⩾6 months). Direct and indirect evidence of treatment effectiveness was synthesised using random-effects network meta-analysis.ResultsThe review identified 177 eligible trials. Summary estimates (based on 99 trials providing suitable data, 6764 patients, 20 treatment options) showed small to moderate effects for several treatments, but no significant differences on pain or function between many active treatment comparisons. The primary analysis indicated that exercise and laser therapy may provide comparative benefit in terms of both pain and function at different follow-up time-points, with larger effects found for laser in the short term at 2-6 weeks, although direct evidence was provided by one trial only, and for exercise in the longer term [standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18, 0.59 at 3-6 months] compared with control. Sensitivity analyses excluding studies at increased risk of bias confirmed only the comparative effects of exercise as being robust for both pain and function up until 3-month follow-up.ConclusionCurrent evidence shows small to moderate effect sizes for most treatment options for SSCs. Six treatments had a high probability of being most effective, in the short term, for pain and function [acupuncture, manual therapy, exercise, exercise plus manual therapy, laser therapy and Microcurrent (MENS) (TENS)], but with low certainty for most treatment options. After accounting for risk of bias, there is evidence of moderate certainty for the comparative effects of exercise on function in patients with SSCs. Future large, high-quality pragmatic randomised trials or meta-analyses are needed to better understand whether specific subgroups of patients respond better to some treatments than others.
| S-EPMC8435933 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC10730675 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe optimal transcatheter embolization strategy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains elusive. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of different embolization options for unresectable HCC.MethodsMedical databases were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating bland transarterial embolization (TAE), conventional TACE, drug-eluting bead chemoembolization (DEB-TACE), or transarterial radioembolization (TARE), either alone or combined with adjuvant chemotherapy, or local liver ablation, or external radiotherapy for unresectable HCC up to June 2017. Random effects Bayesian models with a binomial and normal likelihood were fitted (WinBUGS). Primary endpoint was patient survival expressed as hazard ratios (HR) and 95% credible intervals. An exponential model was used to fit patient survival curves. Safety and objective response were calculated as odds ratios (OR) and accompanying 95% credible intervals. Competing treatments were ranked with the SUCRA statistic. Heterogeneity-adjusted effective sample sizes were calculated to evaluate information size for each comparison. Quality of evidence (QoE) was assessed with the GRADE system adapted for NMA reports. All analyses complied with the ISPOR-AMCP-NCP Task Force Report for good practice in NMA.FindingsThe network of evidence included 55 RCTs (12 direct comparisons) with 5,763 patients with preserved liver function and unresectable HCC (intermediate to advanced stage). All embolization strategies achieved a significant survival gain over control treatment (HR range, 0.42-0.76; very low-to-moderate QoE). However, TACE, DEB-TACE, TARE and adjuvant systemic agents did not confer any survival benefit over bland TAE alone (moderate QoE, except low in case of TARE). There was moderate QoE that TACE combined with external radiation or liver ablation achieved the best patient survival (SUCRA 86% and 96%, respectively). Estimated median survival was 13.9 months in control, 18.1 months in TACE, 20.6 months with DEB-TACE, 20.8 months with bland TAE, 30.1 months in TACE plus external radiotherapy, and 33.3 months in TACE plus liver ablation. TARE was the safest treatment (SUCRA 77%), however, all examined therapies were associated with a significantly higher risk of toxicity over control (OR range, 6.35 to 68.5). TACE, DEB-TACE, TARE and adjuvant systemic agents did not improve objective response over bland embolization alone (OR range, 0.85 to 1.65). There was clinical diversity among included randomized controlled trials, but statistical heterogeneity was low.ConclusionsChemo- and radio-embolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma may improve tumour objective response and patient survival, but are not more effective than bland particle embolization. Chemoembolization combined with external radiotherapy or local liver ablation may significantly improve tumour response and patient survival rates over embolization monotherapies. Quality of evidence remains mostly low to moderate because of clinical diversity.Systematic review registrationCRD42016035796 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).
| S-EPMC5608206 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine the benefits of adjuvant therapy in patients with resected biliary tract cancer (BTC) and identify the optimal adjuvant treatment scheme.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesStudies comparing different adjuvant therapies in patients with BTC were searched in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov databases from inception to December 2021. Additionally, the references were manually searched for the related literature.Materials and methodsEligible studies were identified, and data were extracted independently by two authors. A random-effects network meta-analysis was performed using R software. The pooled outcomes of overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were measured using the combined HRs with 95% CIs.ResultsNineteen eligible studies reporting three types of adjuvant therapies were included in our network meta-analysis. Adjuvant radiotherapy (ART, HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.93), adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (ACRT; HR 0.71; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83) and adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT; HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98) were more effective in prolonging OS than that of observation, with no significant difference between the three adjuvant therapies. Moreover, the improvement in DFS was also found in ACRT and ACT compared with that of observation (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.75; HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.97, respectively). Furthermore, ACRT obtained a slightly better DFS benefit compared with that of ACT (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.95).ConclusionsOur primary results demonstrated that, compared with that of observation, ACRT and ACT after radical resection could provide better OS and DFS benefits in patients with BTC. However, ART only showed improvement in OS, but not in DFS. Due to the lack of head-to-head studies of ACT, ACRT and ART, the above results need to be further verified by prospective randomised controlled trials.
| S-EPMC9020290 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of novel biologic therapies in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and to establish the position of the non-anti-tumor necrosis factor ? (TNF-?) biologic drugs in the treatment regimen of the disease. A systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) requirements. Two investigators identified the studies, abstracted data, and assessed the risk of bias independently. The NMA was conducted for efficacy [American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria, ACR20 and ACR50; psoriasis area and severity index (PASI), PASI75] and safety outcomes [any adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs)]; treatments were ranked using the P score for each outcome. The PROSPERO registration number was 42017072200. MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from the inception of each database to July 10, 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for abatacept, apremilast, secukinumab or ustekinumab in adults with moderate and severe PsA were included. The overall PsA population and anti-TNF-?-naive, anti-TNF-?-failure, or anti-TNF-?-experienced subpopulations were considered. We identified eight eligible RCTs and included them in the systematic review and NMA. Significant differences in ACR20 response rate were revealed between secukinumab 150 mg and apremilast 20 mg [relative risk; RR?=?2.55 (CI-confidence interval; 1.24, 5.23)] and between secukinumab 300 mg and apremilast 20 or 30 mg [RR?=?3.57 CI (1.48, 8.64) and RR?=?2.84 CI (1.18, 6.86), respectively]. Any AEs occurred more often in apremilast 20 and 30 mg compared with placebo [RR?=?0.58 CI (0.45, 0.74) and RR?=?0.58 CI (0.45, 0.75), respectively] but also compared with secukinumab 150 mg [RR?=?0.54 CI (0.35, 0.81) and RR?=?0.45 CI (0.35, 0.82), respectively]. No significant differences were revealed for SAEs among biologics and between biologics and placebo. In the overall population, as well as in the anti-TNF-?-naive subpopulation, secukinumab at a dose of 300 and 150 mg was ranked the highest for the ACR20 endpoint, while in the anti-TNF-?-experienced subpopulation, secukinumab 300 mg and apremilast 30 mg revealed the highest rank. Secukinumab 75 mg was the safest drug in terms of any AEs, but for SEAs the safest was ustekinumab 90 mg. Our study revealed no significant differences among non-anti-TNF-? biologics in the treatment of PsA in the comparisons performed with regards to the highest efficacy and safety. Both in the overall population and in the analyzed subpopulations, secukinumab 300 mg was ranked the highest for the ACR20 response rate. Secukinumab 300 mg was the safest drug in terms of any AEs, and ustekinumab 90 mg presented the lowest overall risk of SAEs. Head-to-head trials and evaluation of comparative efficacy and safety between non-TNF-? biologics are warranted to inform clinical decision making with a relevant treatment paradigm.
| S-EPMC5773655 | biostudies-literature