Dataset Information

Systematic literature review of trials assessing recommended systemic treatments in hepatocellular carcinoma

ABSTRACT:

Aim:

To identify and evaluate the similarity of all trials assessing recommended treatments for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Materials & methods:

Single arm and randomized trials from any phase and published any time up to February 2021 were systematically searched.

Results:

From 5677 records reviewed, 50 trials were included in the review, and 24 for assessed for similarity. In the first-line (1L) setting, several trials assessing sorafenib were noted for enrolling patients with more severe disease and/or performance status than other 1L trials; trials within the second-line (2L) setting were generally similar. Median survival was <2 years in all trial arms.

Conclusions:

Trials assessing recommended treatments are largely similar and appropriate for quantitative comparisons of several efficacy and safety outcomes. Lay abstract Several drugs are recommended for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We reviewed all the trials that tested these drugs. Most trials had similar design and patient criteria, except some of the early trials for sorafenib allowed patients with more severe disease. We examined the median overall survival from trials where patients were randomized to receive an active drug or a non-active drug (placebo). Patients getting their first HCC drug survived 4.0–19.2 months (active drug) or 3.5–7.9 months (placebo). Patients getting their second HCC drug survived 8.5–13.9 months (active drug) or 7.3–10.6 months (placebo). Nearly one in seven patients stopped participating in a drug trial due to adverse events. This review summarizes the clinical potential and unmet needs in drugs to treat patients with advanced HCC.

SUBMITTER: Ronnebaum S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8577513 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMultikinase inhibitors (MKIs) have been shown to improve survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with placebo. Distinct from other MKIs, cabozantinib has inhibitory activity for both AXL and MET. This review considers the literature elucidating the role of AXL and MET in HCC progression, treatment resistance, and immunomodulation. A systematic search of the PubMed database was conducted on November 16, 2020, and identified a total of 174 search results. A further 36 potentially relevant articles were identified based on the authors' knowledge. After initial screening by title/abstract, 159 underwent full-text screening and we identified 69 original research articles reporting empirical data from in vitro or in vivo models of HCC evaluating the effects of manipulating AXL or MET signaling on tumorigenic behavior.SummaryAXL expression is highly correlated with HCC progression and outcomes and has been reported to be involved in transforming growth factor-β and the regulation of PI3K/AKT, ERK/MAPK, and CCN proteins. MET protein expression is increased in HCC with the highest histological grade and has been reported to be involved in the regulation of PI3K/AKT, PLCγ/DAG/PKC, and MAPK/ERK signaling. Both AXL and MET are key regulators of sorafenib resistance in HCC. In terms of immunomodulation, there are data to indicate that AXL and MET interact with the immune components of the tumor microenvironment and promote tumorigenesis and treatment resistance. In addition, AXL was found to play a potential role in the development of a protumorigenic neutrophil phenotype in HCC. Combined inhibition of MET and programmed cell death protein resulted in additive reduction of HCC cell growth.Key messagesAXL and MET play key roles in HCC progression, treatment resistance, and immunomodulation. Continued development of drugs that target these receptor tyrosine kinases appears likely to represent a useful strategy to improve outcomes for patients with HCC.

Project description:BackgroundBlinding is a cornerstone of therapeutic evaluation because lack of blinding can bias treatment effect estimates. An inventory of the blinding methods would help trialists conduct high-quality clinical trials and readers appraise the quality of results of published trials. We aimed to systematically classify and describe methods to establish and maintain blinding of patients and health care providers and methods to obtain blinding of outcome assessors in randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatments.Methods and findingsWe undertook a systematic review of all reports of randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacologic treatments with blinding published in 2004 in high impact-factor journals from Medline and the Cochrane Methodology Register. We used a standardized data collection form to extract data. The blinding methods were classified according to whether they primarily (1) established blinding of patients or health care providers, (2) maintained the blinding of patients or health care providers, and (3) obtained blinding of assessors of the main outcomes. We identified 819 articles, with 472 (58%) describing the method of blinding. Methods to establish blinding of patients and/or health care providers concerned mainly treatments provided in identical form, specific methods to mask some characteristics of the treatments (e.g., added flavor or opaque coverage), or use of double dummy procedures or simulation of an injection. Methods to avoid unblinding of patients and/or health care providers involved use of active placebo, centralized assessment of side effects, patients informed only in part about the potential side effects of each treatment, centralized adapted dosage, or provision of sham results of complementary investigations. The methods reported for blinding outcome assessors mainly relied on a centralized assessment of complementary investigations, clinical examination (i.e., use of video, audiotape, or photography), or adjudication of clinical events.ConclusionsThis review classifies blinding methods and provides a detailed description of methods that could help trialists overcome some barriers to blinding in clinical trials and readers interpret the quality of pharmacologic trials.

Project description:ObjectiveSeveral new first-line treatments were recently approved for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this meta-analysis, we compare the efficacy and safety of first-line systemic treatments to provide information for clinical decision making in unresectable HCC.MethodsPubmed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI, CBM, VIP, and the Wanfang databases, as well as the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails were searched for randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of first-line chemotherapy, molecular targeted therapy, or immunotherapy for unresectable HCC. Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to explore the effects of various treatment options on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), whereas odd ratios with 95% CIs were used for adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). A network meta-analysis was performed to synthesize data and for direct and indirect comparisons between treatments. The cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) and P score were used to rank treatments. The risk of bias across studies was assessed graphically and numerically using the funnel plot and Egger's regression test.ResultsFifteen studies including 9005 patients were analyzed. Sintilimab plus bevacizumab, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, and donafenib had better OS outcomes than sorafenib. Sintilimab plus bevacizumab, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib, and linifanib had better PFS outcomes than sorafenib. The results of network meta-analysis showed that sintilimab plus bevacizumab was associated with the best OS and PFS. Egger's tests indicated that none of the included studies had obvious publication deviation.ConclusionSintilimab plus bevacizumab showed the best OS and PFS outcomes with no additional AEs or SAEs. Thus, sintilimab plus bevacizumab may be a better first line choice for the treatment of patients with unresectable HCC.Systematic review registrationPROSPEROI [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/index.php], identifier CRD42021269734.