Dataset Information

First-Line Systemic Treatment Strategies for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Several 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.

Methods

Pubmed, 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.

Results

Fifteen 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.

Conclusion

Sintilimab 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 registration

PROSPEROI [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/index.php], identifier CRD42021269734.

SUBMITTER: Liu W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8739799 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe existence of many phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) puzzle doctors and patients in choosing the most effective treatment strategies. We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of immunotherapy or targeted therapy as the first-line strategy for unresectable HCC.MethodsThe included clinical trials were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane library, and Web of Science databases, in which immunotherapy or targeted therapy was regarded as the first-line treatment for unresectable HCC, published in English between January 1, 2010, and September 20, 2022. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) from the Chinese payer's perspective. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), the ranks of different treatments using P-score, and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated by NMA. Total costs, life-years (LYs), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-benefit ratio (ICER) were estimated from 15-year Markov models developed by CEA.ResultsWe identified 2,825 records, including 11,796 patients, from 15 RCTs. The NMA revealed that sintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.75; P = 0.96) and camrelizumab plus rivoceranib (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.66; P = 0.94) could lead to great improvements in OS and PFS compared with sorafenib-related survival. The CEA indicated that tislelizumab increased by 0.220 QALYs (0.312 LYs) and decreased by $1,938 compared with sorafenib, which yielded ICERs of -$8,809/QALY (-$2,612/LY). Sensitivity analysis showed that the model was stable.ConclusionSintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar and camrelizumab plus rivoceranib significantly prolonged OS and PFS, respectively. Further considering the pharmacoeconomics factors, tislelizumab is the most cost-effective first-line treatment strategy for unresectable HCC in China.

Project description:Background: Sintilimab + a bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) (SB) and atezolizumab + bevacizumab (AB) have been approved for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). At present, oncologists and their patients remain indecisive on their preferred treatment regime. Therefore, assessing their efficacy via a network meta-analysis and determining their comparative cost-effectiveness is necessary. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SB and AB compared with sorafenib alone for the treatment of unresectable HCC. Materials and Methods: The data used in our analysis were obtained from patients in ORIENT-32 and IMbrave150 phase III randomized clinical trials. A Bayesian network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis that included 1,072 patients were performed in this study. A partitioned survival model was applied to the patients with unresectable HCC. The model was designed with a 15-year time horizon, 1-month cycle, and 5% discount rate for costs and outcomes. In China, an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) value of less than $33,500 (three times the GDP per capita in 2020) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is considered cost-effective. The influence of parameter uncertainty on the results was verified by one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probability sensitivity analysis. Furthermore, scenario analyses of the patient assistance program (PAP) were conducted to explore the cost-effectiveness of SB and AB. Results: For the model of 1,072 patients, treatment with SB produced an additional 0.617 QALYs compared with sorafenib, resulting in an ICER of $39,766.86/QALY. Similarly, treatment with AB produced an additional 0.596 QALYs compared with sorafenib, resulting in an ICER of $103,037.66/QALY. The probability sensitivity analysis showed that when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was $33,500/QALY, the cost-effectiveness of SB and AB was 15.4 and 0.4%, respectively. However, in the scenario analyses, the probability of SB and AB regimens being cost-effective was 65.4 and 15.8%, respectively, at a WTP of $33,500/QALY. Conclusion: The findings from our study showed that sintilimab + a bevacizumab biosimilar is a cost-effective regimen compared with sorafenib as the first-line therapy for unresectable HCC in China at a $33,500 WTP threshold if sintilimab PAP is considered. However, the atezolizumab + bevacizumab regimen is not cost-effective whether atezolizumab PAP is considered or not.

Project description:Background and aimsHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death all over the world, and brings a heavy social economic burden especially in China. Several immuno-combination therapies have shown promising efficacy in the first-line treatment of unresectable HCC and are widely used in clinical practice. Nevertheless, which combination is the most affordable one is unknown. Our study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the immuno-combinations as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable HCC from the perspective of Chinese payers.MethodsA Markov model was built according to five multicenter, phase III, open-label, randomized trials (Himalaya, IMbrave150, ORIENT-32, CARES-310, LEAP-002) to investigate the cost-effectiveness of tremelimumab plus durvalumab (STRIDE), atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B), sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) (S + B), camrelizumab plus rivoceranib (C + R), and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (P + L). Three disease states were included: progression free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) as well as death. Medical costs were searched from West China Hospital, published literatures or the Red Book. Cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were evaluated to compare costs among different combinations. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robust of the model.ResultsThe total cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of C + R, S + B, P + L, A + B and STRIDE were $12,109.27 and 0.91, $26,961.60 and 1.12, $55,382.53 and 0.83, $70,985.06 and 0.90, $84,589.01 and 0.73, respectively, resulting in the most cost-effective strategy of C + R with CER of $13,306.89 per QALY followed by S + B with CER of $24,072.86 per QALY. Compared with C + R, the ICER of S + B strategy was $70,725.38 per QALY, which would become the most cost-effective when the willing-to-pay threshold exceeded $73,500/QALY. In the subgroup analysis, with the application of Asia results in Leap-002 trial, the model results were the same as global data. In the sensitivity analysis, with the variation of parameters, the results were robust.ConclusionAs one of the promising immuno-combination therapies in the first-line systemic treatment of HCC, camrelizumab plus rivoceranib demonstrated the potential to be the most cost-effective strategy, which warranted further studies to best inform the real-world clinical practices.

Project description:BackgroundHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the cancers with the highest morbidity and mortality. Sorafenib used to be the main treatment for unresectable HCC patients. However, regimens based on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have attracted attention in recent years because of their reported benefits. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of monotherapy and combination therapy of ICIs as first-line treatment for unresectable HCC patients by conducting a systematic review, meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis.MethodsStudies published up to 11st August 2022 were searched from 4 commonly used databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Clinical trials.gov. All eligible clinical trials were included. Data about reported objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were extracted.ResultsOf the 8579 studies retrieved, 24 met the inclusion criteria. In patients with unresectable HCC taking ICIs-based therapy as first-line treatment, the pooled result of median PFS and median OS was 5.76 months (95% CI 4.82-6.69) and 16.35 months (95% CI 15.19-17.51) The ORR and DCR were 25.1% (95% CI 20.8-29.5%) and 75.2% (95% CI 70.3-80.2%) measured by RECIST v1.1 or 40.2% (95% CI 31.7-48.6%) with 75.2% (95% CI 68.3-82.1%) measured by mRECIST v1.1. Compared to sorafenib, ICIs-based therapy significantly prolonged OS. The combination treatment of sintilimab plus IBI305 had the highest ORR, while atezolizumab plus bevacizumab had the highest DCR. The pooled incidence of any grade TRAEs was 82.3% (95% CI 73.9-90.7%), with highest incidence appeared in dysphonia.ConclusionsThis study demonstrated that first-line ICIs-based therapies could provide survival benefits for patients with unresectable HCC, with manageable TRAEs. The potential of combination treatment to become the new treatment trend in clinical practice is promising.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In a global, phase III, open-label, noninferiority trial (REFLECT), lenvatinib demonstrated noninferiority to sorafenib in overall survival and a statistically significant increase in progression-free survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Recently, lenvatinib became the first agent in more than 10?years to receive approval as first-line therapy for unresectable HCC, along with the previously approved sorafenib. The objective of this study was to determine the comparative cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib as a first-line therapy of unresectable HCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS:A state-transition model of unresectable HCC was developed in the form of a cost-utility analysis. The model time horizon was 5?years; the efficacy of the model was informed by the REFLECT trial, and costs and utilities were obtained from published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model. RESULTS:Lenvatinib dominated sorafenib in the base case analysis. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that lenvatinib remains a cost-saving measure in 64.87% of the simulations. However, if the cost of sorafenib was reduced by 57%, lenvatinib would no longer be the dominant strategy. CONCLUSION:Lenvatinib offered a similar clinical effectiveness at a lower cost than sorafenib, suggesting that lenvatinib would be a cost-saving alternative in treating unresectable HCC. However, lenvatinib may fail to remain cost-saving if a significantly cheaper generic sorafenib becomes available. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:This analysis suggests an actionable clinical policy that will achieve cost saving. This cost-utility analysis showed that lenvatinib had a similar clinical effectiveness at a lower cost than sorafenib, indicating that lenvatinib may be a cost-saving measure in patients with unresectable HCC, in which $23,719 could be saved per patient. The introduction of a new therapeutic option for the first time in 10?years in Canada provides an important opportunity for clinicians, researchers, and health care decision-makers to explore potential modifications in recommendations and practice guidelines.