医学
肝细胞癌
荟萃分析
临床试验
内科学
肿瘤科
系统回顾
指南
梅德林
重症监护医学
病理
政治学
法学
作者
Mohamad Bassam Sonbol,Irbaz Bin Riaz,Syed Arsalan Ahmed Naqvi,Daniel Almquist,Syeda Mina,Jehad Almasri,Shiv Shah,Diana Almader‐Douglas,Pedro Luiz Serrano Usón,Amit Mahipal,Wen Wee,Zhaohui Jin,Kabir Mody,Jason S. Starr,Mitesh J. Borad,Daniel H. Ahn,M. Hassan Murad,Tanios Bekaii‐Saab
出处
期刊:JAMA Oncology
[American Medical Association]
日期:2020-12-10
卷期号:6 (12): e204930-e204930
被引量:146
标识
DOI:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.4930
摘要
Importance
The treatment landscape for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has recently changed and become relatively confusing. Head-to-head comparisons between most of the available agents have not been performed and are less likely to be examined in a prospective fashion in the future. Therefore, a network meta-analysis (NMA) is helpful to compare different agents from across different trials. Objective
To evaluate comparative effectiveness of different systemic treatments in advanced patients with HCC across lines of therapy. Data Sources
We searched various databases for abstracts and full-text articles published from database inception through March 2020. Study Selection
We included phase 3 trials evaluating different vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFis), checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), or their combinations in advanced HCC, in the first-line or refractory setting. Data Extraction and Synthesis
The reporting of this systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. The overall effect was pooled using the random effects model. Main Outcomes and Measures
Outcomes of interest included overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Findings
Fourteen trials (8 in the first-line setting and 6 in the second-line setting) at low risk of bias were included. The 8 trials in the first-line setting encompassed a total of 6290 patients, with an age range of 18 to 89 years. The 5 trials included in the second-line analysis encompassed a total of 2653 patients, with an age range of 18 to 91 years. Network meta-analysis showed the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab was superior in patients with HCC treated in the first-line setting compared with lenvatinib (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89), sorafenib (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.80), and nivolumab (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.98). In the refractory setting, NMA showed that all studied drugs had PFS benefit compared with placebo. However, this only translated into OS benefit with regorafenib (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51-0.75) and cabozantinib (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) compared with placebo. In the NMA of patients with α-fetoprotein (AFP) levels of 400 ng/mL or greater, regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab showed PFS and OS benefit compared with placebo with no superiority of an active drug compared with any others. Conclusions and Relevance
This systematic review and NMA of 14 trials found that atezolizumab and bevacizumab in combination is now considered the standard of care in the first-line setting in patients with advanced HCC. Regorafenib and cabozantinib are preferred options in refractory patients, with ramucirumab as an additional option in those with levels of AFP of 400 ng/mL or higher. Future trials should focus on other potential combinations and best treatment strategy in patients with prior VEGFi/CPI exposure.