Hepatocellular carcinoma and death and transplantation in chronic hepatitis B treated with entecavir or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate

Tenofovir versus entecavir on recurrence and mortality of hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma after curative therapy

BACKGROUND

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) reduce the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients of hepatitis B. This study compared the difference between ETV and TDF on risk of HCC recurrence and mortality in patients with HBV-related HCC after curative intent treatment.

METHODS

Patients with HBV-related HCC who received HCC treatment (surgery or radiofrequency ablation [RFA]) and underwent long-term ETV or TDF therapy were retrospectively included. Baseline characteristics including age, sex, antiviral therapy, liver reserve, HCC stages, pathology reports and treatment modality were obtained. The risk of tumor recurrence, all-cause mortality, HCC-related mortality, and liver function were compared.

RESULTS

We identified 390 HBV-related HCC patients with curative intent treatment for HCC and treated with ETV (n = 328) or TDF (n = 62) between January 2011 and December 2020. The median age was 60 years, and 90.7% patients were males. After a median follow-up of 29 months, 186 patients developed recurrent HCC and 111 died. The baseline characteristics were comparable except more ALBI grade 3 patients in TDF group (76% vs. 48%, P < 0.001). Compared to ETV group, TDF users had lower all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.38, P = 0.003), and HCC-related mortality (aHR: 0.23, P = 0.005). Lower recurrence rate was noticed in TDF users after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). TDF users had improved ALBI grade and FIB-4 index compared with ETV groups.

CONCLUSION

TDF therapy is associated with a reduced risk of HCC-related outcomes among patients with HBV-related HCC after curative intent treatment compared with ETV usage.

Enhanced prognosis of HCC patients undergoing radical treatments with tenofovir versus entecavir: A meta-analysis based on propensity score matching studies

The selection of postoperative antiviral therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with HBV infection undergoing radical treatments (HPHR) is a topic of ongoing debate and controversy. The primary aim of this study was to compare the prognostic impact of selecting entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) as antiviral therapy options in HPHR. All the studies included in this analysis were implemented propensity score matching (PSM) methodology. Meta-analysis was performed using R statistical software (version 4.3.0). The primary outcome measures, overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS), were quantified using hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). This study analyzed 13 studies involving 6961 patients (2394 in the TDF group and 4567 in the ETV group). We conducted a meta-analysis of 8 studies that included a total of 5289 patients using the PSM analysis method. In comparison to the ETV group, the TDF group demonstrated significantly better RFS (HR = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93; p = 0.0034) and OS (HR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.88; p = 0.0085). Furthermore, the disparity between the two drugs was particularly evident in the prognosis of patients undergoing hepatectomy. Regional disparities were observed, with mainland China studies favoring RFS benefits and Taiwan or Korea studies favoring OS benefits. In conclusion, TDF has demonstrated significant superiority over ETV in terms of RFS and OS outcomes for HPHR. The findings hold significant implications for informing clinical decision-making and guiding the selection of postoperative antiviral therapy drugs in HCC patients.

Are the New Nucleos(t)ide Analogs Better than the Old Nucleos(t)ide Analogs?

In treatment-naïve patients with chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, entecavir (ETV), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), and tenofovir alafenamide have a minimal or no risk of drug-resistance. These 3 nucleos(t)ide analog agents are highly potent inducing high rate of virologic response (reducing serum HBV DNA to levels undetectable by polymerase chain reaction assays) in most treatment-naïve patients. Our randomized trials have demonstrated that monotherapy with TDF can provide a successful virological response in most of the heavily pretreated patients with multidrug resistance to ETV or adefovir.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Hepatitis: Advanced Diagnosis and Management with a Focus on the Prevention of Hepatitis B-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Though the world-wide hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccination program has been well completed for almost thirty years in many nations, almost HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) occurs in unvaccinated middle-aged and elderly adults. Apparently, treating 80% of qualified subjects could decrease HBV-related mortality by 65% in a short period. Nevertheless, globally, only 2.2% of CHB patients undergo antiviral therapy. The HBV markers related to HCC occurrence and prevention are as follows: the HCC risk is the highest at a baseline of HBV DNA of 6-7 log copies/mL, and it is the lowest at a baseline of an HBV DNA level of >8 log copies/mL and ≤4 log copies/mL (parabolic, and not linear pattern). The titer of an HBV core-related antigen (HBcrAg) reflecting the amount of HBV covalently closed circular DNA (ccc DNA) in the liver is related to HCC occurrence. The seroclearance of HBs antigen (HBsAg) is more crucial than HBV DNA negativity for the prevention of HCC. In terms of the secondary prevention of hepatitis B-related HCC involving antiviral therapies with nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs), unsolved issues include the definition of the immune-tolerant phase; the optimal time for starting antiviral therapies with NAs; the limits of increased aminotransferase (ALT) levels as criteria for therapy in CHB patients; the normalization of ALT levels with NAs and the relation to the risk of HCC; and the relation between serum HBV levels and the risk of HCC. Moreover, the first-line therapy with NAs including entecavir (ETV), tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) remains to be clarified. Discussed here, therefore, are the recent findings of HBV markers related to HCC occurrence and prevention, unsolved issues, and the current secondary antiviral therapy for the prevention of HBV-related HCC.

Lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma with tenofovir than entecavir in antiviral treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis involving 90,897 participants

Entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) are equally recommended as first-line treatments for antiviral treatment-naïve (ART-naïve) chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients by practice guidelines because of their similarly high antiviral efficacy and low resistance rate. However, whether one is superior to the other in terms of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prevention is currently largely controversial. We aimed to identify and synthesize these existing studies regarding the HCC risk of these two highly potent antivirals in treatment-naïve CHB patients. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies between January 1, 2012 and June 25, 2022. These studies used ETV monotherapy and/or TDF monotherapy to treat ART-naïve CHB patients and reported the incidence of HCC. The extracted data were analyzed using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models. The HCC incidence difference was expressed as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). A total of 17 studies with 90,897 ART-naïve CHB patients (ETV = 60,980 vs TDF = 29,917) were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with ETV, TDF was associated with a significant lower cumulative incidence of HCC (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.56-0.76). No significant heterogeneity or publication bias was found among the included studies (I2 = 48.1%, Begg's p = 0.363 and Egger's p = 0.748). TDF is associated with a lower risk of HCC compared with entecavir in ART-naïve CHB patients. The results suggest that TDF may be a better option for ART-naïve CHB patients with high HCC risks.

Meta-analysis of the occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after the treatment of entecavir and tenofovir for chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND

Tenofovir and Entecavir are recommended as the first-line medicine of treatment for chronic hepatitis B. The occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after the treatment of chronic hepatitis B is a major problem. For the time being it is still unclear whether there remains a difference in risk correlation of hepatocellular carcinoma after the treatment of Tenofovir and Entecavir for chronic hepatitis B. Since previous studies have raised different ideas, this article aims to come to a conclusion targeting such a topic through analyzing the latest data.

METHODS

We searched some databases, such as PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, for related studies on patients with chronic hepatitis B receiving the treatment of Tenofovir and Entecavir and then developing hepatocellular carcinoma. The search time was set to begin from the establishment time of the above-mentioned databases to May 2022. Two researchers were designated to screen the literature independently according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria set in this study; they then evaluated the quality of the literature included and extracted the data. Revman 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

After screening the literature, a total of 20 pieces of cohort study literature conformed to the inclusion criteria. Among which were 62,860 cases of patients receiving Entecavir, and 27,544 cases of patients receiving Tenofovir; there were 3669 cases with the occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma in the Entecavir group and 1089 cases with the occurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma in Tenofovir group. The result of Meta analysis of these 20 pieces of literature shows that compared with the Tenofovir group, the Entecavir group has a lower occurrence rate of hepatocellular carcinoma, and the difference is statistically significant. The results are expressed as odd ratio (OR) and 95% confident interval (95%CI), (OR = 1.66, 95%CI: 1.35-2.05, P < .05). The result of Meta analysis of 10 studies related to Korea shows that the occurrence rate of hepatocellular carcinoma in the Tenofovir group is lower than that of the Entecavir group, and the difference is statistically significant (OR = 1.59, 95%CI: 1.29-1.95, P < .05). The result of meta-analysis of 5 studies related to China shows that the occurrence rate of hepatocellular carcinoma of Tenofovir group is lower than that of Entecavir group, and the difference is statistically significant (OR = 2.35, 95%CI: 1.15-4.81, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

The occurrence rate of hepatocellular carcinoma after the treatment of tenofovir for chronic hepatitis B is lower than that of the treatment of entecavir.

Hepatitis B Virus Treatment and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Controversies and Approaches to Consensus

BACKGROUND

Long-term therapy with nucleos(t)ide analogs (NAs) such as entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) favorably affects the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on the basis of data from randomized or matched control studies. Recent data suggest a lower HCC incidence after 5 years of ETV or TDF therapy in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients, especially those with baseline cirrhosis.

SUMMARY

Three controversial issues remain to be resolved regarding hepatitis B virus (HBV) treatment and HCC. (1) The efficacy of antiviral treatment for the prevention of HCC is not established. The guidelines of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), the Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL), and the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) for the management of HBV infection state that antiviral treatment of HBV with interferon and NAs prevents the development of HCC. Among experts in CHB treatment, however, there is disagreement on the HCC prevention effects of antiviral treatment. (2) The rationale for antiviral management in patients with high HBV DNA and normal levels of alanine aminotransferase is unclear. The AASLD, EASL, and APASL guidelines do not recommend antiviral treatment for immune-tolerant CHB patients, and the terms and methods of treating such patients remain to be clarified. (3) The efficacy of first-line treatment with NAs, including ETV, TDF, and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF), to prevent HCC in CHB patients remains unknown. Several studies have produced controversial results regarding the effects of NAs on the risk and prevention of HCC. In the present review, we discuss these 3 issues, citing recent studies and clinical management guidelines from major international associations.

KEY MESSAGES

Suggested approaches for reaching a consensus including applying the propensity score matching method, performing randomized controlled studies, and performing clinical studies with larger numbers of subjects and longer follow-up.

Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Tenofovir vs Entecavir Treatment for Chronic Hepatitis B Virus: A Reconstructed Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Conventional meta-analyses with aggregated study-level data have yielded conflicting results for the comparative effectiveness of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate vs entecavir in reducing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk among patients with chronic hepatitis B virus. Within-study heterogeneity, between-study heterogeneity, and the inability of conventional meta-analyses to capture time-to-event data were associated with these results.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis of high-quality propensity score-matched studies to provide robust estimates for comparative HCC risk between groups receiving tenofovir or entecavir.

DATA SOURCES

Medline and Embase databases were searched from inception to October 6, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

The initial search yielded 3435 articles. Fourteen studies that used propensity score matching to balance baseline characteristics were included in the final analysis.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline was followed. Individual patient data were reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves. Risk of HCC was evaluated using random-effects hazard ratios (HRs) via a shared-frailty model and a Cox proportional hazards model stratified by study group. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis was conducted to account for varying estimated treatment effect across time.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The comparative risk of HCC with tenofovir vs entecavir treatment.

RESULTS

From analysis of 14 studes with 24 269 patients (10 534 receiving tenofovir and 13 735 receiving entecavir; mean age, 49.86 [95% CI, 48.35-51.36] years; 65.05% [95% CI, 58.60%-71.00%] men), tenofovir was associated with decreased HCC incidence compared with entecavir (stratified Cox HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.76-0.94] at 5 years; P = .002). However, there was no significant difference in subanalysis of clinical cohort studies (stratified Cox HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.80-1.06] at 5 years; P = .24). Among administrative database studies, proportionality was violated, and HRs could not be obtained via Cox proporational hazards-based models. The mean time to HCC development in RMST analysis was 2.8 (95% CI, 1.8-3.7) weeks longer (P < .001) for tenofovir vs entecavir at 5 years. The RMST analyses for other subgroups revealed either insignificant or minimal differences (<3 weeks) in the mean time to HCC at 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this meta-analysis, there was no clinically meaningful difference in the risk of HCC between patients who received entecavir and patients who received tenofovir. There was no difference between tenofovir and entecavir among clinical cohort studies, whereas the mean time to HCC development was less than 3 weeks longer for patients who received tenofovir vs those who received entecavir at year 5 among administrative database studies. The choice between tenofovir or entecavir should be decided based on patient convenience and tolerability.

Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis: Comparison of the Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Antiviral-Naive Chronic Hepatitis B Patients Treated with Entecavir versus Tenofovir: The Devil in the Detail

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and entecavir (ETV) are the preferred anti-viral agents used as first-line treatments for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). However, the efficacy of these agents in reducing the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains unclear. We conducted this meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of anti-viral agent on preventing HCC in CHB. Two investigators independently searched all relevant studies that examined the efficacy of anti-viral agent for preventing HCC using MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases through August 2021. The extracted data were analysed using a random-effects meta-analysis model based on the inverse-variance method (DerSimonian-Laird) and expressed as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). We included 19 retrospective studies in the analysis. Although there was substantial heterogeneity between the studies, the overall pooled HR indicated that TDF significantly lowered the risk of HCC (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58-0.90, I2 = 66.29%). However, the pooled analysis of propensity score (PS)-matched subpopulations showed no significant differences (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65-1.06; I2 = 52.30%) between TDF and ETV. In a subgroup analysis, an interval of over three years in the start point of patient enrolment and excluding alcoholic liver disease patients significantly lowered the HCC risk associated with TDF. In conclusion, TDF may be more effective than ETV at reducing HCC incidence in treatment-naive CHB patients, but this effect was not consistent in the PS-matched subpopulation that reduced heterogeneity. As a result of subgroup analysis, the conflicting findings of previous studies may result from heterogeneous inclusion criteria. Further studies with standardised protocols are needed to reduce the residual heterogeneity.

Lower risk of hepatocellular carcinoma with tenofovir than entecavir treatment in subsets of chronic hepatitis B patients: an updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Previous smaller meta-analyses comparing the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients treated with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) versus entecavir (ETV) provided controversial results. This updated meta-analysis aimed to reliably identify any difference in the HCC incidence between TDF-treated or ETV-treated CHB patients in general or in specific subgroups.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were systematically searched for relevant studies with hazard ratios (HRs) for HCC between TDF-treated and ETV-treated CHB patients. Retrieved dates ranged from January 2009 to October 2021. HRs with or without adjustment were pooled with random-effects model.

RESULTS

Twenty-four comparative studies involving 37 771 CHB patients treated with TDF and 72 094 treated with ETV were included. TDF was associated with lower risk of HCC compared with ETV, with pooled unadjusted HR of 0.76 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.86) (24 studies) and adjusted HR of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.72-0.91) (21 studies). In propensity score matching cohorts, the TDF superiority was confirmed for unadjusted HR 0.83 (95% CI: 0.71-0.97) (14 studies) and was close to significance for adjusted HR (0.78, 95% CI: 0.58-1.04) (8 studies). Subgroup analyses showed that TDF was associated with lower HCC risk than ETV treatment in CHB patients who were from Asia (adjusted HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.66-0.87; 15 studies) or nucleos(t)ide naïve (adjusted HR:0.74, 95% CI: 0.65-0.84; 18 studies).

CONCLUSION

Current evidence from a sizable population suggests that TDF is associated with significantly lower HCC risk compared with ETV treatment in patients who are from Asia and/or nucleos(t)ide naïve.

Cirrhosis, Age, and Liver Stiffness-Based Models Predict Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Asian Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B

OBJECTIVES

Predicting hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic hepatitis B who received long-term therapy with potent nucleos(t)ide analogs is of utmost importance to refine the strategy for HCC surveillance.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study to validate the CAGE-B and SAGE-B scores, HCC prediction models developed for Caucasian patients receiving entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir (TFV) for >5 years. Consecutive patients who started ETV or TFV at two hospitals in Korea from January 2009 to December 2015 were identified. The prediction scores were calculated, and model performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves.

RESULTS

Among 1557 patients included, 57 (3.7%) patients had HCC during a median follow-up of 93 (95% confidence interval, 73-119) months. In the entire cohort, CAGE-B predicted HCC with an area under the ROC curve of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.72-0.84). Models that have "liver cirrhosis" in the calculation, such as AASL (0.79 (0.72-0.85)), CU-HCC (0.77 (0.72-0.82)), and GAG-HCC (0.79 (0.74-0.85)), showed accuracy similar to that of CAGE-B (p > 0.05); however, models without "liver cirrhosis", including SAGE-B (0.71 (0.65-0.78)), showed a lower predictive ability than CAGE-B. CAGE-B performed well in subgroups of patients treated without treatment modification (0.81 (0.73-0.88)) and of male sex (0.79 (0.71-0.86)).

CONCLUSIONS

This study validated the clinical usefulness of the CAGE-B score in a large number of Asian patients treated with long-term ETV or TFV. The results could provide the basis for the reappraisal of HCC surveillance strategies and encourage future prospective validation studies with liver stiffness measurements.

Effect of tenofovir alafenamide vs. tenofovir disoproxil fumarate on hepatocellular carcinoma risk in chronic hepatitis B

It is unclear whether tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) or tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is more effective for preventing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). In this study, we compared the effectiveness of these two antiviral agents for preventing HCC. We included treatment-naïve CHB patients undergoing antiviral therapy with TDF only (TDF group) or a TAF-based regimen (TAF group) at three academic teaching hospitals from 2012 to 2019. The TAF group included patients receiving TAF as first-line treatment and patients switching from TDF to TAF. Patients with decompensated cirrhosis or HCC at enrollment were excluded. Cumulative probabilities of HCC were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methodology. In total, 2,117 patients were included: 1,832 in the TDF group and 285 in the TAF group. The annual HCC incidence was not significantly different between TDF and TAF groups: 1.66 vs. 1.19 per 100 person-years [PY], respectively (multivariate analysis: adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.774 [reference: TDF group]; p = .438). Male, liver cirrhosis, hepatitis B e antigen negativity, Fibrosis-4 index>3.25 and low albumin were independently associated with a higher risk of HCC. Propensity score-matched and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses yielded similar results: 1.56 vs. 1.19 per 100 PY, respectively (HR 1.175; p = .708) and 1.66 vs. 1.29 per 100 PY, respectively (HR 0.888; p = .446). The risk of HCC development was not significantly different between TDF and TAF groups of CHB patients. Further studies with a larger sample size and longer follow-up are required to validate our results.

Impact of tenofovir alafenamide vs. entecavir on hepatocellular carcinoma risk in patients with chronic hepatitis B

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Whether entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) is better at preventing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development among patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) remains unclear. The present study was conducted to explore the ability of these two antivirals to prevent HCC.

METHODS

From 2012 to 2019, treatment-naïve CHB patients undergoing ETV or TAF therapy were recruited at three academic teaching hospitals. The TAF group comprised patients starting TAF as first-line antiviral and those switching antivirals from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to TAF. Patients with decompensated cirrhosis or HCC at enrollment were excluded from the analysis. Cumulative probabilities of HCC were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

In total, 1810 patients (1525 and 285 in ETV and TAF groups, respectively) were recruited. The annual HCC incidence was statistically not different between the ETV and TAF groups (1.67 vs. 1.19 per 100 person-years, respectively) with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.681 (p = 0.255), as determined by multivariate analysis. Male, hypertension, liver cirrhosis, FIB-4 index, and albumin were independent prognostic factors for HCC development. Propensity score-matched and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses yielded similar results, with non-statistically different HCC incidence between the ETV and TAF groups (1.07 vs. 1.19 per 100 person-years (HR = 0.973; p = 0.953) and 1.67 vs. 1.89 per 100 person-years, respectively (HR = 0.949; p = 0.743).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that ETV- and TAF-treated CHB patients have similar risk of developing HCC. Further studies with the larger sample size and longer follow-up are needed to validate these results.

Entecavir versus tenofovir in patients with chronic hepatitis B: Enemies or partners in the prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma

Over the past several decades, entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) have remained the first-line antiviral agents in several international guidelines. These two antiviral agents have shown similar short to intermediateterm efficacy, including virologic, biochemical, serologic, and histologic responses. However, huge controversies regarding the antiviral efficacy of ETV and TDF in preventing the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) still exist. In this review, we summarized recent studies that compared the treatment efficacy of ETV and TDF in terms of HCC development.

No difference in hepatocellular carcinoma risk in chronic hepatitis B patients treated with tenofovir vs entecavir: evidence from an updated meta-analysis

Whether tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is superior to entecavir in reducing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk among treatment-naïve chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients remains controversial. We aimed to clarify this controversy. Several databases, including PubMed and Embase, were retrieved through November 2020. Cohort studies comparing the effectiveness of TDF and entecavir in reducing HCC incidence among treatment-naïve CHB patients were included if they reported multivariable-adjusted or propensity-score-matched risk estimates. A random-effects model was used to pool hazard ratios (HRs). Thirteen cohort studies, involving 4097 HCC cases and 80202 CHB patients, were included. Multivariable-adjusted meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in HCC incidence between TDF and entecavir groups (HR 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.72-1.04), which was consistent with propensity-score-matched meta-analysis (HR 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.03). Subgroup analysis showed that the observed similarity of TDF to entecavir for HCC prevention persisted in studies with follow-up length of ≥4 years but not in those with follow-up length of <4 years (P_interaction<0.01). In conclusion, TDF is similar to entecavir in reducing HCC incidence among treatment-naïve CHB patients. Heterogeneous results of included studies may result from their disparity in follow-up length. Our findings should be treated with caution and need to be further confirmed.