First-line targ veted therapies of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A Bayesian network analysis of randomized controlled trials

Anticancer Drugs Compared to No Anticancer Drugs in Patients with Advanced Hepatobiliary Cancer: A Mapping Review and Evidence Gap Map

Introduction

Despite being commonly recommended, the impact of anticancer drugs (ACDs) on patient-important outcomes beyond survival for advanced hepatobiliary cancers (HBCs) may not have been sufficiently assessed. We aim to identify and map the evidence regarding ACDs versus best supportive care (BSC) for advanced HBCs, considering patient-centered outcomes.

Methods

In this mapping review, we included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, and observational studies comparing ACDs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, biological/targeted therapy) versus BSC for advanced HBCs. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO and clinicaltrials.gov for eligible studies. Two reviewers performed the screening and data extraction processes. We developed evidence maps for each type of cancer.

Results

We included 87 studies (60 for advanced liver cancer and 27 for gallbladder or bile duct cancers). Most of the evidence favored ACDs for survival outcomes, and BSC for toxicity. We identified several evidence gaps for non-survival outcomes, including quality of life or quality of end-of-life care.

Discussion

Patient-important outcomes beyond survival in advanced HBCs are insufficiently assessed by the available evidence. Future studies need to address these gaps to better inform decision-making processes.

Development and validation of a nomogram for survival prediction in hepatocellular carcinoma after partial hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

The prognosis for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is complex due to its high level of heterogeneity, even after radical resection. This study was designed to develop and validate a prognostic nomogram for predicting the postoperative prognosis for HCC patients following partial hepatectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We extracted data on HCC patients and randomly divided them into two groups (primary and validation cohorts), using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. We developed the prediction model based on the data of the primary cohort and prognostic factors were evaluated using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis. A nomogram was constructed for predicting the 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival probability of HCC patients after surgery based on the results of the multivariate Cox regression analysis. The performance of the nomogram was evaluated in terms of its discrimination and calibration. To validated the model, discrimination and calibration were also evaluated in the validation cohort. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was performed to assess the clinical utility of the nomogram.

RESULTS

A total of 890 patients who underwent partial hepatectomy for HCC were included in the study. The primary cohort enrolled 628 patients with a median follow-up time of 39 months, the 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rate were 95.4%, 52.7% and 25.8% during follow-up. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that differentiation, tumor size, AFP and fibrosis were independently association with the prognosis of HCC patients after partial hepatectomy. The nomogram showed a moderate discrimination ith a C-index of 0.705 (95% CI 0.669 to 0.742), and good calibration. Similar discrimination with a C-index of 0.681 (95% CI 0.625 to 0.737), and calibration were also observed in the validation cohort. Decision curve analysis showed that the nomogram could be useful to predicting the prognosis in HCC patients following partial hepatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed nomogram is highly predictive and has moderate calibration and discrimination, potentially contributing to the process of managing HCC patients after partial hepatectomy in an individualized way.

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

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.

Selection of first-line systemic therapies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The majority of clinical trials of first-line systemic treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) used placebo or sorafenib as comparators, and there are limited data providing a cross comparison of treatments in this setting, especially for newly-approved immune checkpoint inhibitor and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor combination treatments.

AIM

To systematically review and compare response rates, survival outcomes, and safety of first-line systemic therapies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Science Direct, the Cochrane Database, Excerpta Medica Database, and abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 annual congress. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials of systemic therapy enrolling adults with advanced/unresectable HCC. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials. A network meta-analysis was used to synthesize data and perform direct and indirect comparisons between treatments. P value, a frequentist analog to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, was used to rank treatments.

RESULTS

In total, 1398 articles were screened and 27 included. Treatments compared were atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, brivanib, donafenib, dovitinib, FOLFOX4, lenvatinib, linifanib, nintedanib, nivolumab, sorafenib, sunitinib, vandetanib, 11 sorafenib combination therapies, and three other combination therapies. For overall response rate, lenvatinib ranked 1/19, followed by atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and nivolumab. For progression-free survival (PFS), atezolizumab + bevacizumab was ranked 1/15, followed by lenvatinib. With the exception of atezolizumab + bevacizumab [hazard ratios (HR)PFS = 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64-1.25], the estimated HRs for PFS for all included treatments vs lenvatinib were > 1; however, the associated 95%CI passed through unity for bevacizumab plus erlotinib, linifanib, and FOLFOX4. For overall survival, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was ranked 1/25, followed by vandetanib 100 mg/d and donafinib, with lenvatinib ranked 6/25. Atezolizumab + bevacizumab was associated with a lower risk of death vs lenvatinib (HRos = 0.63; 95%CI: 0.44-0.89), while the HR for overall survival for most other treatments vs lenvatinib had associated 95%CIs that passed through unity. Vandetanib 300 mg/d and 100 mg/d were ranked 1/13 and 2/13, respectively, for the lowest incidence of treatment terminations due to adverse events, followed by sorafenib (5/13), lenvatinib (10/13), and atezolizumab + bevacizumab (13/13).

CONCLUSION

There is not one single first-line treatment for advanced HCC associated with superior outcomes across all outcome measurements. Therefore, first-line systemic treatment should be selected based on individualized treatment goals.