Jisun Park1, Jinhyun Cho1, Joo Han Lim1, Moon Hee Lee1, Jinchul Kim2. 1. Department of Hematology-Oncology, Inha University College of Medicine and Hospital, 7-206 Third Street, Shinheung-dong Jung-gu, Incheon, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Hematology-Oncology, Inha University College of Medicine and Hospital, 7-206 Third Street, Shinheung-dong Jung-gu, Incheon, Republic of Korea. ultrakjc9359@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several clinical trials that tested the efficacy of systemic treatments for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) showed a tendency that patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection had different survival benefits from targeted agents. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the comparative efficacy of systemic targeted therapies according to HBV and HCV status in first-line and second- or later-line treatments for advanced HCC. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane database, and meeting abstracts were searched through to January 2019. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and determine the ranking of the included regimens. RESULTS: Sixteen trials involving 6410 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In the first-line treatment setting, lenvatinib was the best agent for both HBV and HCV subgroups, presenting the most favorable HR versus sorafenib (HR 0.83, 95% CrI 0.68-1.01 and HR 0.91, 95% CrI 0.66-1.25, respectively), and was ranked as the best agent [surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value of 87% and 85%, respectively] among the included drugs. In second-line therapy, regorafenib showed the lowest HR versus placebo (HR 0.58, 95% CrI 0.41-0.82) in the HBV subgroup, whereas no agent was significantly more effective than placebo in the HCV subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with sorafenib, lenvatinib was more efficacious in the HBV subgroup than in the HCV subgroup, and the relative ranking of sorafenib in the HBV subgroup was lower than in the HCV subgroup. Each targeted agent reported to be the best by viral etiology and line of treatment could be carefully recommended in each subgroup.
BACKGROUND: Several clinical trials that tested the efficacy of systemic treatments for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) showed a tendency that patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection had different survival benefits from targeted agents. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the comparative efficacy of systemic targeted therapies according to HBV and HCV status in first-line and second- or later-line treatments for advanced HCC. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane database, and meeting abstracts were searched through to January 2019. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and determine the ranking of the included regimens. RESULTS: Sixteen trials involving 6410 patients were included in the meta-analysis. In the first-line treatment setting, lenvatinib was the best agent for both HBV and HCV subgroups, presenting the most favorable HR versus sorafenib (HR 0.83, 95% CrI 0.68-1.01 and HR 0.91, 95% CrI 0.66-1.25, respectively), and was ranked as the best agent [surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value of 87% and 85%, respectively] among the included drugs. In second-line therapy, regorafenib showed the lowest HR versus placebo (HR 0.58, 95% CrI 0.41-0.82) in the HBV subgroup, whereas no agent was significantly more effective than placebo in the HCV subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with sorafenib, lenvatinib was more efficacious in the HBV subgroup than in the HCV subgroup, and the relative ranking of sorafenib in the HBV subgroup was lower than in the HCV subgroup. Each targeted agent reported to be the best by viral etiology and line of treatment could be carefully recommended in each subgroup.
Authors: Josep M Llovet; Carol E A Peña; Chetan D Lathia; Michael Shan; Gerold Meinhardt; Jordi Bruix Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: M Pinter; W Sieghart; T Reiberger; N Rohr-Udilova; A Ferlitsch; M Peck-Radosavljevic Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2011-10-27 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Ghassan K Abou-Alfa; Tim Meyer; Ann-Lii Cheng; Anthony B El-Khoueiry; Lorenza Rimassa; Baek-Yeol Ryoo; Irfan Cicin; Philippe Merle; YenHsun Chen; Joong-Won Park; Jean-Frederic Blanc; Luigi Bolondi; Heinz-Josef Klümpen; Stephen L Chan; Vittorina Zagonel; Tiziana Pressiani; Min-Hee Ryu; Alan P Venook; Colin Hessel; Anne E Borgman-Hagey; Gisela Schwab; Robin K Kelley Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrew X Zhu; Masatoshi Kudo; Eric Assenat; Stéphane Cattan; Yoon-Koo Kang; Ho Yeong Lim; Ronnie T P Poon; Jean-Frederic Blanc; Arndt Vogel; Chao-Long Chen; Etienne Dorval; Markus Peck-Radosavljevic; Armando Santoro; Bruno Daniele; Junji Furuse; Annette Jappe; Kevin Perraud; Oezlem Anak; Dalila B Sellami; Li-Tzong Chen Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Gert van Valkenhoef; Guobing Lu; Bert de Brock; Hans Hillege; A E Ades; Nicky J Welton Journal: Res Synth Methods Date: 2012-08-23 Impact factor: 5.273