Abstract

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have yielded conflicting results in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The overall effect of ICIs compared with standard therapies in unresectable HCC requires more research. To estimate the efficacy and safety associated with ICIs compared with standard therapies in patients with unresectable HCC. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society of Medical Oncology meeting proceedings were systematically searched. Reference lists from studies selected by electronic searching were manually searched to identify additional relevant studies. The search included literature published or presented from February 2010 to February 2020. From December 2019 to February 2020, independent reviewers evaluated each database, scanning the title, abstract, and keywords of every record retrieved. Full articles were further assessed if the information given suggested that the study was a randomized clinical trial (RCT) comparing ICIs vs standard therapies in the treatment of unresectable HCC. The full text of the resulting studies and extracted data were reviewed independently according to PRISMA guidelines. Summary hazard ratios (HRs) of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated by a random-effects model. The likelihood of ICIs being associated with overall response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was expressed by odds ratios (ORs) using a random-effects model. The main outcomes were OS, PFS, ORR, and TRAEs. Of 1836 studies yielded by the search, 3 were retained, totaling 1657 patients (985 treated with ICIs vs 672 receiving standard treatment). Two studies evaluated ICIs as monotherapy, and 1 study investigated the combination of ICIs with bevacizumab. Compared with standard therapies (sorafenib in first-line therapy or placebo in second-line therapy), ICIs were associated with significantly improved OS (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.92; P = .006), PFS (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.97; P = .03), and ORR (OR, 2.82; 95% CI 2.02-3.93; P < .001). The probability of grade 3 or 4 TRAEs was lower with ICIs than with sorafenib (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20-0.96; P = .04). This meta-analysis found superior efficacy and safety associated with ICIs compared with standard therapies and highlights the survival benefit associated with the combination of antiangiogenic therapy with ICIs in first-line systemic therapy of unresectable HCC.

Highlights

  • Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most lethal malignant neoplasms, ranking as the fourth most common cause of cancer-related death in the world.[1]

  • Compared with standard therapies, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) were associated with significantly improved overall survival (OS) (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.92; P = .006), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.97; P = .03), and overall response rate (ORR) (OR, 2.82; 95% CI 2.02-3.93; P < .001)

  • The probability of grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) was lower with ICIs than with sorafenib (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20-0.96; P = .04)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most lethal malignant neoplasms, ranking as the fourth most common cause of cancer-related death in the world.[1]. The cornerstone of the treatment of unresectable or metastatic HCC is systemic therapy. Since 2008, sorafenib has been the standard of care, based on the pivotal phase 3 SHARP trial, which demonstrated an improvement in the median OS vs placebo (10.7 months vs 7.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.69, 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.87; P < .001).[3] In the past few years, other antiangiogenic agents, either tyrosine-kinase inhibitors or monoclonal antibodies, have been found to be effective for both patients who are treatment-naive (lenvatinib,[4] donafenib5) and those who are resistant to sorafenibbased treatment (cabozantinib,[6] regorafenib,[7] apatinib,[8] and ramucirumab[9]).

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call