Systemic Therapy and Sequencing Options in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols
/ economics
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular
/ drug therapy
Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic
Female
Humans
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
/ economics
Liver Neoplasms
/ drug therapy
Male
Middle Aged
Network Meta-Analysis
Protein Kinase Inhibitors
/ economics
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Survival Analysis
Treatment Outcome
Young Adult
Journal
JAMA oncology
ISSN: 2374-2445
Titre abrégé: JAMA Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101652861
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 12 2020
01 12 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
23
10
2020
medline:
12
2
2021
entrez:
22
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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. To evaluate comparative effectiveness of different systemic treatments in advanced patients with HCC across lines of therapy. We searched various databases for abstracts and full-text articles published from database inception through March 2020. 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. 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. Outcomes of interest included overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). 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. 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33090186
pii: 2771837
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.4930
pmc: PMC7582230
doi:
Substances chimiques
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors
0
Protein Kinase Inhibitors
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e204930Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Feb;20(2):282-296
pubmed: 30665869
Lancet Oncol. 2009 Jan;10(1):25-34
pubmed: 19095497
Lancet. 2017 Jun 24;389(10088):2492-2502
pubmed: 28434648
Lancet Oncol. 2018 Jul;19(7):940-952
pubmed: 29875066
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Oct 1;31(28):3517-24
pubmed: 23980084
J Clin Oncol. 2022 Sep 1;40(25):2913-2923
pubmed: 35442713
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jul 05;379(1):54-63
pubmed: 29972759
Res Synth Methods. 2012 Jun;3(2):111-25
pubmed: 26062085
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 14;382(20):1894-1905
pubmed: 32402160
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;62(10):e1-34
pubmed: 19631507
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Nov 1;35(31):3575-3581
pubmed: 28872925
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015 Jul 31;15:58
pubmed: 26227148
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Jan;93:36-44
pubmed: 29051107
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Aug;20(8):1070-1082
pubmed: 31262657
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Oct 1;31(28):3509-16
pubmed: 23980090
N Engl J Med. 2008 Jul 24;359(4):378-90
pubmed: 18650514
Lancet. 2018 Mar 24;391(10126):1163-1173
pubmed: 29433850
J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jan 10;33(2):172-9
pubmed: 25488963
Lancet. 2017 Jan 7;389(10064):56-66
pubmed: 27932229
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 8;13(11):e0207132
pubmed: 30408106
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Sep 10;38(26):2960-2970
pubmed: 32716739
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Nov 10;31(32):4067-75
pubmed: 24081937
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Jul;16(7):859-70
pubmed: 26095784
J Clin Oncol. 2020 Dec 20;38(36):4240-4248
pubmed: 33108238
Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2019 Sep 23;12:1756284819878304
pubmed: 31579104