UNASSIGNED: Transarterial chemo(embolization) is preferred for treating unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC); however, because of emerging immune-targeted therapies, its efficacy is at stake. This systematic review pioneers to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of transarterial chemo(embolization) combined with immune-targeted therapy for uHCC patients.
UNASSIGNED: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies comparing immune-targeted therapy with or without transarterial chemo(embolization) until 31 May 2024. The complete response (CR) rate, objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) were considered to be the primary outcomes calculated for the clinical outcomes of transarterial chemo(embolization) combined with immune-targeted therapy, along with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The incidence of treatment-related severe adverse events was set as the major measure for the safety outcome.
UNASSIGNED: Sixteen studies, encompassing 1,789 patients receiving transarterial chemo(embolization) plus immune-targeted therapy and 1,215 patients receiving immune-targeted therapy alone, were considered eligible. The combination of transarterial chemo(embolization) and immune-targeted therapy demonstrated enhanced outcomes in CR (OR = 2.12, 95% CI = 1.35-3.31), ORR (OR = 2.78, 95% CI = 2.15-3.61), DCR (OR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.72-3.52), PFS (HR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.50-0.70), and OS (HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.44-0.59), albeit accompanied by a surge in ALT (OR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.28-3.68) and AST (OR = 2.28, 95% CI = 1.42-3.65). The advantages of additional transarterial chemo(embolization) to immune-targeted therapy were also verified in subgroups of first-line treatment, intervention techniques, with or without extrahepatic metastasis, Child-Pugh grade A or B, and with or without tumor thrombus.
UNASSIGNED: The combination of transarterial chemo(embolization) and immune-targeted therapy seems to bolster local control and long-term efficacy in uHCC, albeit at the expense of hepatic complications.
UNASSIGNED: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier 474669.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of regorafenib and nivolumab, two FDA-approved second-line treatments for unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC).
METHODS: Literature comparing the efficacy and safety of regorafenib and nivolumab in unresectable HCC patients was systematically searched across seven databases, including: PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost, EMBASE, and ProQuest, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. The search was done on April 2nd, 2023. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and ROBINS-1 tools. The selected studies were included in the qualitative data synthesis.
RESULTS: Three trials found that HCC patients taking nivolumab had statistically insignificantly longer OS, TTP, and progression-free survival than those on regorafenib. Nivolumab increased ORR, with largely partial responses, and mixed DCR, with little statistical significance. All three studies showed that nivolumab had fewer side effects and improved tolerance.
CONCLUSIONS: Three retrospective cohort studies with a total of 383 regorafenib-receiving cohorts and 230 nivolumab-receiving cohorts were included in the qualitative analysis. Nivolumab was found to be superior in regards of longer overall survival, longer time to progression, higher objective response rate, and lower adverse event occurrence. However, statistical significance was not achieved in most of the parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of nivolumab is preferable as the second-line systemic therapy for unresectable HCC. More high-quality studies are urgently needed to generate quantitative analysis, and to encourage the formation of guidelines for second-line systemic therapy.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis was dedicated to evaluating the effectiveness and safety of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) and Lenvatinib (LEN) as first-line systematic therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC).
METHODS: The prospective protocol for this study was registered with the PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42022356874). Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE database Cochrane Library, and Web Science to determine all clinical controlled studies that reported Atez/Bev and LEN for treating u-HCC. We. evaluated as primary end-point overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), as well as other outcomes such as tumor response and adverse events (AEs).Quality assessment and data extraction of studies were conducted independently by three reviewers. Mean difference (MD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a fixed-effects or random-effects model. The meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS: 12 retrospective cohort studies (RCSs) involving a total of 4948 patients were finally included. The results showed that compared with LEN, Atez/Bev can improve the patient\'s PFS (HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.72 ~ 0.88; p < 0.0001) and reduce the rate of overall AEs (OR = 0.46 95% CI: 0.38 ~ 0.55, p < 0.00001) and grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.36 ~ 0.51, p < 0.00001), while there is no difference between OS and treatment responses rate (objective response rate, disease control rate, complete response, partial response, progressive disease, and stable disease) between two groups. In addition, the subgroup analysis shows that Atez/Bev can promote the OS of patients with viral hepatitis. (HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67 ~ 0.95; p = 0.01), while LEN has an advantage in improving OS in patients with Child-Pugh grade B liver function (HR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.50 ~ 2.63; p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence shows that compared with LEN, Atez/Bev has more advantages in PFS and safety in treating u-HCC and can improve the OS of patients with viral. LEN has advantages in improving the OS of patients with grade B liver function. However, more multicenter randomized controlled experiments are needed in the future to verify our results.

BACKGROUND: The optimal management of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) remains an unresolved challenge. There is ongoing debate regarding the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting bead TACE (DEB-TACE) with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library for eligible studies. The main endpoints under investigation were survival outcomes, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and time to progression (TTP). Secondary outcomes encompassed tumor response rates and adverse events (AEs). Two researchers conducted the data extraction independently and assessed the quality of the studies. After pooling and analyzing the data, we assessed the heterogeneity and performed both subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis. Additionally, we evaluated the potential for publication bias.
RESULTS: Eight studies with 1513 patients were finally retrieved. Compared to monotherapy, although bigeminal therapy exhibited improved survival benefits (OS: HR: 0.56, 95 % CI 0.41-0.76, p < 0.001; TTP: HR: 0.72, 95 % CI 0.59-0.87, p = 0.001) and tumor response (ORR: RR: 1.59; 95 % CI 1.19-2.13, p = 0.002; DCR: RR: 1.14; 95 % CI 1.03-1.26, p = 0.010), the reliability of results was affected by significant heterogeneity. In the subgroup analysis, compared to DEB-TACE alone, the bigeminal therapy failed to show any statistical differences. Compared to TKIs, it demonstrated significant advantages in both survival (OS: HR: 0.49, 95 % CI 0.40-0.61, p < 0.001; TTP: HR: 0.60, 95 % CI 0.48-0.75, p < 0.001) and tumor response (ORR: RR: 2.40, 95 % CI 1.86-3.09, p < 0.001; DCR: RR: 1.36, 95 % CI 1.20-1.54, p < 0.001) while low heterogeneity was observed. Concerning safety, DEB-TACE provides no more severe AEs while TKIs-related AEs require close monitoring.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that DEB-TACE combined with TKIs may be a safe and effective treatment for uHCC, which is more suitable for patients in the advanced stage.

UNASSIGNED: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the combination therapy of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus multikinase inhibitor (MKI) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have yielded inconsistent results.
UNASSIGNED: In this work, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the TACE+MKI combination therapy versus TACE monotherapy in HCC patients with time to progression (TTP) adopted as primary outcome.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 10 RCTs comprising 2837 patients receiving combination therapy (TACE plus sorafenib, brivanib, orantinib or apatinib) were included. TACE+MKI significantly prolonged TTP (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74, 95% CI 0.62-0.89, p=0.001) versus TACE monotherapy. Subgroup analysis suggested MKI administration before TACE might be preferable to post-TACE MKI for TTP. TACE+MKI also increased objective response rate (ORR) (risk ratio [RR] 1.17, 95% CI 1.03-1.32, p=0.01), but failed to improve overall survival (OS) (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86-1.13, p=0.82) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50-1.12, p=0.16). The incidence of any adverse event (AE) did not significantly differ between TACE+MKI and TACE groups (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.96-1.42, p=0.01), while serious AEs showed significant difference (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.26-1.59, p<0.0001). Nevertheless, these AEs showing significant difference were mainly associated with MKI toxicities rather than TACE.
UNASSIGNED: TACE+MKI combination therapy improved TTP and ORR but not OS and PFS in patients with unresectable HCC. Further high-quality trials are needed to verify these clinical benefits, and our findings could be very informative for future trial design.

BACKGROUND: Cancer therapy has evolved from non-specific cytotoxic agents to a selective, mechanism-based approach that includes targeted agents and immunotherapy. Although the response to targeted therapies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is acceptable with the improved survival, the high tumor recurrence rate and drug-related side effects continue to be problematic. Given that immune checkpoint inhibitor alone are not robust enough to improve survival in unresectable HCC, growing evidence supports the combination of targeted therapy and immunotherapy with synergistic effect.
METHODS: Online databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for the studies that compared targeted monotherapy with the combination therapy of targeted drug and checkpoint inhibitors in unresectable HCC patients. Eligibility criteria were the presence of at least one measurable lesion as defined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1) for unresectable HCC patients, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and a Child-Pugh score ≤ 7. Outcome measurements include overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment-related adverse event (TRAE).
RESULTS: Three phase II/III randomized controlled trials were included in this study. The pooled results showed that combination therapy significantly improved survival than targeted monotherapy, in terms of OS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50-0.91) and PFS (HR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.51-0.67), respectively. In the incidence of grade 3-5 TRAEs, the combination therapy was significantly higher than targeted monotherapy (odds ratio = 1.98; 95% CI: 1.13-3.48).
CONCLUSIONS: For unresectable HCC, combined targeted drug and immunotherapy significantly improved survival compared with targeted monotherapy. However, the incidences of AEs of combinational therapy were higher than targeted monotherapy.

Lenvatinib plus transarterial chemoembolization (TACE)have become the first choice for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that are unsuitable for TACE. Sorafenib plus TACE therapy for patients with portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) achieved positive results. However, Lenvatinib plus TACE appeared to achieve a more advantageous result for these patients based on the phase 3 REFLECT trial. Both TACE and lenvatinib therapy have immune-stimulating effects, so would lenvatinib plus TACE and immune checkpoint inhibitors be an advantageous therapy for unresectable HCC (uHCC)? Thirteen articles from PubMed were explored to determine the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus TACE with or without PD-1 inhibitors therapy. Most of the adverse events (AEs) were manageable. Lenvatinib plus TACE therapy was superior to lenvatinib monotherapy with intermediate stage HCC especially beyond up-to-seven criterion and was superior to TACE monotherapy in patients with uHCC or sorafenib plus TACE therapy in patients with PVTT. Objective response rates (ORRs) of 53.1%-75%, median progression free survival (PFS) of 6.15-11.6 months, and median overall survival (OS) of 14.5-18.97 months were achieved in the lenvatinib plus TACE group. Levatinib plus TACE and PD-1 inhibitors achieved ORRs of 46.7% -80.6%, median PFS of 7.3-13.3 months, and median OS of 16.9-24 months. Control studies also confirmed the triple therapy was superior to lenvatinib plus TACE in patients with uHCC. Overall, the triple therapy is a promising treatment for patients with uHCC, including main PVTT and extrahepatic metastasis. Lenvatinib plus TACE therapy was also preferable for intermediate stage HCC beyond up-to-seven criterion and for patients with PVTT.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the cancers with the highest morbidity and mortality. Sorafenib used to be the main treatment for unresectable HCC patients. However, regimens based on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have attracted attention in recent years because of their reported benefits. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of monotherapy and combination therapy of ICIs as first-line treatment for unresectable HCC patients by conducting a systematic review, meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis.
METHODS: Studies published up to 11st August 2022 were searched from 4 commonly used databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Clinical trials.gov. All eligible clinical trials were included. Data about reported objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were extracted.
RESULTS: Of the 8579 studies retrieved, 24 met the inclusion criteria. In patients with unresectable HCC taking ICIs-based therapy as first-line treatment, the pooled result of median PFS and median OS was 5.76 months (95% CI 4.82-6.69) and 16.35 months (95% CI 15.19-17.51) The ORR and DCR were 25.1% (95% CI 20.8-29.5%) and 75.2% (95% CI 70.3-80.2%) measured by RECIST v1.1 or 40.2% (95% CI 31.7-48.6%) with 75.2% (95% CI 68.3-82.1%) measured by mRECIST v1.1. Compared to sorafenib, ICIs-based therapy significantly prolonged OS. The combination treatment of sintilimab plus IBI305 had the highest ORR, while atezolizumab plus bevacizumab had the highest DCR. The pooled incidence of any grade TRAEs was 82.3% (95% CI 73.9-90.7%), with highest incidence appeared in dysphonia.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that first-line ICIs-based therapies could provide survival benefits for patients with unresectable HCC, with manageable TRAEs. The potential of combination treatment to become the new treatment trend in clinical practice is promising.

OBJECTIVE: Several new first-line treatments were recently approved for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this meta-analysis, we compare the efficacy and safety of first-line systemic treatments to provide information for clinical decision making in unresectable HCC.
METHODS: Pubmed, Science Direct, Web of Science, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI, CBM, VIP, and the Wanfang databases, as well as the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails were searched for randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of first-line chemotherapy, molecular targeted therapy, or immunotherapy for unresectable HCC. Hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to explore the effects of various treatment options on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), whereas odd ratios with 95% CIs were used for adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs). A network meta-analysis was performed to synthesize data and for direct and indirect comparisons between treatments. The cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) and P score were used to rank treatments. The risk of bias across studies was assessed graphically and numerically using the funnel plot and Egger\'s regression test.
RESULTS: Fifteen studies including 9005 patients were analyzed. Sintilimab plus bevacizumab, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, and donafenib had better OS outcomes than sorafenib. Sintilimab plus bevacizumab, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib, and linifanib had better PFS outcomes than sorafenib. The results of network meta-analysis showed that sintilimab plus bevacizumab was associated with the best OS and PFS. Egger\'s tests indicated that none of the included studies had obvious publication deviation.
CONCLUSIONS: Sintilimab plus bevacizumab showed the best OS and PFS outcomes with no additional AEs or SAEs. Thus, sintilimab plus bevacizumab may be a better first line choice for the treatment of patients with unresectable HCC.
BACKGROUND: PROSPEROI [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/index.php], identifier CRD42021269734.

Background: Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and microwave ablation (MWA) are regarded as effective therapies for treating unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We conducted this study to compare the efficiency and safety of TACE combined with RFA (TR group) or MWA (TM group).Method: PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Ovid Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar were searched. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rates, and complications.Result: Eight cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial were included. The TM group had better OS (Hazard ratio [HR]: 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09-2.21, p = 0.01) and a better 2- and 3-year OS rate, 24-month PFS rate (Risk ratio [RR]: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.46-0.96, p = 0.03), and complete response rate (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.79-0.96, p = 0.003) than the TR group. Furthermore, the TM and TR groups did not show significant differences in PFS, the disease control rate or complications. The advantage of TM was mainly reflected in younger patients (50-60 years old) compared with patients aged 60-70 years, as well as in patients with larger tumors (≥3 cm) compared with patients with tumors <3 cm. Moreover, patients treated with conventional TACE (cTACE) in the TM group showed longer OS, while patients treated with drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE) in the TR group showed a higher overall response rate.Conclusion: TM seems to be a more effective therapy than TR for unresectable HCC, with better survival and similar safety.