Clinical efficacy of lenvatinib, trans-arterial chemoembolization, and PD-1/L1 inhibitors in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Hepatocellular carcinoma appears frequently in patients with cirrhosis. Surveillance by biannual ultrasound is recommended for such patients because it allows diagnosis at an early stage, when effective therapies are feasible. The best candidates for resection are patients with a solitary tumour and preserved liver function. Liver transplantation benefits patients who are not good candidates for surgical resection, and the best candidates are those within Milan criteria (solitary tumour ≤5 cm or up to three nodules ≤3 cm). Image-guided ablation is the most frequently used therapeutic strategy, but its efficacy is limited by the size of the tumour and its localisation. Chemoembolisation has survival benefit in asymptomatic patients with multifocal disease without vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread. Finally, sorafenib, lenvatinib, which is non-inferior to sorafenib, and regorafenib increase survival and are the standard treatments in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. This Seminar summarises the scientific evidence that supports the current recommendations for clinical practice, and discusses the areas in which more research is needed. Show more

In a phase 2 trial, lenvatinib, an inhibitor of VEGF receptors 1-3, FGF receptors 1-4, PDGF receptor α, RET, and KIT, showed activity in hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to compare overall survival in patients treated with lenvatinib versus sorafenib as a first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Show more

Background Lack of appropriate reporting of methodological details has previously been shown to distort risk of bias assessments in randomized controlled trials. The same might be true for observational studies. The goal of this study was to compare the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) assessment for risk of bias between reviewers and authors of cohort studies included in a published systematic review on risk factors for severe outcomes in patients infected with influenza. Methods Cohort studies included in the systematic review and published between 2008–2011 were included. The corresponding or first authors completed a survey covering all NOS items. Results were compared with the NOS assessment applied by reviewers of the systematic review. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using kappa (K) statistics. Results Authors of 65/182 (36%) studies completed the survey. The overall NOS score was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the reviewers’ assessment (median = 6; interquartile range [IQR] 6–6) compared with those by authors (median = 5, IQR 4–6). Inter-rater reliability by item ranged from slight (K = 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.19, 0.48) to poor (K = −0.06, 95% CI = −0.22, 0.10). Reliability for the overall score was poor (K = −0.004, 95% CI = −0.11, 0.11). Conclusions Differences in assessment and low agreement between reviewers and authors suggest the need to contact authors for information not published in studies when applying the NOS in systematic reviews. Show more