The emerging therapies are reshaping the first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

• Published in: Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology 2024-01, Vol.17, p.17562848241237631-17562848241237631
• Main Authors: Peng, Wei, Pan, Yangxun, Xie, Lan, Yang, Zhoutian, Ye, Zhiwei, Chen, Jinbin, Wang, Juncheng, Hu, Dandan, Xu, Li, Zhou, Zhongguo, Chen, Minshan, Fang, Aiping, Zhang, Yaojun
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 1756-283X; 1756-2848; 1756-2848
• DOI: 10.1177/17562848241237631

Given the superior performance of various therapies over sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and the absence of direct comparisons, it is crucial to explore the efficacy of these treatments in phase III randomized clinical trials. The goal is to identify which patients are most likely to benefit significantly from these emerging therapies, contributing to more personalized and informed clinical decision-making. Systematic review and network meta-analysis. PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and international conference databases have been searched from 1 January 2010 to 1 December 2023. After screening, 17 phase III trials encompassing 18 treatments were included. In the whole-population network meta-analysis, the newly first-line tremelimumab plus durvalumab (Tre + Du) was found to be comparable with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo + Beva) in providing the best overall survival (OS) benefit [hazard ratio (HR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93-1.92]. Concerning OS benefits, sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar (Sint + Beva), camrelizumab plus rivoceranib (Camre + Rivo), and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (Lenva + Pemb) appear to exhibit similar effects to Tre + Du and Atezo + Beva. In the context of progression-free survival, Atezo + Beva seemed to outperform Tre + Du (HR: 0.66 CI: 0.49-0.87), while the effects are comparable to Sint + Beva, Camre + Rivo, and Lenva + Pemb. Upon comparison between Asia-Pacific and non-Asia-Pacific cohorts, as well as between hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infected and non-HBV-infected populations, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based treatments seemed to exhibit heightened efficacy in the Asia-Pacific group and among individuals with HBV infection. However, combined ICI-based therapies did not show more effectiveness than molecular-targeted drugs in patients without macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread. As for grades 3-5 adverse events, combined therapies showed comparable safety to sorafenib and lenvatinib. Compared with sorafenib and lenvatinib, combination therapies based on ICIs significantly improved the prognosis of advanced HCC and demonstrated similar safety. At the same time, the optimal treatment approach should be tailored to individual patient characteristics, such as etiology, tumor staging, and serum alpha-fetoprotein levels. With lower incidence rates of treatment-related adverse events and non-inferior efficacy compared to sorafenib, ICI monotherapies should be prioriti