肝动脉灌注化疗及其联合策略治疗晚期肝细胞癌的疗效:一项网络荟萃分析。

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Shun-An Zhou, Qing-Mei Zhou, Lei Wu, Zhi-Hong Chen, Fan Wu, Zhen-Rong Chen, Lian-Qun Xu, Bi-Ling Gan, Hao-Sheng Jin, Ning Shi
{"title":"肝动脉灌注化疗及其联合策略治疗晚期肝细胞癌的疗效:一项网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Shun-An Zhou, Qing-Mei Zhou, Lei Wu, Zhi-Hong Chen, Fan Wu, Zhen-Rong Chen, Lian-Qun Xu, Bi-Ling Gan, Hao-Sheng Jin, Ning Shi","doi":"10.4251/wjgo.v16.i8.3672","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With the rapid progress of systematic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), therapeutic strategies combining hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) with systematic therapy arised increasing concentrations. However, there have been no systematic review comparing HAIC and its combination strategies in the first-line treatment for advanced HCC.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To investigate the efficacy and safety of HAIC and its combination therapies for advanced HCC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A network meta-analysis was performed by including 9 randomized controlled trails and 35 cohort studies to carry out our study. The outcomes of interest comprised overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), tumor response and adverse events. Hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and agents were ranked based on their ranking probability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>HAIC outperformed Sorafenib (HR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.42-0.72; HR = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.33-0.78; OR = 2.86, 95%CI: 1.37-5.98; OR = 5.45, 95%CI: 3.57-8.30; OR = 7.15, 95%CI: 4.06-12.58; OR = 2.89, 95%CI: 1.99-4.19; OR = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.25-0.92, respectively) and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) (HR = 0.50, 95%CI: 0.33-0.75; HR = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.39-0.98; OR = 3.08, 95%CI: 1.36-6.98; OR = 2.07, 95%CI: 1.54-2.80; OR = 3.16, 95%CI: 1.71-5.85; OR = 2.67, 95%CI: 1.59-4.50; OR = 0.16, 95%CI: 0.05-0.54, respectively) in terms of efficacy and safety. HAIC + lenvatinib + ablation, HAIC + ablation, HAIC + anti- programmed cell death 1 (PD-1), and HAIC + radiotherapy had the higher likelihood of providing better OS and PFS outcomes compared to HAIC alone. HAIC + TACE + S-1, HAIC + lenvatinib, HAIC + PD-1, HAIC + TACE, and HAIC + sorafenib had the higher likelihood of providing better partial response and objective response rate outcomes compared to HAIC. HAIC + PD-1, HAIC + TACE + S-1 and HAIC + TACE had the higher likelihood of providing better complete response and disease control rate outcomes compared to HAIC alone.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>HAIC proved more effective and safer than sorafenib and TACE. Furthermore, combined with other interventions, HAIC showed improved efficacy over HAIC monotherapy according to the treatment ranking analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":23762,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11334021/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy and its combination strategies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Shun-An Zhou, Qing-Mei Zhou, Lei Wu, Zhi-Hong Chen, Fan Wu, Zhen-Rong Chen, Lian-Qun Xu, Bi-Ling Gan, Hao-Sheng Jin, Ning Shi\",\"doi\":\"10.4251/wjgo.v16.i8.3672\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With the rapid progress of systematic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), therapeutic strategies combining hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) with systematic therapy arised increasing concentrations. However, there have been no systematic review comparing HAIC and its combination strategies in the first-line treatment for advanced HCC.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To investigate the efficacy and safety of HAIC and its combination therapies for advanced HCC.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A network meta-analysis was performed by including 9 randomized controlled trails and 35 cohort studies to carry out our study. The outcomes of interest comprised overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), tumor response and adverse events. Hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and agents were ranked based on their ranking probability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>HAIC outperformed Sorafenib (HR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.42-0.72; HR = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.33-0.78; OR = 2.86, 95%CI: 1.37-5.98; OR = 5.45, 95%CI: 3.57-8.30; OR = 7.15, 95%CI: 4.06-12.58; OR = 2.89, 95%CI: 1.99-4.19; OR = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.25-0.92, respectively) and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) (HR = 0.50, 95%CI: 0.33-0.75; HR = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.39-0.98; OR = 3.08, 95%CI: 1.36-6.98; OR = 2.07, 95%CI: 1.54-2.80; OR = 3.16, 95%CI: 1.71-5.85; OR = 2.67, 95%CI: 1.59-4.50; OR = 0.16, 95%CI: 0.05-0.54, respectively) in terms of efficacy and safety. HAIC + lenvatinib + ablation, HAIC + ablation, HAIC + anti- programmed cell death 1 (PD-1), and HAIC + radiotherapy had the higher likelihood of providing better OS and PFS outcomes compared to HAIC alone. HAIC + TACE + S-1, HAIC + lenvatinib, HAIC + PD-1, HAIC + TACE, and HAIC + sorafenib had the higher likelihood of providing better partial response and objective response rate outcomes compared to HAIC. HAIC + PD-1, HAIC + TACE + S-1 and HAIC + TACE had the higher likelihood of providing better complete response and disease control rate outcomes compared to HAIC alone.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>HAIC proved more effective and safer than sorafenib and TACE. Furthermore, combined with other interventions, HAIC showed improved efficacy over HAIC monotherapy according to the treatment ranking analysis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23762,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11334021/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v16.i8.3672\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v16.i8.3672","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:随着肝细胞癌(HCC)系统治疗的快速发展,肝动脉灌注化疗(HAIC)与系统治疗相结合的治疗策略越来越受到重视。目的:探讨肝动脉灌注化疗及其联合疗法治疗晚期肝癌的有效性和安全性:我们进行了一项网络荟萃分析,包括 9 项随机对照试验和 35 项队列研究。研究结果包括总生存期(OS)、无进展生存期(PFS)、肿瘤反应和不良事件。研究计算了危险比(HR)和几率比(OR)及95%置信区间(CI),并根据排序概率对药物进行了排序:HAIC的疗效优于索拉非尼(HR = 0.55,95%CI:0.42-0.72;HR = 0.51,95%CI:0.33-0.78;OR = 2.86,95%CI:1.37-5.98;OR = 5.45,95%CI:3.57-8.30;OR = 7.15,95%CI:4.06-12.58;OR = 2.89,95%CI:1.99-4.19;OR = 0.48,95%CI:0.25-0.92)和经动脉化疗栓塞(TACE)(HR = 0.50,95%CI:0.33-0.75;HR = 0.62,95%CI:0.39-0.98;OR = 3.08,95%CI:1.36-6.98;OR = 2.07,95%CI:1.54-2.80;OR = 3.16,95%CI:1.71-5.85;OR = 2.67,95%CI:1.59-4.50;OR = 0.16,95%CI:0.05-0.54)的疗效和安全性。与单用HAIC相比,HAIC+来伐替尼+消融、HAIC+消融、HAIC+抗程序性细胞死亡1(PD-1)和HAIC+放疗更有可能提供更好的OS和PFS结果。与HAIC相比,HAIC + TACE + S-1、HAIC +来伐替尼、HAIC + PD-1、HAIC + TACE和HAIC +索拉非尼更有可能提供更好的部分应答和客观应答率结果。与单用HAIC相比,HAIC + PD-1、HAIC + TACE + S-1和HAIC + TACE更有可能提供更好的完全应答和疾病控制率结果:结论:事实证明,HAIC比索拉非尼和TACE更有效、更安全。结论:事实证明,HAIC比索拉非尼和TACE更有效、更安全。此外,根据疗效排序分析,HAIC联合其他干预措施的疗效优于HAIC单药治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy and its combination strategies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A network meta-analysis.

Background: With the rapid progress of systematic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), therapeutic strategies combining hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) with systematic therapy arised increasing concentrations. However, there have been no systematic review comparing HAIC and its combination strategies in the first-line treatment for advanced HCC.

Aim: To investigate the efficacy and safety of HAIC and its combination therapies for advanced HCC.

Methods: A network meta-analysis was performed by including 9 randomized controlled trails and 35 cohort studies to carry out our study. The outcomes of interest comprised overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), tumor response and adverse events. Hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and agents were ranked based on their ranking probability.

Results: HAIC outperformed Sorafenib (HR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.42-0.72; HR = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.33-0.78; OR = 2.86, 95%CI: 1.37-5.98; OR = 5.45, 95%CI: 3.57-8.30; OR = 7.15, 95%CI: 4.06-12.58; OR = 2.89, 95%CI: 1.99-4.19; OR = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.25-0.92, respectively) and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) (HR = 0.50, 95%CI: 0.33-0.75; HR = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.39-0.98; OR = 3.08, 95%CI: 1.36-6.98; OR = 2.07, 95%CI: 1.54-2.80; OR = 3.16, 95%CI: 1.71-5.85; OR = 2.67, 95%CI: 1.59-4.50; OR = 0.16, 95%CI: 0.05-0.54, respectively) in terms of efficacy and safety. HAIC + lenvatinib + ablation, HAIC + ablation, HAIC + anti- programmed cell death 1 (PD-1), and HAIC + radiotherapy had the higher likelihood of providing better OS and PFS outcomes compared to HAIC alone. HAIC + TACE + S-1, HAIC + lenvatinib, HAIC + PD-1, HAIC + TACE, and HAIC + sorafenib had the higher likelihood of providing better partial response and objective response rate outcomes compared to HAIC. HAIC + PD-1, HAIC + TACE + S-1 and HAIC + TACE had the higher likelihood of providing better complete response and disease control rate outcomes compared to HAIC alone.

Conclusion: HAIC proved more effective and safer than sorafenib and TACE. Furthermore, combined with other interventions, HAIC showed improved efficacy over HAIC monotherapy according to the treatment ranking analysis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology Medicine-Gastroenterology
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
3.30%
发文量
1082
期刊介绍: The World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology (WJGO) is a leading academic journal devoted to reporting the latest, cutting-edge research progress and findings of basic research and clinical practice in the field of gastrointestinal oncology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信