Short-term and long-term efficacy of 7 targeted therapies for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis: Efficacy of 7 targeted therapies for AHCC

Estimating the replicability of highly cited clinical research (2004-2018)

INTRODUCTION

Previous studies about the replicability of clinical research based on the published literature have suggested that highly cited articles are often contradicted or found to have inflated effects. Nevertheless, there are no recent updates of such efforts, and this situation may have changed over time.

METHODS

We searched the Web of Science database for articles studying medical interventions with more than 2000 citations, published between 2004 and 2018 in high-impact medical journals. We then searched for replications of these studies in PubMed using the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome) framework. Replication success was evaluated by the presence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction and by overlap of the replication's effect size confidence interval (CIs) with that of the original study. Evidence of effect size inflation and potential predictors of replicability were also analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 89 eligible studies, of which 24 had valid replications (17 meta-analyses and 7 primary studies) were found. Of these, 21 (88%) had effect sizes with overlapping CIs. Of 15 highly cited studies with a statistically significant difference in the primary outcome, 13 (87%) had a significant effect in the replication as well. When both criteria were considered together, the replicability rate in our sample was of 20 out of 24 (83%). There was no evidence of systematic inflation in these highly cited studies, with a mean effect size ratio of 1.03 [95% CI (0.88, 1.21)] between initial and subsequent effects. Due to the small number of contradicted results, our analysis had low statistical power to detect predictors of replicability.

CONCLUSION

Although most studies did not have eligible replications, the replicability rate of highly cited clinical studies in our sample was higher than in previous estimates, with little evidence of systematic effect size inflation. This estimate is based on a very select sample of studies and may not be generalizable to clinical research in general.

Anticancer Drugs Compared to No Anticancer Drugs in Patients with Advanced Hepatobiliary Cancer: A Mapping Review and Evidence Gap Map

Introduction

Despite being commonly recommended, the impact of anticancer drugs (ACDs) on patient-important outcomes beyond survival for advanced hepatobiliary cancers (HBCs) may not have been sufficiently assessed. We aim to identify and map the evidence regarding ACDs versus best supportive care (BSC) for advanced HBCs, considering patient-centered outcomes.

Methods

In this mapping review, we included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, and observational studies comparing ACDs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, biological/targeted therapy) versus BSC for advanced HBCs. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO and clinicaltrials.gov for eligible studies. Two reviewers performed the screening and data extraction processes. We developed evidence maps for each type of cancer.

Results

We included 87 studies (60 for advanced liver cancer and 27 for gallbladder or bile duct cancers). Most of the evidence favored ACDs for survival outcomes, and BSC for toxicity. We identified several evidence gaps for non-survival outcomes, including quality of life or quality of end-of-life care.

Discussion

Patient-important outcomes beyond survival in advanced HBCs are insufficiently assessed by the available evidence. Future studies need to address these gaps to better inform decision-making processes.

Long noncoding RNA 91H overexpression contributes to the growth and metastasis of HCC by epigenetically positively regulating IGF2 expression

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Long noncoding RNA 91H is transcribed from the H19/IGF2 locus and contributes to the development of breast and oesophagus cancers by regulating the expression of IGF2, but the regulation mechanism remains poorly characterized. Here, we explored the role of 91H in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and the mechanism of IGF2 expression regulation by 91H.

METHODS

Firstly, the expression of 91H was analysed in HCC by quantitative RT-PCR, the association of 91H with survival was evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method and the effect of 91H on the growth and invasion of HCC was investigated by the in vitro and in vivo studies. Then, the association of 91H with the expression of IGF2 was evaluated in HCC tissues, and the effect of 91H on the expression of IGF2 was investigated by 91H knockdown. Finally, the binding of RBBP5 to 91H and the binding of RBBP5, activating H3K4me3 mark and repressive H3K27me3 mark to the P3 and P4 promoters of IGF2 gene were studied by RIP and ChIP respectively.

RESULTS

The overexpression of 91H was found in HCC and in association with the growth, metastasis and shorter survival time of HCC. The knockdown of 91H down-regulated the IGF2 expression in HCC, and the mechanism was correlated with the decreased enrichment of RBBP5 and H3K4me3 and increased enrichment of H3K27me3 at the bivalent P3 and P4 promoters.

CONCLUSIONS

The overexpression of 91H promotes tumour growth and metastasis, and is associated with a poor prognosis of HCC at least partially by positively regulating the expression of IGF2 through bivalent histone modification changes characterized by H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 at the P3 and P4 promoters.

Evaluation of Targeted Agents for Advanced and Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis

Objective: To evaluate different targeted anticancer agents for patients with advanced or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) based on network meta-analysis.

Methods: Literature retrieval was conducted in globally recognized databases, namely, MEDLINE, PMC, EMBASE and Cochrane Central to find relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Relative parametric data, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and adverse event (AE), were quantitatively pooled and estimated based on the Bayesian theorem. The values of the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) probabilities regarding each parameter were calculated and ranked. Node-splitting analysis was performed to test the inconsistency of the main results, and publication bias was assessed by examining funnel-plot symmetry.

Results: After a detailed review, 31 RCTs containing 20 different agents or combinations were finally included for network meta-analysis. For patients without previously systematic treatments, lenvatinib had the best clinical effects on OS (SUCRA, 0.22), and apatinib was superior regarding PFS (SUCRA, 0.41) and AE (SUCRA, 0.15). For patients who received previously targeted agents therapies, regorafenib exhibited the superior clinical effects on OS (SUCRA, 0.42) and PFS (SUCRA, 0.30), while codrituzumab showed the greatest safety benefit on AE (SUCRA, 0.75). Moreover, node-splitting analysis and funnel-plot symmetries illustrated no inconsistency or obvious publication bias in the current study.

Conclusions: According to current evidence, lenvatinib and apatinib had superior clinical effects for patients without previously systematic treatments, and regorafenib seemed to be more suitable for patients with previously targeted agent therapies. However, our conclusions still need more statistical validations, and more high-quality trials are expected.

[Stereotactic body radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: Results from a retrospective multicentre study]

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper was to describe local control, overall survival, progression-free survival and toxicity of CyberKnife^®-based stereotactic body radiation therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Records of all the patients treated for hepatocellular carcinoma at the Eugene-Marquis cancer centre, Rennes and the Bretonneau hospital, Tours (France), between November 2010 and December 2016, were reviewed. Radiation therapy was performed as a salvage treatment, while awaiting liver transplantation or if no other treatment was possible.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-six patients were consecutively included in the study. The median follow-up was 13months. Median total dose prescribed, fractionation and overall treatment time were respectively 45Gy, three fractions and 5 days. Overall survival, progression-free survival and local control rates at 1year and 2years were 79.8 % and 63.5 %, 61.3 % and 39.4 %; 94.5 % and 91 %. Two grade 3 acute toxicity events and two grade 4 late toxicity events corresponding to a duodenal ulcer have been reported. Seven patients underwent classic radiation-induced hepatitis and 13 patients showed non-classical radiation-induced hepatitis. Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage, World Health Organisation grade and planning target volume were correlated with overall survival in univariate Cox analysis.

CONCLUSION

Stereotactic body radiation therapy is effective and well-tolerated for inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma or as a bridge to liver transplantation. Toxicity is mainly related to cirrhotic background and requires a selection of patients and strict dose constraints.

Is hepatocellular carcinoma the same disease in children and adults? Comparison of histology, molecular background, and treatment in pediatric and adult patients

Pediatric hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is rare, resulting in scattered knowledge of tumor biology and molecular background. Thus far, the variant in children has been treated as a different entity from adult HCC. We weigh the hypothesis that HCC in the pediatric and adult groups may be the same entity and may benefit from the same treatment. Although certain differences between adult and pediatric HCC are obvious and certain types of HCC may ask for a customized approach, in conventional HCC, similarities predominate, warranting treatment aiming at common molecular targets in adult and pediatric HCC patients.

Clinical outcomes with long-term sorafenib treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter real-life study

AIM

This multicenter field-practice study evaluates outcomes of long-term sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.

METHODS

Consecutive HCC patients on sorafenib were enrolled. We evaluated those receiving sorafenib for ≥12 months.

RESULTS

Out of 800 patients on sorafenib, 81 (10%) received long-term treatment. Median duration of treatment was 22.7 months (range: 12.3-92.6). Only 21 (26%) reported grade 3/4 adverse events. Complete response was reported in 11 patients (14%). Median overall survival was 34.8 months (95% CI: 29.9-44.3). Only baseline Child-Pugh class was associated with survival.

CONCLUSION

Sorafenib could result in long-term control of HCC in a relevant proportion of patients. Given the availability of regorafenib in the second-line setting, an earlier introduction of systemic therapy may be considered according to clinical indications.

Dose age affect the efficacy of molecular targeted agents in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Currently, whether the impact of age on efficacy of molecular targeted agents (MTAs) in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients remains undetermined. We searched databases and abstracts presented at ASCO meeting to identify relevant studies. The endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Data were examined using age cutoffs of 65 years. A total of 4,231 HCC patients from eight RCTs were included for analysis, with 1,607 patients aged ≥ 65 years and 2,624 patients aged < 65 years. The pooled results demonstrated that the use of MTAs in patients < 65 years significantly improved PFS (HR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.51–0.95, p = 0.023) and OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.69–0.89, p < 0.001) when compared to controls. For HCC patients aged ≥ 65 years, the use of MTAs significantly improved PFS (HR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.53–0.84, p = 0.001) but not for OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.81 –1.09, p = 0.41). No publication bias was detected by Begg's and Egger's tests for OS. Therefore, the treatment effect of MTAs on OS might be different in younger and older HCC patients undergoing first-line or second-line treatment, but not for PFS benefit.

Efficacy of anti-VEGF agents in the treatment of elderly hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review

Purpose

We aimed to investigate the role of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) agents, including tyrosine-kinase inhibitors or monoclonal anti-bodies, in the treatment of elderly hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.

Materials and Methods

Databases from PubMed, Web of Science and abstracts presented at ASCO meeting up to March 31, 2017 were searched to identify relevant studies. The endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Data were examined using age cutoffs of 65 years.

Results

A total of 1,309 elderly (aged ≥ 65 years) HCC patients from seven trials were included for analysis. Our results demonstrated that the use of anti-VEGF agents MTAs in patients aged ≥ 65 years significantly improved PFS (HR 0.65, 95% CI: 0.55–0.76, p < 0.001) but not for OS (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.73–1.05, p = 0.15). Sub-group analysis according to treatment line showed that the use of anti-VEGF agents as second-line treatment significantly improved PFS (HR 0.55, 95% CI: 0.45–0.67, p < 0.001) and marginally improved OS (HR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.68–1.01, p = 0.061). Additionally, no survival benefits were observed in elderly HCC received first-line anti-VEGF treatments in terms of PFS (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.13, p = 0.29) and OS (HR 1.19, 95% CI: 0.74–1.36, p = 0.47). No publication bias was detected by Begg's and Egger's tests for OS.

Conclusions

The findings of this study show that elderly HCC patients who relapsed after a first-line sorafenib treatment obtains a survival benefits from anti-VEGF agents rechallenge. Further studies are recommended to search for predictors of good responders in these patients received anti-VEGF agents.

Management of people with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is significant uncertainty in the treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma which is defined by the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) as hepatocellular carcinoma stage B with large, multi-nodular, Child-Pugh status A to B, performance status 0 to 2, and without vascular occlusion or extrahepatic disease.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions used in the treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (BCLC stage B) through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available interventions according to their safety and efficacy. However, we found only one comparison. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis, and we assessed the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions versus each other, or versus placebo, sham, or no intervention (supportive treatment only) using standard Cochrane methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and randomised clinical trials registers to September 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials on hepatocellular carcinoma.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only randomised clinical trials, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, in participants with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of the presence of cirrhosis, size, or number of the tumours (provided they met the criteria of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma), of presence or absence of portal hypertension, of aetiology of hepatocellular carcinoma, and of the future remnant liver volume. We excluded trials which included participants who had previously undergone liver transplantation. We considered any of the various interventions compared with each other or with no active intervention (supportive treatment only). We excluded trials which compared variations of the same intervention: for example, different methods of performing transarterial chemoembolisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We calculated the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager. We assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis using Stata, and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Three randomised clinical trials, including 430 participants, met the inclusion criteria for this review; however, data from two trials with 412 participants could be included in only one primary outcome (i.e. mortality). All three trials were at high risk of bias. All three trials included supportive care as cointervention. The comparisons included in the two trials reporting on mortality were: systemic chemotherapy with sorafenib versus no active intervention; and transarterial chemoembolisation plus systemic chemotherapy with sorafenib versus transarterial chemoembolisation alone. The trials did not report the duration of follow-up; however, it appeared that the participants were followed up for a period of about 18 to 30 months. The majority of the participants in the trials had cirrhotic livers. The trials included participants with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma arising from viral and non-viral aetiologies. The trials did not report the portal hypertension status of the participants. The mortality was 50% to 70% over a median follow-up period of 18 to 30 months. There was no evidence of difference in mortality at maximal follow-up between systemic chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.18; participants = 412; studies = 2; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence). A subgroup analysis performed by stratifying the analysis by the presence or absence of transarterial chemoembolisation as cointervention did not alter the results. None of the trials reported on serious adverse events other than mortality, health-related quality of life, recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma, or length of hospital stay. One of the trials providing data was funded by the pharmaceutical industry, the other did not report the source of funding, and the trial with no data for the review was also funded by the pharmaceutical industry. We found two ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is no evidence from randomised clinical trials that people with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma would benefit from systemic chemotherapy with sorafenib either alone or when transarterial chemoembolisation was used as a cointervention (very low quality evidence). We need high-quality randomised clinical trials designed to measure differences in clinically important outcomes (e.g. all-cause mortality or health-related quality of life).