Ablative and non-surgical therapies for early and very early hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

A wide range of ablative and non-surgical therapies are available for treating small hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with very early or early-stage disease and preserved liver function.

Objective

To review and compare the effectiveness of all current ablative and non-surgical therapies for patients with small hepatocellular carcinoma (≤ 3 cm).

Design

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Data sources

Nine databases (March 2021), two trial registries (April 2021) and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews.

Review methods

Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials of ablative and non-surgical therapies, versus any comparator, for small hepatocellular carcinoma. Randomised controlled trials were quality assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and mapped. The comparative effectiveness of therapies was assessed using network meta-analysis. A threshold analysis was used to identify which comparisons were sensitive to potential changes in the evidence. Where comparisons based on randomised controlled trial evidence were not robust or no randomised controlled trials were identified, a targeted systematic review of non-randomised, prospective comparative studies provided additional data for repeat network meta-analysis and threshold analysis. The feasibility of undertaking economic modelling was explored. A workshop with patients and clinicians was held to discuss the findings and identify key priorities for future research.

Results

Thirty-seven randomised controlled trials (with over 3700 relevant patients) were included in the review. The majority were conducted in China or Japan and most had a high risk of bias or some risk of bias concerns. The results of the network meta-analysis were uncertain for most comparisons. There was evidence that percutaneous ethanol injection is inferior to radiofrequency ablation for overall survival (hazard ratio 1.45, 95% credible interval 1.16 to 1.82), progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.36, 95% credible interval 1.11 to 1.67), overall recurrence (relative risk 1.19, 95% credible interval 1.02 to 1.39) and local recurrence (relative risk 1.80, 95% credible interval 1.19 to 2.71). Percutaneous acid injection was also inferior to radiofrequency ablation for progression-free survival (hazard ratio 1.63, 95% credible interval 1.05 to 2.51). Threshold analysis showed that further evidence could plausibly change the result for some comparisons. Fourteen eligible non-randomised studies were identified (n ≥ 2316); twelve had a high risk of bias so were not included in updated network meta-analyses. Additional non-randomised data, made available by a clinical advisor, were also included (n = 303). There remained a high level of uncertainty in treatment rankings after the network meta-analyses were updated. However, the updated analyses suggested that microwave ablation and resection are superior to percutaneous ethanol injection and percutaneous acid injection for some outcomes. Further research on stereotactic ablative radiotherapy was recommended at the workshop, although it is only appropriate for certain patient subgroups, limiting opportunities for adequately powered trials.

Limitations

Many studies were small and of poor quality. No comparative studies were found for some therapies.

Conclusions

The existing evidence base has limitations; the uptake of specific ablative therapies in the United Kingdom appears to be based more on technological advancements and ease of use than strong evidence of clinical effectiveness. However, there is evidence that percutaneous ethanol injection and percutaneous acid injection are inferior to radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation and resection.

Study registration

PROSPERO CRD42020221357.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR131224) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 29. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The Cost-Effectiveness of Selective Internal Radiation Therapies Compared With Sorafenib for Treating Advanced Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the United Kingdom

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) compared with sorafenib for the treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the United Kingdom, including a selected subgroup of patients who have been identified as benefiting from treatment with SIRT.

METHODS

A de novo economic model was developed comparing SIRT with sorafenib using data from two large randomized controlled trials. The model structure comprised a decision tree representing the outcome of the work-up procedure, transitioning into a 3-state partitioned survival model to project long-term survival outcomes. Cost-effectiveness in a post hoc defined subgroup with low tumor burden and good liver function was explored.

RESULTS

At list price, SIRT was predicted to be less costly but less effective than sorafenib with an estimated saving of £156 089 per quality-adjusted life-year forgone, with cost savings of £4589 and 0.029 fewer quality-adjusted life-years than sorafenib. Accounting for existing confidential discounts for sorafenib, two SIRTs were cost-effective at a £30 000 willingness-to-pay threshold compared with sorafenib when a discount for the technologies was introduced. In the subgroup with low tumor burden and good liver function, SIRT may be associated with greater survival benefits and cost savings.

CONCLUSIONS

Accounting for confidential discounts, on average, SIRT technologies represent value for money in the whole advanced hepatocellular carcinoma population, being less effective but less costly than sorafenib. Results from a subgroup with low tumor burden and good liver function suggest that the cost-effectiveness of SIRTs may be maximized in this group, but further research is required to demonstrate the validity of effectiveness benefits.

Selective internal radiation therapies for unresectable early-, intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: systematic review, network meta-analysis and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of primary liver cancer. Treatment choice is dependent on underlying liver dysfunction and cancer stage. Treatment options include conventional transarterial therapies for patients with intermediate-stage disease and systemic therapy [e.g. sorafenib (Nexavar®; Bayer plc, Leverkusen, Germany)] for patients with advanced-stage disease. Selective internal radiation therapies deliver radiation to liver tumours via microspheres that are injected into the hepatic artery. There are three selective internal radiation therapies: TheraSphere™ [BTG Ltd, London, UK (now Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA)], SIR-Spheres® (Sirtex Medical Ltd, Woburn, MA, USA) and QuiremSpheres® (Quirem Medical BV, Deventer, the Netherlands).

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective internal radiation therapies for treating patients with unresectable early-, intermediate- or advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

A search was undertaken to identify clinical effectiveness literature relating to selective internal radiation therapies and relevant comparators for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Studies were critically appraised and summarised. The network of evidence was mapped to estimate the relative effectiveness of the different selective internal radiation therapies and comparator treatments. An economic analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two large randomised controlled trials rated as having a low risk of bias [SARAH: Vilgrain V, Pereira H, Assenat E, Guiu B, Ilonca AD, Pageaux GP, et al. Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled Phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol 2017;18:1624-36; and SIRveNIB: Chow PKH, Gandhi M, Tan SB, Khin MW, Khasbazar A, Ong J, et al. SIRveNIB: selective internal radiation therapy versus sorafenib in Asia-Pacific patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2018;36:1913-21] found no significant difference in overall survival or progression-free survival between SIR-Spheres and sorafenib (systemic therapy) in an advanced population, despite greater tumour response in the SIR-Spheres arm of both trials. There were some concerns regarding generalisability of the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials to UK practice. All other studies of SIR-Spheres, TheraSphere or QuiremSpheres were either rated as being at a high risk of bias or caused some concerns regarding bias. A network meta-analysis was conducted in adults with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who had Child-Pugh class A liver cirrhosis and were ineligible for conventional transarterial therapies. The analysis included the SARAH and SIRveNIB trials as well as a trial comparing lenvatinib (Kisplyx®; Eisai Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) (systemic therapy) with sorafenib. There were no meaningful differences in overall survival between any of the treatments. The base-case economic analysis suggested that TheraSphere may be cost-saving relative to both SIR-Spheres and QuiremSpheres. However, incremental cost differences between TheraSphere and SIR-Spheres were small. In a fully incremental analysis, which included confidential Patient Access Scheme discounts, lenvatinib was the most cost-effective treatment and dominated all selective internal radiation therapies. In pairwise comparisons of sorafenib with each selective internal radiation therapy, sorafenib also dominated all selective internal radiation therapies.

LIMITATIONS

The existing evidence cannot provide decision-makers with clear guidance on the comparative effectiveness of treatments in early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma or on the efficacy of TheraSphere or QuiremSpheres.

CONCLUSIONS

In the advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma population, two large randomised trials have shown that SIR-Spheres have similar clinical effectiveness to sorafenib. None of the selective internal radiation therapies was cost-effective, being more costly and less effective than lenvatinib, both at list price and with Patient Access Scheme discounts.

FUTURE WORK

Future studies may wish to include early- and intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma patients and the low tumour burden/albumin-bilirubin 1 subgroup of advanced-stage patients. Future high-quality studies evaluating alternative selective internal radiation therapies would be beneficial.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019128383.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Methods for selecting the best evidence to inform a NICE technology appraisal on selective internal radiation therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews of medical devices are particularly challenging as the quality of evidence tends to be more limited than evidence on pharmaceutical products. This article describes the methods used to identify, select and critically appraise the best available evidence on selective internal radiation therapy devices for treating hepatocellular carcinoma, to inform a technology appraisal for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of ten medical databases and six grey literature sources was undertaken to identify studies of three devices (TheraSphere®, SIR-Spheres® and QuiremSpheres®) for treating hepatocellular carcinoma. The large evidence base was scoped before deciding what level of evidence to include for data extraction and critical appraisal. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using criteria relevant to each study design.

RESULTS

Electronic searches identified 4755 records; over 1000 met eligibility criteria after screening titles and abstracts. A hierarchical process was used to scope these records, prioritising comparative studies over non-comparative studies, where available. One hundred ninety-four full papers were ordered; 64 met the eligibility criteria. For each intervention, studies were prioritised by study design and applicability to current UK practice, resulting in 20 studies subjected to critical appraisal and data extraction. Only two trials had a low overall risk of bias. In view of the poor quality of the research evidence, our technology appraisal focused on the two higher quality trials, including a thorough critique of their reliability and generalisability to current UK practice. The 18 poorer quality studies were briefly summarised; many were very small and results were often contradictory. No definitive conclusions could be drawn from the poorer quality research evidence available.

CONCLUSIONS

A systematic, pragmatic process was used to select and critically appraise the vast quantity of research evidence available in order to present the most reliable evidence on which to develop recommendations.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019128383.

Patient characteristics as effect modifiers for psoriasis biologic treatment response: an assessment using network meta-analysis subgroups

BACKGROUND

Network meta-analyses (NMAs) of psoriasis treatments, undertaken as part of the NICE Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process, have included heterogeneous studies. When there is inconsistency or heterogeneity across the different comparisons or trials within the network of studies, the results of the NMA may not be valid. We explored the impact of including studies with heterogeneous patient characteristics on the results of NMAs of psoriasis treatments.

METHODS

All NMAs undertaken for psoriasis STAs were identified and the included studies tabulated, including patient characteristics that may influence relative treatment effects. In addition to the original network of all studies using licensed treatment doses, a range of smaller, less heterogeneous networks were mapped: 'no previous biologic use' (< 25% patients had prior biologic therapy exposure), 'Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score ≤ 25', 'weight ≤ 90 kg' and 'white ethnicity' (≥ 90% patients were white).

RESULTS

Sixty-nine studies were included in our synthesis (34,924 participants). A random effects model with a log-normal prior distribution was chosen for each of the subgroup NMAs. Heterogeneity was reduced for the four smaller networks. There were no significant differences in the relative treatment effect (PASI 75 response) for each treatment across the five NMAs, with all credible intervals overlapping, although there were noticeable differences. Treatment rankings based on the median relative risks were also generally consistent across the networks. However, the NMA that included only studies in which < 25% patients had prior biologic therapy exposure had slightly different treatment rankings; the anti-TNF therapies certolizumab pegol and infliximab ranked higher in this network than any other network, although credible intervals were large.

CONCLUSIONS

This work has highlighted potential differences in treatment response for biologic-naïve patients. When conducting NMAs in any area, heterogeneity in patient characteristics of included trials should be carefully assessed and effect modification related to certain patient characteristics investigated through clinically relevant subgroup analyses.