Cited by 249Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesRenal cell carcinoma treatment

Evidence-Based Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (2002–2020)

Open access
Haber, Philipp K., Puigvehí, Marc, Castet, Florian, Lourdusamy, Vennis, Montal, Robert, Tabrizian, Parissa, Buckstein, Michael, Kim, Edward +3 more·2021·Gastroenterology

Abstract

Background & aims Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, with a rapidly changing landscape of treatments. In the past 20 years, numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have aimed at improving outcomes across disease stages. We aimed to analyze the current evidence and identify potential factors influencing response to therapies.Methods We conducted a systematic review of phase III RCTs (2002-2020) across disease stages. A meta-analysis was designed to examine the relationship between etiology and outcome after systemic therapies with either tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI)/antiangiogenic or immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy.Results Out of 10,100 studies identified, 76 were phase III RCTs. Among them, a rigorous screening algorithm identified 49 with high quality including a total of 22,113 patients undergoing adjuvant (n = 7) and primary treatment for early (n = 2), intermediate (n = 7), and advanced (first-line, n = 21; second-line, n = 12) stages of disease. Nine of these trials were positive, 6 treatments have been adopted in guidelines (sorafenib [2 RCTs], lenvatinib, atezolizumab+bevacizumab, regorafenib, cabozantinib and ramucirumab), but 2 were not (adjuvant CIK cells and sorafenib plus hepatic arterial infusion with FOLFOX). Meta-analysis of 8 trials including 3739 patients revealed ICI therapy to be significantly more effective in patients with viral hepatitis compared with nonviral-related HCC, whereas no differences related to etiology were observed in patients treated with TKI/anti-vascular endothelial growth factor.Conclusions Among 49 high-quality RCTs conducted in HCC during 2002-2020, 9 resulted in positive results. A meta-analysis of systemic therapies suggests that immunotherapies may be more effective in viral etiologies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.06.008

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Randomized trials of adjuvant therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma after curative resection or local ablation had not produced positive results over the preceding decades.

    “those testing such approaches in HCC after potentially curative resection or local ablation have not yielded positive results over the preceding decades11.”

    From Adjuvant and neoadjuvant immunotherapies in hepatocellular carcinoma (2024) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Discussion (page not specified) says only one of seven high-quality adjuvant trials met its primary endpoint, supporting the point that positive results were rare. But the Results > Adjuvant Treatments section reports a positive trial of CIK cells after resection or local ablation, so the categorical claim that the trials yielded no positive results is too strong. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Most randomized trials of adjuvant therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma failed to show clinical benefit, and positive studies await validation in Western countries.

    “In summary, most of the studies failed to identify any clinical benefit and, among the positive studies, validation in trials conducted in Western countries is awaited.”

    From Adjuvant and neoadjuvant immunotherapies in hepatocellular carcinoma (2024) · cites this paper as [11]

    The Results (Adjuvant Treatments; page unavailable) report that only one of seven high-quality adjuvant trials met its primary endpoint, supporting the claim that most did not show benefit. The positive trial was conducted in Korea, and the Discussion notes important caveats, but our copy does not state that validation in Western-country trials is awaited. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In KEYNOTE-240, OS benefit seemed numerically greater in patients with HBV-HCC (HR 0.57 [0.35-0.94]) treated with pembrolizumab compared to placebo.

    “In KEYNOTE-240, OS benefits seem numerically greater in patients with HBV-HCC (HR 0.57 [0.35–0.94]) treated with pembrolizumab compared to placebo, while the HR of patients with non-viral HCCs was 0.88 (0.64–1.20) [46].”

    From Etiology-Based Treatment for Unresectable/Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Focus on Viral Hepatitis and Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatohepatitis (2025) · cites this paper as [46]

    The Results (Population Disparities and Influence of Disease Etiology in Advanced HCC Trials; page unavailable) include KEYNOTE-240 in a meta-analysis and report a greater OS benefit with immunotherapy for viral than nonviral HCC. But these are pooled estimates, not the claimed KEYNOTE-240 HBV subgroup HR of 0.57 (0.35–0.94) or nonviral HR of 0.88 (0.64–1.20). The Results (Advanced Setting—Second-Line Treatment; page unavailable) give only the trial-wide OS HR. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In KEYNOTE-240, OS HR for non-viral HCC was 0.88 (0.64-1.20).

    “In KEYNOTE-240, OS benefits seem numerically greater in patients with HBV-HCC (HR 0.57 [0.35–0.94]) treated with pembrolizumab compared to placebo, while the HR of patients with non-viral HCCs was 0.88 (0.64–1.20) [46].”

    From Etiology-Based Treatment for Unresectable/Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Focus on Viral Hepatitis and Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatohepatitis (2025) · cites this paper as [46]

    The Results sections on second-line treatment and disease etiology identify KEYNOTE-240 as a pembrolizumab-versus-placebo trial and report OS hazard ratios. But the nonviral HR of 0.92 (95% CI 0.77–1.11) is pooled across immunotherapy trials; our copy does not report the claimed KEYNOTE-240-specific HR of 0.88 (0.64–1.20). (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In KEYNOTE-240, PFS HR was similar for HBV-HCC (0.70 [0.44-1.13]) and non-viral HCC (0.75 [0.56-1.01]).

    “However, the HR for PFS was similar (0.70 [0.44–1.13] and 0.75 [0.56–1.01]) respectively.”

    From Etiology-Based Treatment for Unresectable/Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Focus on Viral Hepatitis and Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatohepatitis (2025) · cites this paper as [46]

    The Results section on second-line treatment reports a KEYNOTE-240 PFS HR of 0.775 (95% CI 0.609–0.987) for the trial overall. The etiology analysis includes KEYNOTE-240 but reports pooled overall-survival results, not the claimed HBV-HCC and nonviral-HCC PFS HRs of 0.70 and 0.75. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haber, P. K., Puigvehí, M., Castet, F., Lourdusamy, V., Montal, R., Tabrizian, P., Buckstein, M., Kim, E., Villanueva, A., Schwartz, M., & Llovet, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Tisch Cancer Institute (US)
  • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
  • Hospital Clínic de Barcelona (ES)
  • Hospital Universitari Arnau de Vilanova (ES)
  • Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ES)
Corresponding author
Llovet, Josep M.
Venue
Gastroenterology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-09
Volume
161
Issue
3
Pages
879-898
ISSN
0016-5085 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3169705253
Cited by
248
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 13
FWCI
5.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gastroenterology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Repositori digital de la UPF (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Defense (CA150272P3)
  • National Cancer Institute (P30 CA19652, R01 CK 128289-01)
  • Samuel Waxman Cancer Research Foundation
  • California Department of Fish and Game
  • Agència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca (SGR-1358)
  • Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (SAF-2016-76390)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (HA 8754/1-1)
  • Fundación Científica Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer
  • Generalitat de Catalunya
  • Asociación Española para el Estudio del Hígado
  • Cancer Research UK
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hepatology › Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Renal cell carcinoma treatment
Keywords
hepatocellular carcinoma, systemic therapy, tyrosine kinase inhibitors, immune checkpoint inhibitors, viral hepatitis etiology, sorafenib, lenvatinib, atezolizumab, bevacizumab, regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab, adjuvant therapy, treatment response
MeSH terms
Progression-Free Survival, Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors, Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols, Carcinoma, Hepatocellular, Humans, Immunotherapy, Liver Neoplasms, Neoplasm Staging, Time Factors, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Chemoembolization, Therapeutic, Chemotherapy, Adjuvant, Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic, Disease Progression, Radiopharmaceuticals, Evidence-Based Medicine, Neoadjuvant Therapy, Ablation Techniques

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review