Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Poster Display session

179P - Transarterial chemoembolization plus lenvatinib with or without immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis and systematic review

Date

27 Jun 2024

Session

Poster Display session

Presenters

Wei Zhang

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2024) 35 (suppl_1): S75-S93. 10.1016/annonc/annonc1478

Authors

W. Zhang1, Y. Yin2, X. Che3

Author affiliations

  • 1 Cancer Hospital Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Shenzhen Center, 518172 - Shenzhen/CN
  • 2 National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing/CN
  • 3 National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Shenzhen/CN

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 179P

Background

Combination of multiple therapies is a common approach to treating patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) combined with lenvatinib and PD-L1/PD1 inhibitors may prolong the survival of patients with advanced HCC, but the actual effectiveness remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of TACE combined with lenvatinib plus PD-L1/PD-1 inhibitor (TACE-L-P) with TACE combined with lenvatinib (TACE-L) in the treatment of patients with advanced HCC.

Methods

Publicly available studies comparing the efficacy of TACE-L-P and TACE-L in the treatment of advanced HCC were collected from PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library with a cut-off date of February 2024. Stata SE 15 software was used for analysis.

Results

Thirteen studies involving 1227 patients were included, 605 in the TACE-L-P group and 622 in the TACE-L group. Meta-analysis showed that TACE-L-P was significantly more effective than TACE-L in complete response (RR = 2.07, 95% CI: 1.31, 3.27, P = 0.002), partial response (RR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.15, 1.73, P = 0.001), disease control rate (RR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.35, P = 0.002), objective response rate (RR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.22, 1.84, P < 0.0001), disease control rate (RR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.07, 1.35, P = 0.002), overall survival (HR = 2.34, 95% CI: 1.52, 3.62, P < 0.05) and progression-free survival (HR = 2.09, 95% CI: 1.64, 2.67, P < 0.05). TACE-L-P was significantly less effective than TACE-L in progressive disease (RR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.32, 0.71, P = 0.0002). No significant difference was found in stable disease (RR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.74, 1.10, P = 0.31) as well as total and grade 3/4 adverse events between the two groups.

Conclusions

TACE-L-P significantly improved the survival of patients with advanced HCC with an acceptable range of adverse events compared to TACE-L. However, this conclusion still needs further confirmation in the future with more high-quality randomized controlled trials and longer follow-up.

Editorial acknowledgement

MogoEdit for its English editing during the preparation of this manuscript.

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Shenzhen High-Level Hospital Construction Fund, the Sanming Project of Medicine in Shenzhen (SZSM202011010).

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.

For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.