MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated in the lenvatinib (LEN) and immunotherapy era (2018-2021) compared to the sorafenib (SOR) era (2008-2018).

2023· article· en· W4317877786 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chloe Lim, Carla Pires Amaro, Philip Q. Ding, Winson Y. Cheung, Vincent C. Tam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSorafenibInternal medicineLenvatinibHepatocellular carcinomaBevacizumabProgression-free survivalOverall survivalOncologyGastroenterologyChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

553 Background: SOR was the standard first-line treatment for HCC for about a decade until the approval of LEN. Subsequently, atezolizumab + bevacizumab (A+B) were shown to have superior efficacy outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare effectiveness outcomes of HCC patients treated in the SOR era compared to the post-SOR era, when most HCC patients received first-line LEN or A+B. Methods: All HCC patients who started first-line systemic therapy at cancer centres in the Canadian province of Alberta between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2021 were included in this study. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and clinician-assessed response rate (RR) were retrospectively analyzed. Since LEN was first available to patients in Canada in August 2018, patients who started first-line systemic therapy between January 2008 to July 2018 were classified as treated in the “SOR era”, while patients treated from August 2018 to December 2021 were classified as being treated in the “post-SOR era”. Results: Of 372 total patients included, 230 were treated in the SOR era and 142 in the post-SOR era. Demographic and clinical characteristics are as follows for the SOR era and post-SOR era groups, respectively: median age was 63 and 64 years, 80% and 81% were male, 24% and 11% were of East Asian ethnicity. Most patients were ECOG 0-1 (85% and 91%), Child-Pugh A (84% and 85%), and ALBI grade 1 or 2 (96% and 98%) prior starting first-line therapy. Most common causes of liver disease included excess alcohol use (24% and 30%), Hepatitis C (37% and 48%), and Hepatitis B (27% and 15%). Most patients had advanced (BCLC C) stage disease in both groups (91% and 87%). Prior to systemic treatment 40% and 33% received TACE, 7% and 9% received TARE, and 3% and 14% received SBRT respectively. See table for first-line treatments received and outcomes. Median treatment duration was 3.2 months and 4.8 months, and median follow-up time was 9.6 and 11.0 months for SOR era and post-SOR era, respectively. Conclusions: In this real-world multicenter retrospective study, patients treated in the post-SOR era, where LEN and A+B were the more common first-line treatments, had superior overall survival, first-line response rates and progression-free survival. This study confirms the real-world progress that has been made in improving outcomes of HCC patients through systemic treatment advancements over the last 15 years.[Table: see text]

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis→French-language works237,207→