MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408406092 · doi:10.3390/cancers17060972

Evaluating Sorafenib (SORA-2) as Second-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A European Retrospective Multicenter Study

2025· article· en· W4408406092 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Möhring, Moritz Berger, Farsaneh Sadeghlar, Xin Zhou, Taotao Zhou, Malte B. Monin, Kateryna Shmanko, Sabrina Welland, Friedrich Sinner, Birgit Schwacha-Eipper, Ulrike Bauer, Christoph Roderburg, Angelo Pirozzi, Najib Ben Khaled, Peter L. Schrammen, Lorenz Balcar, Matthias Pinter, Thomas J. Ettrich, Anna Saborowski, Marie‐Luise Berres, Enrico N. De Toni, Tom Luedde, Lorenza Rimassa, Ursula Ehmer, Marino Venerito, Iuliana‐Pompilia Radu, Arndt Weinmann, Arndt Vogel, Matthias Schmid, Jörg C. Kalff, C.P. Strassburg, Maria A. González-Carmona

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSorafenibMedicineHepatocellular carcinomaInternal medicineRetrospective cohort studyOncologyCohortAdverse effectSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Systemic treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has rapidly advanced, with immune checkpoint inhibitors now the preferred first-line option. However, with multiple agents available and no established treatment sequence, selecting the most suitable second-line (2L) therapy remains challenging. While sorafenib is frequently chosen for 2L treatment, comprehensive data supporting its use is limited. This study evaluates the effectiveness of sorafenib as 2L therapy and factors influencing outcomes following first-line treatment failure in advanced HCC patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective, multicenter study, including 81 patients with unresectable HCC from 12 European centers who received sorafenib as 2L treatment. Median overall survival (mOS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), radiological response to treatment, and toxicity were evaluated. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify potential predictors of clinical benefit. RESULTS: In this cohort, some patients were treated with 2L sorafenib mOS for 7.4 months (95% CI: 6.6-13.6) and other patients were treated with mPFS for 3.7 months (95% CI: 3.0-4.8). Multivariable analysis revealed the best median OS for patients with CP A and AFP levels < 400 ng/mL (15.5 months). Adverse events (AE) of grade ≥ 3 were reported in 59.4% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world cohort of European patients with unresectable HCC, the outcome of sorafenib treatment in the 2L setting was comparable to that of the other established 2L treatment options in patients with preserved liver function and good performance status. This study contributes to the understanding of the role of sorafenib in the 2L setting and underscores the need for further research to identify predictive factors for response and survival in order to optimize treatment algorithms for advanced HCC.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicHepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and PrognosisFrench-language works237,207