Ruyi Zhang,Fang Wang,Zhiyu You,Dongyang Deng,Jiangyan He,Wentao Yan,Jian Quan,Jing Wang,Shujuan Yan
Abstract:A meta-analysis was performed to assess the benefits and safety profile of approved immune checkpoint inhibitors in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Eligible studies were searched from Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed databases based on a well-established strategy. Following the exclusion of ineligible studies, 12 studies were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with control group, immune checkpoint inhibitors were associated with improved ORR (OR 3.03, 95% CI 2.26–4.05, P < 0.00001), SD (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62–0.95, P = 0.02), OS (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.68–0.83, P < 0.00001), and PFS (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63–0.87, P < 0.0003). However, no significant differences were observed in DCR (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.97–1.81, P = 0.07), PD (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67–1.21, P = 0.48), and all caused any-grade adverse events (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.62–2.39, P = 0. 57), all caused ≥ grade 3 adverse events (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.97–1.25, P = 0.14), treatment-related any-grade adverse events (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.55–2.32, P = 0.73), and treatment-related ≥ grade 3 events (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.34–1.97, P = 0.65) between the two groups. After subgroup analysis conducted, patients in the immune checkpoint inhibitor group compared with targeted drug group showed significant improvements in OS (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66–0.84, P < 0.00001) and PFS (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61–0.91, P = 0.004). Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated peculiar benefits in the treatment of HCC with an acceptable safety profile. Compared to targeted drugs, immune checkpoint inhibitors still offer advantages in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. However, there is still considerable room for further improvement.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of approved immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Specifically, the study compared the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors with small - molecule targeted drugs or placebos in the treatment of HCC through large - scale meta - analysis and systematic review.
### Research Background
- **Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC)**: HCC is the most common type of primary liver cancer, accounting for more than 90% of all primary liver tumors. It is one of the leading causes of cancer - related deaths worldwide, with an estimated more than 800,000 deaths annually.
- **Risk Factors**: Major risk factors include hepatitis B or C virus infection (accounting for about 80% of global HCC cases), excessive alcohol consumption, obesity, smoking, and exposure to environmental toxins.
- **Existing Treatment Methods**: In recent years, small - molecule targeted drugs such as sorafenib, lenvatinib, and regorafenib have made certain progress in HCC treatment, but tumor resistance is a major challenge.
- **Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs)**: ICIs enhance the anti - tumor immune response by interfering with the interaction between tumor cells and the immune system. Currently, a variety of ICIs have been approved for HCC treatment, including nivolumab, durvalumab, tislelizumab, ipilimumab, pembrolizumab, atezolizumab, tremelimumab, and sintilimab.
### Research Objectives
- **Efficacy Evaluation**: Compare the objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD), progression - free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) of approved ICIs with small - molecule targeted drugs or placebos in HCC treatment.
- **Safety Evaluation**: Compare the differences in the incidence of adverse events between ICIs and the control group, including all - level adverse events, ≥3 - level adverse events, any - level treatment - related adverse events, and ≥3 - level treatment - related adverse events.
### Research Methods
- **Data Sources**: Relevant studies from January 1, 2011, to October 7, 2023, were retrieved from the Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases.
- **Inclusion Criteria**: Studies must meet the following conditions: published in English, ICIs approved by at least one national agency for HCC treatment, the study subjects are patients with advanced HCC, including at least two control groups, at least one group of patients receiving ICIs treatment, reporting at least one result of ORR, DCR, OS, PFS, and adverse events, and efficacy evaluation based on RECIST, mRECIST, or iRECIST criteria.
- **Exclusion Criteria**: Duplicate articles, review articles, case reports, systematic reviews and meta - analyses, and studies with a sample size of less than 100 people.
- **Data Analysis**: Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Office Excel, R language and its related packages, and Review Manager 5.4. Calculate the 95% confidence interval, odds ratio (OR), and hazard ratio (HR), and evaluate heterogeneity and publication bias.
### Main Findings
- **ORR**: The ORR in the ICIs group was significantly higher than that in the control group (OR 3.03, 95% CI 2.26 - 4.05, P < 0.00001).
- **DCR**: There was no significant difference in DCR between the two groups (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.97 - 1.81, P = 0.07).
- **SD and PD**: SD in the ICIs group was significantly better than that in the control group (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 - 0.95, P = 0.02), while there was no significant difference in PD (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.67 - 1.21, P = 0.48).
- **OS and PFS**: Both OS and PFS in the ICIs group were significantly better than those in the control group (OS: HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.68 - 0.83, P < 0.00001; PFS: HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 - 0.87, P < 0.0003). Sub - group analysis showed that compared with the targeted drug group, OS and PFS in the ICIs group also had significant improvement.
- **Adverse Events**: The ICIs group and the control group in all - level adverse events, ≥3 - level adverse events, treatment...