Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy versus Sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.2.24267/v1

Abstract

Background : Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is ranked as the sixth most common solid cancer and the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the world. Sorafenib is the first line systematic treatment for patients with advanced HCC. Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy(HAIC)has been proved to be an effective treatment for advanced HCC. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to compared the efficacy of HAIC versus sorafenib of advanced HCC patients with PVTT.

Methods : The databases of MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science were systematically searched for retrieving the relevant publications before 31 July 2019. The endpoint included overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), partial response rate (PRR), complete response rate (CRR), objective response rate (ORR), stable disease rate (SDR).

Results : A total of three studies involving 214 advanced HCC patients with PVTT enrolled in this meta-analysis. HAIC significantly improved TTP (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39-0.82; P = 0.003), PRR (odds ratio (OR) = 3.31, 95% CI: 1.46-7.50; P = 0.004), ORR (OR = 3.78, 95% CI: 1.68-8.50; P = 0.001) compared to sorafenib. However, no significant difference was found in OS (HR=0.77, 95%CI: 0.56-1.06, p=0.11), CRR (OR = 2.54, 95% CI: 0.39-16.47; P = 0.33), SDR (OR = 1.48, 95% CI: 0.43-5.08; P = 0.001).

Conclusions : This meta-analysis suggested that HAIC provides better TTP, PRR, ORR than sorafenib for patients of advanced HCC with PVTT. Therefore, we recommend HAIC as a potential therapy for advanced HCC patients with PVTT. However, owing to the above limitations, more high-quality studies are warranted to evaluate this finding.

Background

Hepatocellular carcinoma is ranked as the sixth most common solid cancer and the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the world. With 841,080 new cases of liver cancer diagnosed per year and 781,631 deaths in 2018[1, 2]. The prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma is poor, with a 5-year survival rate of 15%-17%[3]. Hepatectomy, liver transplantation, ablation, transhepatic arterial chemoembolization

(TACE), sorafenib, hepatic arterial infusion Chemotherapy (HAIC), are potentially curative therapies for HCC patients. Although hepatic resection has been considered as preferred management for early stage patients, only approximately 30% patients were in an early stage at the time of diagnosed. However, more than 70% of hepatocellular carcinoma are diagnosed during the advanced stage of the disease, with a median overall survival (OS) time of 7 months and surgery resection is not suitable[4, 5]. About 10%-40% of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma concurrent portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) at the time of diagnosis[6]. If not treated with any interventions, the median OS is about 2–4 months of the advanced HCC patients with PVTT but 24.4 month for those without PVTT[7–9]. Therefore, PVTT is usually indicate poor prognosis in patients with HCC.

Sorafenib is an oral multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor, which inhibits the Raf pathway and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway[10]. Sorafenib is the first line systematic treatment for patients with advanced HCC recommended by the European Association for the Study of Liver (EASL) and the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD), which achieves a modest survival benefit for advanced HCC patients[11, 12]. According to the two multicenter, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (the SHARP trial and the Asia-Pacific trial), sorafenib significantly improve median overall survival and delayed the median TTP, compared placebo. SHARP trial demonstrates a median OS of 10.7 in the sorafenib group and 7.9 months in the placebo group, the median TTP was 5.5 versus 2.8 months, respectively. In the Asia-Pacific trial, the median OS in the sorafenib and placebo groups was 6.5 months and 4.2 months, the median TTP in the two groups was 2.8months and 1.4 months, respectively[13, 14]. However, due to the limited efficacy, the severe adverse event for certain people and drug resistance, some reports demonstrated unsatisfactory results of sorafenib and restricted the application of this drug [15–17]. Thus, there is urgent to find out an effective and safe treatment method for advanced HCC patients.

Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy(HAIC)has been proved to be an effective treatment for advanced HCC in Asia, especially in Japan[18]. In HAIC, anticancer drugs are directly injected into the liver via the hepatic artery through the use of an implantable port system. Compared with systemic chemotherapy, HAIC is theoretically achieved a highly concentrated chemotherapeutic agents in the liver which provide a stronger antitumor effect with lower adverse reactions[19]. Several studies have reported HAIC achieved higher objective response rate (ORR) and consequent survival benefits than sorafenib monopoly[20–22]. Although HAIC is effective and is strongly recommended for advanced HCC patients with portal vein invasion (Vp1-4) by the JSH-LCSGJ guideline[23]. However, HAIC is not recommended as stand treatment in the world.

A previous meta-analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of HAIC versus Sorafenib treated for advanced HCC and suggested HAIC for the treatment of advanced HCC[24]. However, there still lack sufficient evidence to support the wide use of HAIC for the treatment of advance HCC with PVTT. Herein, this study is aim to performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all available studies to compared the efficacy of HAIC and sorafenib for the treatment of advanced HCC patients with PVTT.

Methods

Searching strategy

From inception to 30 July 2019, comprehensive electronic searches were performed with the database of MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Web of Science. The search terms and strategy were based on the combination of the following keyword: (“hepatocellular carcinoma” or “liver cancer” or “HCC”) AND (“sorafenib” or “Nexavar”) AND (“hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy” or “HAIC”). The searching language was restricted to English.

Date extraction and quality assessment

Two reviewers (GQOY and YRW) independently extracted and assessed all date from each study. Any disagreement between two the authors was resolved by discussion and consensus. The following data were extracted: (1) The first author’s name, year of publication, gender distribution, study design, treatment group, number of patients, patients’ characteristics. (2) The outcome of treatment, such as OS, TTP, PRR, CRR, ORR, SDR.

Criteria for inclusion and exclusion

The inclusion criteria were followed: (1) age 18-75 years; (2) clinical diagnosed advanced HCC with Vp2-Vp4 of PVTT; (3) Child-Pugh A; (4)Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 0 or 1; (5)White blood cell count≥2.0×109/L and platelet count C 50×109/L. The exclusion criteria were follows:(1) other serious medical conditions, such as cardiopulmonary and renal insufficiency, infection disease. (2) pregnant women, lactating women; (3) other chemotherapy treatments such as systemic chemotherapy.

Statistical analysis

All analyses were performed strictly with Review Manager Software (RevMan 5.3; Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK).The primary endpoints of OS and TTP were evaluated by using hazard ration (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The HR with 95% CI were estimated directly or indirectly from the reported data. If a study only provided a Kaplan-Meier curve, the HR and 95% CI were extracted utilizing the Engauge Digitizer V4.1 screenshot tool and a formula proposed by Parmar[25, 26]. The CRR, PRR, ORR, SDR were the secondary endpoints. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI was calculated for the second point. The heterogeneity was assessed by the χ2-based Q-test and I2 statistics. If there were statistical differences in terms of heterogeneity (I2 > 50 %, p < 0.10), a random-effects model was selected[27]; otherwise, a fixed-effects model was used. the publication bias was ascertained by visually funnel plots and Egger’s tests.

Results

Literature search

A total of 90 relevant publications were identified through database search and screened for relevance. After duplicating and reviewing the titles, abstracts and full texts, three articles[20, 28, 29] were eligible for this meta-analysis (Fig.1). Among these studies, one study was RCT and two studies were retrospective.

Study Characteristics

The baseline characteristics of the included publications are summarized in Table 1. Three studies including a total of 214 advanced HCC patients with PVTT included in the final analysis, 111 patients were assigned to HAIC group and 103 to the sorafenib group. Among the three studies, two were performed in Korean, and one was

performed in Japan. Based on the data available for all enrolled studies, the male to female ratio of HAIC and sorafenib group were 92/19 and 83/20, with median age was ranged from 54 years to 68 years. Most patients had Child-Pugh class A liver function in the HAIC (97.7%) and sorafenib group (83.5%), and were Vp3 and Vp4 (portal vein invasion, Vp).

Overall survival (OS)

All studies reported the median OS ranging from 4 to 14.9 months (Table 2). The HR of OS was available in all three studies. After pooling the data, no significant difference was found in the OS between HAIC and sorafenib group (HR=0.77, 95%CI: 0.56-1.06, p=0.11), although the overall meta-analysis revealed that HR was lower for the patients treated with HAIC than sorafenib. There was no heterogeneity was detected (I2= 39%, P= 0.19), so the fixed effect model was adopted (Fig. 2).

Time to progression (TTP)

Three studies provided the data of TTP with a median ranging from 1.2 to 4.4 months (Table 2). The aggregated results suggested that the risk of disease progression in the HAIC group was lower than that in the sorafenib groups (HR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39-0.82; P = 0.003) (Fig.3). We adopted the fixed effect model because no significant heterogeneity was found (P = 0.68, I2 = 0%).

Partial response rate (PRR)

All three of selected studies compared the PRR between the HAIC group and Sorafenib group. No significant heterogeneity was observed in the PRR (P = 0.24, I2 = 30%), so a fixed-effects model was used to pooled the data. As shown in Fig.4, the HAIC group was linked with higher PRR than sorafenib group (OR = 3.31, 95% CI: 1.46-7.50; P = 0.004).

Complete response rate (CRR)

All three of selected studies compared the CRR between the HAIC group and Sorafenib group. No significant heterogeneity was observed in the PRR (P = 0.91, I2 = 0%), so a fixed-effects model was used to pooled the data. As shown in Fig.5, no significant difference existed in the CRR when the HAIC compared with the sorafenib group. (OR = 2.54, 95% CI: 0.39-16.47; P = 0.33).

Objective response rate (ORR)

All three of selected studies compared the ORR between the HAIC group and Sorafenib group. No significant heterogeneity was observed in the PRR (P = 0.21, I2 = 35%), so a fixed-effects model was used to pooled the data. As shown in Fig.6, the HAIC group achieved higher ORR when compared with sorafenib group (OR = 3.78, 95% CI: 1.68-8.50; P = 0.001).

Stable disease rate (SDR)

All studies reported the SDR data between HAIC group and sorafenib group. The pooled data showed that no significance difference was found between the two group (OR = 1.48, 95% CI: 0.43-5.08; P = 0.001). Random-model effect was used because high statistical heterogeneity existed (P = 0.02, I2 = 75%).

Discussion

Hepatocellular carcinoma is one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide and the prognosis of HCC is very poor. Most patients were found at advanced stage is generally accompanied by PVTT and the prognosis of advanced HCC with PVTT is extremely poor. According to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system, HCC patients with PVTT was allocated to stage C. Sorafenib is the only recommended standard therapy for HCC patients with BCLC C stage. In Asia, HAIC is another alternative treatment method for advanced HCC patients with PVTT, but the use of this treatment remains controversial. Whether HAIC can achieve a better benefit than sorafenib remains controversy. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we examined the treatment efficacy of HAIC versus Sorafenib for advanced HCC with PVTT. Our meta-analysis showed that HAIC was significantly improved TTP, PRR, ORR in advanced HCC patients with PVTT when compared with sorafenib. Although there was no significant difference was found, the HAIC groups still improved OS, CRR, SDR. Therefore, we suggested HAIC may be a better treatment option for advanced HCC patients with PVTT than sorafenib.

Although sorafenib was recommended as the standard therapy for advanced HCC with PVTT by many guidelines[30–33], the overall survival was not satisfactory. A previous study assessed the effect of sorafenib cured the advanced HCC patients with PVTT (Vp3 and Vp4), this study reported that the median OS duration was only 3.1 months after treated with sorafenib monopoly[34]. In another study, median OS duration was only 4.3 months after sorafenib treated[35]. In the three enrolled studies, the median OS time was longer than the previous study, ranging from 4 to 7.2 months when employed sorafenib for advanced HCC with PVTT[20, 28, 29]. This difference may attribute to the difference of race and region because all the included patients were Asians. However, the median OS time varied from 7.1 to 14.9 months when treated with HAIC and all three studies reported HAIC achieved better OS than sorafenib. After pooling the data, it seemed that HAIC may lower the HR for OS than sorafenib; however, no significant difference was found between the two groups. We found that the HR for TTP in this meta-analysis was 0.56, indicating a 0.44 reduction in the risk of death in advanced HCC patients with PVTT. The result was consistent with the included three research[20, 28, 29]. The median TTP reported by the three studies ranged from 3.3 to 4.4 months in HAIC group and from 1.2 to 2.7 months in the sorafenib group. Kim GA et al[36] demonstrated that the median TTP was only 1.8 months treated with sorafenib, which was similar to the included three studies, indicating the effects of sorafenib on prolonging TTP was limited. Fujino H et al[37] reported that the TTP of advanced HCC with PVTT was 2.7 months after HAIC treated, although it shorter than the three studies, but HAIC is still ahead of sorafenib. Based on the above results, HAIC may be more recommend over sorafenib alone. In the present study, although no difference was found in CRR, SDR between the two groups. We found that HAIC significantly increases PRR, ORR by 231% and 278% for advanced patients with PVTT than the sorafenib, indicating HAIC improved the tumor response rate compared to the sorafenib. Zhuang BW et al[24] indicated that HAIC was associated with superior ORR, DCR compared with sorafenib when treated advanced cancer. Another meta-analysis also revealed that HAIC delivers a favorable result of CR, PR, ORR, however, no difference was found in SDR. The above two meta-analyses indicated that the results of this study were reliable.

Sorafenib, the only stand recommended drug for the systematic treatment of advanced HCC patients with PVTT, was reported to show benefit only approximately 30% HCC patients and acquired drug resistance was only 6 months[38]. Furthermore, Sorafenib is not widely available in many countries because of its high cost. Zhuang BW et al[24] which conducted a meta-analysis about the safety and benefits of sorafenib versus HAIC for advanced HCC, found that HAIC found that HAIC was more effective and safe than sorafenib and recommend HAIC as an alternative treatment for advanced HCC. Another meta-analysis implemented by Ni JY et al[39], compared the HAIC versus sorafenib for HCC patients with BCLC stage C; they also reported that HAIC achieved better tumor response and clinical efficacy and recommend HAIC for patients with HCC of BCLC stage C. The two previous studies were all compared HAIC with sorafenib for advanced patients(BCLC stage C). BCLC stage C was mean with vascular invasion, extrahepatic spread, Child-Pugh A or B, Performance status (PS) 1 or 2 and was defined as advanced stage disease[1]. Unlike previous two studies, our research was limited to HCC patients with PVTT which is one of the features of Barcelona stage C, maybe this was the main difference from the two previous meta-analysis and our research was more convincing.

There are several limitations should be considered in our meta-analysis. First, only one included study in our meta-analysis were RCT[20] and the other two are retrospective studies[28, 29] which may lead to selection bias. Second, two studies came from South Korea[20, 29] and one from Japan[28], which indicated regional bias, suggesting our conclusion might be applicable to Asian especially East Asians. Third, the overall sample sizes were too small to have sufficient statistical power for the efficiency of advanced HCC with PVTT between HAIC and sorafenib. So, it is necessary to conduct more randomized controlled trials with large sample size, different continents and countries to provide further clinical evidence.

Conclusion

In summary, this meta-analysis indicated demonstrated that HAIC provides better TTP, PRR, ORR than sorafenib for patients of advanced HCC with PVTT. However, no significant difference existed in OS, CRR, SDR. Therefore, we recommend HAIC as an alternative promising treatment modality for advanced HCC patients with PVTT. However, owing to the above limitations, more high-quality studies are warranted to evaluate this finding.

Abbreviations

HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma; HAIC: Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy; PVTT:portal vein tumor thrombus; OS: overall survival, TTP: time to progression, PRR: partial response rate, CRR: complete response rate, ORR: objective response rate, SDR: stable disease rate. CI: confidence interval; HR: hazard ratio;

Declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

 

Funding

This work was supported by the Hubei Chen Xiaoping Technology Development Fund (No: CXPJJH1190000-2019321)

 

Authors’ contributions

GQOY and HLX contributed to the study conception and design. GQOY and YRW contributed to the search of the literature and acquisition of data. GDP and QL contributed to the analysis and interpretation of data. LP contributed to the drafting of the manuscript. SQL, WCL, and SL contributed to the critical revision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

 

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

 

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable

 

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

 

Consent for publication
Not applicable

 

Author detail

1Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Liuzhou People’s Hospital, Wenchang Road 8, Liuzhou, 545006, Guangxi, P.R .China

 

References

  1. Forner A, Reig M, Bruix J: Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet .2018, 391:1301-1314.
  2. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A: Global cancer statistics 2018:GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin .2018, 68:394-424.
  3. Feng F, Jiang Q, Jia H, Sun H, Chai Y, Li X, Rong G, Zhang Y, Li Z: Which is the best combination of TACE and Sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treatment? A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Pharmacol Res. 2018, 135:89-101.
  4. Giannini EG, Farinati F, Ciccarese F, Pecorelli A, Rapaccini GL, Di Marco M, Benvegnù L, Caturelli E, Zoli M, Borzio F, et al: Prognosis of untreated hepatocellular carcinoma. 2015, 61:184-190.
  5. Chow PK, Tai BC, Tan CK, Machin D, Win KM, Johnson PJ, Soo KC: High-dose tamoxifen in the treatment of inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicenter randomized controlled trial. Hepatology .2002, 36:1221-1226.
  6. Llovet JM, Bustamante J, Castells A, Vilana R, Ayuso Mdel C, Sala M, Bru C, Rodes J, Bruix J: Natural history of untreated nonsurgical hepatocellular carcinoma: rationale for the design and evaluation of therapeutic trials. Hepatology.1999, 29:62-67.
  7. Minagawa M, Makuuchi M: Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma accompanied by portal vein tumor thrombus. World J Gastroenterol .2006, 12:7561-7567.
  8. Lin DX, Zhang QY, Li X, Ye QW, Lin F, Li LL: An aggressive approach leads to improved survival in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with portal vein tumor thrombus. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol .2011, 137:139-149.
  9. Lee HS, Kim JS, Choi IJ, Chung JW, Park JH, Kim CY: The safety and efficacy of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and main portal vein obstruction. A prospective controlled study. Cancer .1997, 79:2087-2094.
  10. Wilhelm SM, Carter C, Tang L, Wilkie D, McNabola A, Rong H, Chen C, Zhang X, Vincent P, McHugh M, et al: BAY 43-9006 exhibits broad spectrum oral antitumor activity and targets the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway and receptor tyrosine kinases involved in tumor progression and angiogenesis. Cancer Res. 2004, 64:7099-7109.
  11. Marrero JA, Kulik LM, Sirlin CB, Zhu AX, Finn RS, Abecassis MM, Roberts LR, Heimbach JK: Diagnosis, Staging, and Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: 2018 Practice Guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Hepatology . 2018, 68:723-750.
  12. EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2012, 56:908-943.
  13. Cheng AL, Kang YK, Chen Z, Tsao CJ, Qin S, Kim JS, Luo R, Feng J, Ye S, Yang TS, et al: Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Oncol .2009, 10:25-34.
  14. Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, Hilgard P, Gane E, Blanc JF, de Oliveira AC, Santoro A, Raoul JL, Forner A, et al: Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008, 359:378-390.
  15. Zhu AX, Kudo M, Assenat E, Cattan S, Kang YK, Lim HY, Poon RT, Blanc JF, Vogel A, Chen CL, et al: Effect of everolimus on survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after failure of sorafenib: the EVOLVE-1 randomized clinical trial. Jama .2014, 312:57-67.
  16. Iavarone M, Cabibbo G, Piscaglia F, Zavaglia C, Grieco A, Villa E, Camma C, Colombo M: Field-practice study of sorafenib therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective multicenter study in Italy. Hepatology .2011, 54:2055-2063.
  17. Niu L, Liu L, Yang S, Ren J, Lai PBS, Chen GG: New insights into sorafenib resistance in hepatocellular carcinoma: Responsible mechanisms and promising strategies. Biochim Biophys Acta Rev Cancer .2017, 1868:564-570.
  18. Ueshima K, Kudo M, Takita M, Nagai T, Tatsumi C, Ueda T, Kitai S, Ishikawa E, Yada N, Inoue T, et al: Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy using low-dose 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncology .2010, 78 Suppl 1:148-153.
  19. Park JY, Ahn SH, Yoon YJ, Kim JK, Lee HW, Lee DY, Chon CY, Moon YM, Han KH: Repetitive short-course hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with high-dose 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer. 2007, 110:129-137.
  20. Choi JH, Chung WJ, Bae SH, Song DS, Song MJ, Kim YS, Yim HJ, Jung YK, Suh SJ, Park JY, et al: Randomized, prospective, comparative study on the effects and safety of sorafenib vs. hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2018, 82:469-478.
  21. Lyu N, Kong Y, Mu L, Lin Y, Li J, Liu Y, Zhang Z, Zheng L, Deng H, Li S, et al: Hepatic arterial infusion of oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil/leucovorin vs. sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2018, 69:60-69.
  22. Kondo M, Morimoto M, Ishii T, Nozaki A, Fukuda H, Numata K, Kobayashi S, Ohkawa S, Hidaka H, Nakazawa T, et al: Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with cisplatin and sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma patients unresponsive to transarterial chemoembolization: a propensity score-based weighting. J Dig Dis .2015, 16:143-151.
  23. Kudo M, Matsui O, Izumi N, Iijima H, Kadoya M, Imai Y, Okusaka T, Miyayama S, Tsuchiya K, Ueshima K, et al: JSH Consensus-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: 2014 Update by the Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan. Liver Cancer .2014, 3:458-468.
  24. Zhuang BW, Li W, Xie XH, Hu HT, Lu MD, Xie XY: Sorafenib versus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Jpn J Clin Oncol .2019. 49(9):845-855.
  25. Parmar MK, Torri V, Stewart L: Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analyses of the published literature for survival endpoints. Stat Med 1998, 17:2815-2834.
  26. Tierney JF, Stewart LA, Ghersi D, Burdett S, Sydes MR: Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis. Trials .2007, 8:16.
  27. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG: Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj. 2003, 327:557-560.
  28. Moriguchi M, Aramaki T, Nishiofuku H, Sato R, Asakura K, Yamaguchi K, Tanaka T, Endo M, Itoh Y: Sorafenib versus Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy as Initial Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Advanced Portal Vein Tumor Thrombosis. Liver Cancer .2017, 6:275-286.
  29. Song DS, Song MJ, Bae SH, Chung WJ, Jang JY, Kim YS, Lee SH, Park JY, Yim HJ, Cho SB, et al: A comparative study between sorafenib and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis. J Gastroenterol .2015, 50:445-454.
  30. Omata M, Lesmana LA, Tateishi R, Chen PJ, Lin SM, Yoshida H, Kudo M, Lee JM, Choi BI, Poon RT, et al: Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver consensus recommendations on hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Int. 2010, 4:439-474.
  31. Bruix J, Sherman M: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology. 2011, 53:1020-1022.
  32. EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Cancer .2012, 48:599-641.
  33. Forner A, Llovet JM, Bruix J: Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet. 2012, 379:1245-1255.
  34. Jeong SW, Jang JY, Shim KY, Lee SH, Kim SG, Cha SW, Kim YS, Cho YD, Kim HS, Kim BS, et al: Practical effect of sorafenib monotherapy on advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and portal vein tumor thrombosis. Gut Liver .2013, 7:696-703.
  35. Nakazawa T, Hidaka H, Shibuya A, Okuwaki Y, Tanaka Y, Takada J, Minamino T, Watanabe M, Kokubu S, Koizumi W: Overall survival in response to sorafenib versus radiotherapy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with major portal vein tumor thrombosis: propensity score analysis. BMC Gastroenterol .2014, 14:84.
  36. Kim GA, Shim JH, Yoon SM, Jung J, Kim JH, Ryu MH, Ryoo BY, Kang YK, Lee D, Kim KM, et al: Comparison of chemoembolization with and without radiation therapy and sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis: a propensity score analysis. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015, 26:320-329.e326.
  37. Fujino H, Kimura T, Aikata H, Miyaki D, Kawaoka T, Kan H, Fukuhara T, Kobayashi T, Naeshiro N, Honda Y, et al: Role of 3-D conformal radiotherapy for major portal vein tumor thrombosis combined with hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Res. 2015, 45:607-617.
  38. Sun T, Liu H, Ming L: Multiple Roles of Autophagy in the Sorafenib Resistance of Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2017, 44:716-727.
  39. Ni JY, Liu SS, Sun HL, Wang WD, Zhong ZL, Hou SN, Chen YT, Xu LF: Transcatheter hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy vs sorafenib in the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C: a meta-analysis of Asian population. Onco Targets Ther .2018, 11:7883-7894.

 

Tables

Table 1 Characteristics of Three included trials in the meta-analysis

Study,Year, country

Publication type

Inclusion period 

Total number

 

Male/female

 

Median age(range)

 

PVTT(Vp2/3/4)

 

Child-Pugh class(A/B)

 

Etiology (HBV/HCV/alcohol/

others)

HAIC

Sorafenib

HAIC

Sorafenib

HAIC

Sorafenib

HAIC

Sorafenib

HAIC

Sorafenib

Do Seon Song,

2014, Korean

Retro

2008-2013

110

38/12

44/16

54.3 ± 9.9

55.8 ± 9.0

7/14/29

5/16/39

45/5

47/13

44/2/3/1

41/5/8/6

Michihisa Moriguchi, 2017, Japan

Retro

2002.10-2013.12

46

29/3

12/2

65 (40–81)

68(53-82)

0/25/7

0/5/9

32/0

14/0

12/7/13/0

4/8/2/0

Jong Hwan Choi,

2018, Korean

Pro, RCT

2013.1-2015.10

58

25/4

27/2

60.3±9.5

60.2±7.3

0/10/19

0/11/18

27/2

25/4

18/5/6/0

21/0/5/3

Abbreviations: HAIC:Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy;PVTT: portal vein tumor thrombus, Vp: portal vein invasion, Retro: retrospective, Pro: prospective, RCT; randomized controlled trial,

 

Table 2. Median OS and median TTP between HAIC and Sorafenib group

Study

Median OS(months)

Median TTP(months)

HAIC 

Sorafenib

HAIC 

Sorafenib

Do Seon Song(2014)

 

7.1(5.4–8.8)

5.5(4.6–6.4)

3.3

2.1

Michihisa Moriguchi (2017)

10.3

4

3.6

1.2

Jong Hwan Choi(2018)

14.9(7.48–22.32)

7.2(5.43–8.97)

4.4

2.7

Abbreviations: HAIC: hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy; OS, overall survival; TTP: Time to progression