A systematic review shows combination therapies improve outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma, suggesting further exploration is needed.
Background Combining interventional therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has shown potential benefits in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, comprehensive evidence on its efficacy and safety remains limited. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted to identify eligible studies for single-arm and Bayesian network meta-analyses (NMA). Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint, while overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AEs) were secondary outcomes (PROSPERO: CRD42024619661). Findings This study included 45 studies (n = 4,738), evaluating 14 distinct regimens. In single-arm analysis, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) plus tislelizumab [TACE-TKI-Tisle] yielded a pooled median PFS of 11.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.02–15.37), an ORR of 72% (95% CI 63–80%), and a grade ≥ 3 AE rate of 24% (95% CI 15–34%). NMA showed that TACE-TKI-Tisle and TACE-TKI-Camrelizumab (Camre) achieved significantly longer PFS than TACE-TKI or TACE alone. TACE-TKI-Toripalimab (Tori) showed OS benefits over TACE-TKI-Camre (HR = 0.43; 95% CI 0.20–0.95) and TACE-TKI-Pembrolizumab (Pembro) (HR = 0.32; 95% CI 0.13–0.81). Cumulative ranking via surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) indicated that TACE-TKI-ICI achieved the highest efficacy ranking. TACE-TKI-Tisle and TACE-TKI-Tori ranked highest for PFS/ORR, with TACE-TKI-Tori ranking first for OS (SUCRA = 0.981). While TACE-TKI-ICI combinations were generally associated with more grade ≥ 3 AEs, TACE-TKI-Tisle ranked intermediately for safety (SUCRA = 0.426). Conclusion TACE-TKI-ICI combinations show promising efficacy in HCC. TACE-TKI-Tisle offers balanced efficacy and safety, while TACE-TKI-Tori provides notable OS benefits, warranting further validation in prospective studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Su et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: