metricas
covid
Buscar en
Annals of Hepatology
Toda la web
Inicio Annals of Hepatology Clinical efficacy and safety of external radiotherapy combined with sorafenib in...
Journal Information
Vol. 27. Issue 4.
(July - August 2022)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Visits
1288
Vol. 27. Issue 4.
(July - August 2022)
Concise review
Open Access
Clinical efficacy and safety of external radiotherapy combined with sorafenib in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Visits
1288
Jiali Chena,1, Kun Heb,1, Yunwei Hana,
Corresponding author
Lanpaoxiansheng@126.com

Corresponding author.
, Lu Guoc, Ke Sua, Zhenying Wua
a Department of Oncology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, 646000 Sichuan, China
b Clinical Research Institute, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, 646000 Sichuan, China
c Department of Ophthalmology, The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, 646000 Sichuan, China
This item has received

Under a Creative Commons license
Article information
Abstract
Full Text
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Figures (3)
Show moreShow less
Abstract
Introduction and Objectives

Both external radiotherapy and sorafenib are promising treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Nevertheless, the combined treatment of external radiotherapy and sorafenib has not been widely applied clinically due to potentially adverse effects. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of external radiotherapy combined with sorafenib in the treatment of HCC.

Methods

Pubmed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched. The primary and secondary observation endpoints were the end of survival and incidence of adverse events, respectively. 11 studies involving 664 patients were included in this meta-analysis.

Results

The results demonstrated that median overall survival (mOS) and median progression-free survival (mPFS) of the external radiotherapy combined with sorafenib (RS) group were 19.45 months and 8.20 months. The one- and two-year survival rates were 0.65 (95%CI: 0.55–0.76) and 0.40 (95%CI: 0.24–0.56). The incidence of adverse events was 0.34 (95%CI: 0.25–0.44).

Conclusions

The findings demonstrated that the survival of the RS group was significantly improved and few severe adverse events were observed. Hence, it can be concluded that external radiotherapy combined with sorafenib is a safe, effective, and promising therapeutic option for HCC.

Keywords:
External radiotherapy
Hepatoma
Hepatocellular carcinoma
Sorafenib
Meta-analysis
Abbreviations:
HCC
mOS
mPFS
RS
HBV
HCV
OLT
MSR
OR
ORR
DCR
3D-CRT
IMRT
SBRT
Full Text
1Introduction

Incidence, prevalence, and mortality of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have recently increased in China, due to the endemic high prevalence of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) [1]. For early-stage HCC patients, surgical resection and orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) are recommended [2, 3]. However, since organs are in low supply and lung metastasis is prevalent after surgery, the practical applicability of OLT is restricted [4]. As a result, the majority of patients prefer surgical resection, even though a significant portion of HCC patients is not diagnosed until an advanced stage, making surgical resection unlikely. Radiofrequency ablation, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, and transcatheter chemotherapy perfusion have also been used, however, none of these have been shown to improve survival.

Currently, external radiotherapy has achieved outstanding results in the treatment of HCC. Meanwhile, sorafenib has been determined as a targeted medicine that can significantly extend the survival of patients with advanced HCC [5]. Nevertheless, the combination of external radiotherapy and sorafenib has been rarely applied clinically, which may be attributed to possible adverse events [6, 7]. Sorafenib is an orally available active targeted cancer medication that reduces tumor proliferation and angiogenesis by inhibiting the interaction of Raf kinase with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) receptors [8]. Thus, sorafenib can improve the radiosensitivity of the tumor. Meanwhile, radiotherapy of target lesions can reduce the local tumor burden and improve the overall response rate of patients treated with sorafenib.

Based on these theories, external radiotherapy combined with sorafenib may be an effective strategy for the treatment of HCC. In this study, we comprehensively reviewed relevant literature to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of external radiation combined with sorafenib in the treatment of HCC, to help clinicians make more accurate decisions.

2Materials and methods2.1Study protocol

This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), we comprehensively searched literature published in Pubmed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Web of Science. "HCC", "hepatoma", "external radiation", and "sorafenib" were used as search terms to screen eligible studies. Additionally, references to relevant articles were also searched to identify other eligible studies.

2.2Selection criteria

The inclusion criteria for eligible studies used are as follows: (1) Clinical trials of external radiation combined with sorafenib; (2) prospective and retrospective studies; (3) at least one survival data (OS or PFS) of the HCC patients provided. Endnote document management software was applied to delete duplicate documents. Abstracts, reviews, comments, letters, conference papers, case reports, and animal studies were excluded by screening the titles and abstracts. If several studies in the same institution meet the inclusion criteria, the study with the largest sample was included. Finally, the remaining studies were reviewed to determine whether they were related to the subjects and fully met the inclusion criteria. All study selection processes were completed by two independent reviewers, and the final inclusion decision was based on the consent of both reviewers. A detailed inclusion scheme was shown in the PRISMA flowchart (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

PRISMA flowchart.

(0.35MB).
2.3Data extraction

The data were extracted by two independent researchers. In case of disagreement, it can be solved through a re-evaluation of the literature and discussion. The following information was collected: (1) general information included the author's name, time of publication, institution, time of patient recruitment, and the number of patients; (2) clinical data included incidence of Child-Pugh Grade A, radiotherapy pattern and dosage, and sorafenib dose; (3) prognosis included gastrointestinal, hepatologic, hematologic, dermatologic adverse events (≥ grade 3), as well as survival rate. In most of the included studies, the efficacy was comprehensively evaluated by using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) [9], modified RECIST [10], or WHO standards, as well as MRI T2 weighted imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging. In the absence of digital data, the survival rate was calculated by the software (GetData Graph Digitizer 2.26). To evaluate the toxicity, most studies applied the toxicity grading standards proposed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) [11] or Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE).

2.4Quality assessment

Given that most included research was retrospective, the Nottingham Ottawa scale (NOS) [12] was used to evaluate the quality of each study, showing that most of them had medium quality. Two independent researchers scored and discussed until consistent results were obtained. The NOS score of 7–9 represented a high-quality report and 4–6 represented medium quality. Studies with a score of less than 4 were classified as low-quality studies.

2.5Statistical analysis

Primary observation endpoints were mOS, mPFS, and one- and two-year survival rates. Secondary observation endpoints treatment were toxicities (≥ grade 3). Stata/SE 15.0 software was used for meta-analysis. Meanwhile, publication bias was assessed by assessing the symmetry of the funnel plot. The intercept was quantitatively assessed by Egger's test [13]. If Egger's test p was less than 0.1, the Duval and Tweedie clipping results would have been presented [14]. The difference in median survival and incidence of adverse events between the RS group and the control group were evaluated by median survival ratio (MSR) and odd ratio (OR), respectively.

2.6Register name and registration number

None

3Results

Among the 929 initally included studies, 375 were excluded due to duplication between databases, 331 were excluded due to irrelevant format, 223 were screened for titles and abstracts, 25 were reviewed, and 14 unrelated studies were excluded. Through the full-text review, 11 studies that fully met the inclusion criteria were finally included [15, 6, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24]. The selection process is shown in Fig. 1

All the 11 studies included were retrospective. These studies began recruiting patients as early as 2007 and as late as 2015. Six studies were from China, one from Canada, two from Japan, and two from South Korea. Eight studies were double-arm trials and three were single-arm trials. The median incidence of Child-Pugh A in all studies was 96%. In terms of radiotherapy, 5 studies used IMRT or tomotherapy, 3 studies used SBRT, and 3 studies used 3D-CRT. Most trials used 400 mg sorafenib bid, which was adjusted dependent on adverse effects. In this study, we conducted subgroup analyses, and the results showed that there was no significant difference in the influence of different radiotherapy types and doses on the survival time and toxicity of patients. The significant influence of heterogeneity between different research designs on the display of results was excluded. Table 1 summarizes the general characteristics of the included studies.

Table 1.

Study characteristics.

Author  Publication Year  Affiliation  Recruitment Year  Study Design  No. of Patients  CPC A (%)  Sorafenib  RT Modality  Dose 
Sun  2016  China  2011–2014  Comparative  RS 23;R 22  98  400mg/200mg day  Tomotherapy  50 Gy/5F orlOF 
Liu  2021  China  2007–2017  Comparative  RS 73;R 73  94  800mg/400mg day  IMRT  average BED10 was 72.3Gy 
Abulimiti  2021  China  2014–2019  Comparative  RS 36;R 46  96  400mg/200mg bid  IMRT  40.0–62.5Gy/2-2.5Gy/4-6w 
Que  2020  China  2009–2016  Comparative  RS 18;R 36  85  400mg bid  SBRT  40Gy to the PTV given in 5 fractions over 5 to 10 days 
Zhao  2019  China  2015–2018  Comparative  TRS 28;TR 35  100  400mg bid  IMRT  5054 Gy 
Nomura  2019  Japan  2009–2017  Comparative  FRS 14;FR 18  50  NA  3D-CRT  50Gy in 25 fractions with 2Gy per fraction once daily 
Wada  2018  Japan  2009–2015  Comparative  RS 15;S 47  100  800mg/400mg day  3D-CRT  30-60Gy 
Chang  2021  Korea  2015–2017  Comparative  RS 53;S 53  NA  400mg bid  SBRT  median dose of RT was 43.5Gy(range,30-60Gy) 
Brade  2016  Canada  2009–2012  Single arm  RS 16  100  400/200mg bid  SBRT  30-51Gy/6F 
Cha  2013  Korea  2007–2011  Single arm  RS 18  85  400mg bid(92%) 200mg bid(8%)  3D-CRT  30-58.4Gy 
Chen  2014  China  2010–2013  Single arm  RS 40  100  400mg bid  IMRT  50-60Gy in 2-2.5Gy/F 

Abbreviations: HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; 3D-CRT, 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy; IMRT, intensity-modulated radiotherapy; SBRT, stereotactic body radiotherapy; RS, external rdiotherapy combined with sorafenib.

3.1Overall survival

In single-arm researches, the mOS of the RS group was 19.45 months, while its one- and two-year survival rates were 0.65 (95%CI: 0.55–0.76) and 0.40 (95%CI: 0.24–0.56), as shown in Table 2. Meanwhile, Fig. 2 depicts a forest plot. The mOS of the R group was 11.86 months, while its one- and two-year survival rates were 0.47 (95%CI: 0.30–0.63) and 0.17 (95%CI: 0.06–0.27); the mOS of the S group was 10.54 months, while its one- and two-year survival rates were 0.48 (95%CI: 0.39–0.58) and 0.14 (95%CI: 0.07–0.21). In double-arm researches, in terms of one- and two-year survival rates, the RS group was found to be superior to the R group or the S group. The mOS of the RS group was 1.27 (95%CI: 1.06–1.52, p = .017, I2 = 66.8%) and 2.04 (95%CI: 1.31–3.18, p = .004, I2 = 87.7%) compared with the R group and the S group, respectively (p < .05). It can be seen that the survival of the RS group was significantly higher than that of the R group or the S group. Fig. 3 shows the forest plot.

Table 2.

Survival statistics. mOS = median overall survival; mPFS = median progression-free survival; osy1 = 1-year survival rate; osy2 = 2-year survival rate; PFSy1 = 1-year PFS; PFSy2 = 2-year PFS; CR = complete remission; PR = partial remission; SD = stable disease; PD = progressive disease; ORR = objective remission rate; DCR = disease control rate.

Author  NO.of Patients  mOS(month)  mPFS(month)  osy1(%)  osy2(%)  PFSy1(%)  PFSy2(%)  CR(case)  PR(case)  SD(case)  PD(case)  ORR(%)  DCR(%) 
Sun  RS 23R 22  29.623.2  NA  91.166.8  78.830.4  55.245.5  00  NA  NA  NA  NA  NA  NA 
Liu  RS 73R 73  9.99.6  10.68.2  63.454.0  28.530.2  57.651.2  25.321.5  NA  NA  NA  NA  NA  NA 
Abulimiti  RS 36R 46  11.09.0  6.03.0  44.928.6  3.82.6  20.76.9  2.70  01  2220  1013  412  61.145.7  88.973.9 
Que  RS 18R 36  12.57.0  6.03.0  55.633.3  17.711.1  25.711.1  15.28.3  69  818  21  28  77.875  88.977.8 
Zhao  TRS 28TR 35  19.015.2  13.69.2  66.073.5  50.324.5  70.526.7  30.20  30  1016  811  78  46.445.7  75.077.1 
Nomura  FRS 14FR 18  49.26.7  6.84.3  76.822.5  50.57.7  47.312.1  47.312.1  NA  NA  NA  NA  NA  NA 
Wada  RS 15S 47  31.212.1  10.63.3  92.750.4  57.050.4  29.14.5  21.70  10  61  813  035  46.72.1  10029.8 
Chang  RS 53S 53  15.79.6  2.52.1  64.546.8  35.816.1  48.310.3  26.48.3  NA  NA  NA  NA  NA  NA 
Brade  RS 16  26.3  12.1  64.1  53.7  52.0  42.8  25.0  62.5 
Cha  RS 18  7.8  NA  37  NA  NA  NA  12  64.0  64.0 
Chen  RS 40  14  8.9  52.5  32.0  NA  NA  21  15  55.0  92.5 
Fig. 2.

(A) the mOS of RS group; (B) the mPFS of RS group; (C) the one-year OS of RS group; (D) the two-year OS of RS group; (E) the one-year PFS of RS group; (F) the two-year PFS of RS group.

(0.59MB).
Fig. 3.

(A) mOS comparison between the RS and the R groups; (B) mPFS comparison between the RS and the R groups; (C) osy1 comparison between the RS and the R groups; (D) osy2 comparison between the RS and the R groups; (E) PFSy1 comparison between the RS and the R groups; (F) PFSy2 comparison between the RS and the R groups.

(0.45MB).
3.2Response and progression-free rate

Seven of the 11 studies provided response rates. In terms of objective remission rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR), the RS group was superior to the R group or the S group, as shown in Table 2. In single-arm researches, the mPFS of the RS group was 8.20 months. Fig. 2 shows the forest plot. The mPFS of the R group was 4.90 months, the mPFS of the S group was 2.30 months. In double-arm researches, one- and two-year PFS of the RS group were better than those of the R group or the S group. The mPFS of the RS group was 1.63 (95%CI: 1.34–1.99) and 1.95 (95%CI: 0.74–5.15) compared with the R group and the S group. Fig. 3 shows the forest plot.

3.3Treatment toxicities

The adverse events (≥ grade 3) were classified and analyzed, including the gastrointestinal (e.g., gastrointestinal ulcer or perforation, abdominal pain, severe nausea, and vomiting), hepatologic (e.g., aminotransferase rise, decompensation of liver function), hematologic (e.g., thrombocytopenia, leucopenia, anemia) and dermatologic adverse events. Among all patients included in the study, the RS group had gastrointestinal, hepatologic, hematologic, dermatologic adverse events in 11, 14, 29, and 8 patients, respectively, as shown in Table 3. The incidence of adverse events of the RS group was 0.34 (95%CI: 0.25–0.44). However, the incidences of adverse events of the RS group were 1.55 (95%CI: 1.02–2.36) and 1.04 (95%CI: 0.32–3.37) compared with the R group and the S group. The results demonstrated that the incidence of adverse events in the RS group was higher than those in the R group or the S group. Herein, hematologic adverse events were common in the RS group, the incidence of the RS group was 2.20 (95%CI: 0.58–8.38) compared with the R group.

Table 3.

Clinical results of included trials.

Author  RT target  NO.of Patients  Reliable Comparability  Grade≥3Toxicity: GI(case)  Hepatologic(case)  Hematologic(case)  Dermatologic(case) 
Sun  EHM(lung mets)  RS 23;R 22  Yes  RS 0;R 0  RS 0;R 0  RS 0;R 0  RS 0;R 0 
Liu  Liver HCC  RS 73;R 73  Yes  NA  NA  NA  NA 
Abulimiti  Liver HCC  RS 36;R 46  Yes  RS 0;R 0  RS 2;R 3  RS 9;R 7  RS 0;R 0 
Que  Liver HCC  RS 18;R 36  Yes  RS 0;R 0  RS 1;R 7  RS 8;R 1  RS 2;R 0 
Zhao  Liver HCC  TRS 28;TR 35  Yes  TRS 0;TR 0  TRS 3;TR 4  TRS 4;TR 6  TRS 0;TR 0 
Nomura  Liver HCC  FRS 14;FR 18  Yes  FRS 2;FR 1  NA  NA  NA 
Wada  EHM or MVI  RS 15;S 47  Yes  RS 3;S 4  RS 0;S 0  RS 0;S 3  RS 0;S 2 
Chang  Liver HCC  RS 53;S 53  Yes  RS 0;S 0  RS 0;S 0  RS 0;S 0  RS 0;S 0 
Brade  Liver HCC  RS 16  NA  RS 3  RS 3  RS 5  RS 0 
Cha  Liver HCC/EHM  RS 18  NA  RS 1  RS 1  RS 3  RS 3 
Chen  Liver HCC  RS 40  NA  RS 2  RS 4  RS 0  RS 3 
3.3.1Publication bias

Potential publication bias in this meta-analysis was examined by evaluating the symmetry of the funnel diagram. The funnel diagram was roughly symmetrical, indicating that the comprehensive analysis results were unlikely to be wrong due to publication bias.

4Discussion

As the primary endpoints of this meta-analysis, the mOS of the RS group was 19.45 months, the mPFS was 8.20 months, and the combined one- and two-year survival rates were 65% and 40%, respectively. The therapeutic benefit was significantly higher than that of the control group. Meanwhile, the ORR and DCR of the RS group were also better than those of the control group. The findings revealed that external radiation combined with sorafenib may dramatically improve survival in patients with HCC, making it an effective therapeutic option.

Based on certain double-arm studies, there was no significant difference in the occurrence of adverse events between the two groups in terms of adverse events. Abulimiti [15] reported that the RS group only slightly increased the incidence of nausea, anorexia, abdominal pain, fatigue, and skin reactions (grade 1-2) compared with the R group, and there was no significant difference in other adverse events. Grade 3 Adverse effects occurred in both groups, but the treatment could continue after symptomatic treatment. Nevertheless, several cases suffered severe adverse events in the RS group. Brade reported that one patient in the RS group had lower gastrointestinal bleeding of grade 3 diagnosed by colonoscopy during treatment [6]. The reuse of sorafenib resulted in the recurrence of gastrointestinal bleeding, so sorafenib was forced to stop. One patient developed an acute exacerbation of chronic intestinal obstruction (grade 4) and finally developed into clinical intestinal obstruction. One patient developed acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding with black stool as well as bloody stool and eventually died. Relevant literature reported that the total incidence of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding after hepatoma radiotherapy was 2–38%, which was related to the coverage of hollow organs in radiotherapy, high dose of radiotherapy, and decline of liver function [25, 26, 27]. The adverse events of the RS group were generally mild. Adverse events of grades 3-4 were rare and most of the symptoms can be relieved by symptomatic treatment or after treatment.

Sorafenib, reduces tumor-mesenchymal interactions, tumor metastasis, and carcinogenesis, as a targeted therapy targeting the Raf/MEK/ERK pathway [28, 29]. Meanwhile, sorafenib can inhibit DNA damage repair of cancer cells in the tumor microenvironment, and enhance the oxygen effect by normalizing the surviving tumor vascular system [30, 31]. The BCLC guidelines recommend sorafenib as a first-line treatment for advanced HCC, but its efficacy is limited [32]. However, sorafenib combined with radiotherapy can achieve unexpected results in the treatment of HCC. External radiation can induce mitotic death and affect tumor metabolism through DNA damage [33]. Radiotherapy not only mediates DNA damage and leads to cancer cell death, but also produces immunogenicity by triggering the release of pro-inflammatory mediators, and increases immunostimulation to inhibit tumor cell infiltration and enhance the expression of new antigens [34, 35]. It has been demonstrated sorafenib-induced blockage of Raf/MAPK and VEGF receptor pathways may enhance the efficacy of radiotherapy. The combination of the two can significantly improve the prognosis of HCC patients.

This study has several limitations. First, a meta-analysis of observational studies is controversial [36]. Because researchers have some subjectivity in collecting and analyzing data. Then, the lack of further adjustment for baseline characteristics, such as age, gender, or comorbidity conditions, may affect the reliability of our results. Additionally, grey literature and those that have not been officially published in peer-reviewed journals were not included. These kinds of literature are usually incomplete and it is barely possible to extract all necessary data or evaluate its quality through the NOS scale. As the number of included studies is limited, although the funnel diagram is generally symmetrical, it should be recognized that publication bias may still affect the reliability of the comprehensive analysis of the results. Nonetheless, for diseases for which there is neither a standard treatment plan in the clinic nor a sufficient amount of relevant literature, a meta-analysis of observational research may be one of the sole possibilities for therapeutic suggestion [37, 38]. Meanwhile, efforts should be made to improve the quality of meta-analyses, such as heterogeneity analysis, formal quality assessment, and sensitivity analysis [37, 39]. More studies focusing on external radiation combined with sorafenib for the treatment of HCC are anticipated to be conducted in the future to provide the best evidence for clinical decision-making.

5Conclusions

This meta-analysis demonstrated that external radiotherapy combined with sorafenib is a rational strategy for the clinical treatment of HCC. It has a low risk of adverse effects and provides large survival benefits. This finding will be supported by research with larger sample sizes in other populations. Furthermore, experimental studies must be necessary to reveal the precise mechanism of synergistic effect between external radiotherapy and sorafenib.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant from the Project of Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province (2020JDTD0036).

Author's contributions

Jiali Chen, responsible for the integrity of the whole article, the analysis of the article data and the writing of manuscripts. Kun He, responsible for statistical analysis. Yunwei Han, responsible for writing manuscripts. Lu Guo, responsible for screening literature and extracting data. Ke Su, responsible for screening literature and extracting data. Zhenying Wu, responsible for extracting data.

Declarations of interest

None

References
[1]
A Jemal, F Bray, MM Center, J Ferlay, E Ward, D Forman.
Global cancer statistics.
CA Cancer J Clin, 61 (2011), pp. 69-90
[2]
A Kinoshita, H Onoda, N Fushiya, K Koike, H Nishino, H. Tajiri.
Staging systems for hepatocellular carcinoma: current status and future perspectives.
World J Hepatol, 7 (2015), pp. 406-424
[3]
JM Llovet, C Brú, J. Bruix.
Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: the BCLC staging classification.
Semin Liver Dis, 19 (1999), pp. 329-338
[4]
European Association for the Study of the Liver. Electronic address: easloffice@easloffice.eu; European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma.
J Hepatol, 69 (2018), pp. 182-236
[5]
JM Llovet, S Ricci, V Mazzaferro, P Hilgard, E Gane, JF Blanc, et al.
Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.
N Engl J Med, 359 (2008), pp. 378-390
[6]
AM Brade, S Ng, J Brierley, J Kim, R Dinniwell, J Ringash, et al.
Phase 1 trial of sorafenib and stereotactic body radiation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 94 (2016), pp. 580-587
[7]
SW Chen, LC Lin, YC Kuo, JA Liang, CC Kuo, JF. Chiou.
Phase 2 study of combined sorafenib and radiation therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 88 (2014), pp. 1041-1047
[8]
SM Wilhelm, C Carter, L Tang, D Wilkie, A McNabola, H Rong, 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, 64 (2004), pp. 7099-7109
[9]
P Therasse, SG Arbuck, EA Eisenhauer, J Wanders, RS Kaplan, L Rubinstein, et al.
New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada.
J Natl Cancer Inst, 92 (2000), pp. 205-216
[10]
R Lencioni, JM. Llovet.
Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Semin Liver Dis, 30 (2010), pp. 52-60
[11]
JD Cox, J Stetz, TF. Pajak.
Toxicity criteria of the Radiation Therapy Oncology group (RTOG) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC).
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 31 (1995), pp. 1341-1346
[12]
A. Stang.
Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses.
Eur J Epidemiol, 25 (2010), pp. 603-605
[13]
L Irwig, P Macaskill, G Berry, P. Glasziou.
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Graphical test is itself biased.
BMJ, 316 (1998), pp. 470-471
[14]
S Duval, R. Tweedie.
Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis.
Biometrics, 56 (2000), pp. 455-463
[15]
M Abulimiti, Z Li, H Wang, P Apiziaji, Y Abulimiti, Y. Tan.
Combination intensity-modulated radiotherapy and sorafenib improves outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis.
[16]
J Cha, J Seong, IJ Lee, JW Kim, KH. Han.
Feasibility of sorafenib combined with local radiotherapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.
Yonsei Med J, 54 (2013), pp. 1178-1185
[17]
WI Chang, BH Kim, YJ Kim, JH Yoon, YJ Jung, EK. Chie.
Role of radiotherapy in Barcelona clinic liver cancer stage c hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib.
J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 37 (2022), pp. 387-394
[18]
SW Chen, LC Lin, YC Kuo, JA Liang, CC Kuo, JF. Chiou.
Phase 2 study of combined sorafenib and radiation therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 88 (2014), pp. 1041-1047
[19]
CM Liu, BS Huang, YH Yen, YM Wang, EY Huang, HC Hsu, et al.
Concurrent Sorafenib and radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity-matched analysis.
J Hepatocell Carcinoma, 8 (2021), pp. 963-973
[20]
T Nomura, J Tani, A Deguchi, M Nakahara, K Oura, T Tadokoro, et al.
Efficacy of combined modality therapy with sorafenib following hepatic arterial injection chemotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with major vascular invasion.
Mol Clin Oncol, 11 (2019), pp. 447-454
[21]
J Que, HC Wu, CH Lin, CI Huang, LC Li, CH. Ho.
Comparison of stereotactic body radiation therapy with and without sorafenib as treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis.
Medicine (Baltimore), 99 (2020), pp. e19660
[22]
T Sun, J He, S Zhang, J Sun, M Zeng, Z. Zeng.
Simultaneous multitarget radiotherapy using helical tomotherapy and its combination with sorafenib for pulmonary metastases from hepatocellular carcinoma.
Oncotarget, 7 (2016), pp. 48586-48599
[23]
Y Wada, Y Takami, H Matsushima, M Tateishi, T Ryu, M Yoshitomi, et al.
The safety and efficacy of combination therapy of sorafenib and radiotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study.
Intern Med, 57 (2018), pp. 1345-1353
[24]
Y Zhao, X Zhu, H Wang, D Dong, S Gao, X Zhu, et al.
Safety and efficacy of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization plus radiotherapy combined with sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma showing macrovascular invasion.
Front Oncol, 9 (2019), pp. 1065
[25]
SM Yoon, JH Kim, EK Choi, SD Ahn, SW Lee, BY Yi, et al.
Radioresponse of hepatocellular carcinoma-treatment of lymph node metastasis.
Cancer Res Treat, 36 (2004), pp. 79-84
[26]
ZH Zhou, LM Liu, WW Chen, ZQ Men, JH Lin, Z Chen, et al.
Combined therapy of transcatheter arterial chemoembolisation and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Br J Radiol, 80 (2007), pp. 194-201
[27]
JC Cheng, VP Chuang, SH Cheng, AT Huang, YM Lin, TI Cheng, et al.
Local radiotherapy with or without transcatheter arterial chemoembolization forpatients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 47 (2000), pp. 435-442
[28]
S Cassim, VA Raymond, L Dehbidi-Assadzadeh, P Lapierre, M. Bilodeau.
Metabolic reprogramming enables hepatocarcinoma cells to efficiently adapt and survive to a nutrient-restricted microenvironment.
Cell Cycle, 17 (2018), pp. 903-916
[29]
JD Yang, I Nakamura, LR. Roberts.
The tumor microenvironment in hepatocellular carcinoma: current status and therapeutic targets.
Semin Cancer Biol, 21 (2011), pp. 35-43
[30]
N Girard, F. Mornex.
Sorafénib et radiothérapie dans le carcinome hépatocellulaire [Sorafenib and radiotherapy association for hepatocellular carcinoma].
Cancer Radiother, 15 (2011), pp. 77-80
[31]
W Yu, K Gu, Z Yu, D Yuan, M He, N Ma, et al.
Sorafenib potentiates irradiation effect in hepatocellular carcinoma in vitro and in vivo.
Cancer Lett, 329 (2013), pp. 109-117
[32]
DS Song, MJ Song, SH Bae, WJ Chung, JY Jang, YS Kim, et al.
A comparative study between sorafenib and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis.
J Gastroenterol, 50 (2015), pp. 445-454
[33]
YH Lee, D Tai, C Yip, SP Choo, V. Chew.
Combinational immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: radiotherapy, immune checkpoint blockade and beyond.
[34]
SM Harding, JL Benci, J Irianto, DE Discher, AJ Minn, RA. Greenberg.
Mitotic progression following DNA damage enables pattern recognition within micronuclei[J].
Nature, 548 (2017), pp. 466-470
[35]
KJ Mackenzie, P Carroll, CA Martin, O Murina, A Fluteau, DJ Simpson, et al.
cGAS surveillance of micronuclei links genome instability to innate immunity[J].
Nature, 548 (2017), pp. 461-465
[36]
M Blettner, W Sauerbrei, B Schlehofer, T Scheuchenpflug, C. Friedenreich.
Traditional reviews, meta-analyses and pooled analyses in epidemiology.
Int J Epidemiol, 28 (1999), pp. 1-9
[37]
IS Shin, CH. Rim.
Updating perspectives on meta-analyses in the field of radiation oncology.
Medicina (Kaunas), 57 (2021), pp. 117
[38]
I Shrier, JF Boivin, RJ Steele, RW Platt, A Furlan, R Kakuma, et al.
Should meta-analyses of interventions include observational studies in addition to randomized controlled trials? A critical examination of underlying principles.
Am J Epidemiol, 166 (2007), pp. 1203-1209
[39]
JP. Vandenbroucke.
When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials?.
Lancet, 363 (2004), pp. 1728-1731

These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship.

Copyright © 2022. Fundación Clínica Médica Sur, A.C.
Download PDF
Article options
es en pt

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?

Você é um profissional de saúde habilitado a prescrever ou dispensar medicamentos