Is transcatheter arterial chemoembolization plus sorafenib better than chemoembolization plus placebo in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma?

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus sorafenib compared with TACE plus placebo for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using meta-analytical techniques.

Methods:

A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were done from inception to December 27, 2019. Published trials including a treatment group receiving TACE + sorafenib and a control group receiving TACE + placebo with data for at least 1-year survival or tumor response or time to progression were included.

Results:

Our study suggested that there was no evidence that TACE plus sorafenib was associated with a lower risk of disease progression compared with TACE plus placebo for treatment of HCC (hazard ratio 0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84–1.05]), and no significant difference for treatment of HCC compared with TACE plus placebo in terms of 0.5-, 1-, 1.5-, and 2-year survival rates (risk ratio [RR] 1.01 [95% CI, 0.97–1.05]; RR 1.00 [95% CI, 0.92–1.08], RR 1.04 [95% CI, 0.89–1.23], RR 0.98 [95% CI, 0.72–1.34], respectively). The meta-analysis also showed that TACE + sorafenib seemed to have no significant difference for treatment of HCC compared with TACE + placebo in terms of complete response, partial response, stable disease, progressive disease, overall response rate, and disease control rate. There was an increased incidence of fatigue of grade 3/4 and elevation of aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase of grade 3/4 in patients receiving TACE plus sorafenib compared with those receiving TACE plus placebo.

Conclusions:

There is no additive benefit of TACE plus sorafenib compared to TACE plus placebo for HCC.