ArticleTargeted oncology2021
Sequential Treatment of Sorafenib-Regorafenib Versus Sorafenib-Physician's Choice: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.
Article in Targeted oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of regorafenib in second-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Real-world systemic sequential therapy with regorafenib for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: analysis of 93 cases from a single center.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Efficacy and safety of sequential therapy with sorafenib and regorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a two-center study in China.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Regorafenib with or without PD-1 Inhibitors as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Real-World Clinical Practice.OncoTargets and therapy · 2022Article
- First-line sorafenib sequential therapy and liver disease etiology for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma using inverse probability weighting: A multicenter retrospective study.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
20 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRegorafenib has been shown to improve clinical outcomes compared to placebo, becoming a standard second-line therapy for sorafenib-progressed and -tolerated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.
objectiveWe performed a multicentre, retrospective study in Italy and Korea to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment sequence sorafenib-regorafenib compared with sorafenib and physician's choice in a real-life setting. PATIENTS AND
methodsA propensity score model was developed to control the results for baseline variable imbalances between the arm treated with sorafenib and regorafenib (S-R) and the arm treated with sorafenib and physician's choice (S-P). Survival analysis was conducted on the matched population.
resultsAfter the application of propensity score matching, we analysed 99 patients in the arm treated with S-R and 99 patients in the arm treated with S-P. For the S-R group, the median overall survival was 22.2 months (95% CI 17.1-27.4), compared to 17.9 months (95% CI 15.1-50.0) for the S-P group. The results of the univariate analysis showed a 31% reduction of death risk for patients treated with S-R (p = 0.0382) compared to patients treated with S-P. Interaction tests highlighted the predictive role of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and extrahepatic spread.
conclusionThis study provides additional proof of the superiority of the S-R treatment over the S-P treatment approach in advanced HCC patients from a real-life setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.