Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39289234›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastroenterology2024

CRAFITY score as a predictive marker for refractoriness to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study.

Masayuki Ueno, Haruhiko Takeda, Atsushi Takai, Hiroki Morimura, Norihiro Nishijima, Satoru Iwamoto, Shunsuke Okuyama, Makoto Umeda, Takeshi Seta, Atsuyuki Ikeda and 14 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastroenterology, 2024. 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 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

24 authors.

Masayuki UenoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2497-9327
Haruhiko TakedaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Atsushi TakaiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. atsushit@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5233-4120
Hiroki MorimuraDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Norihiro NishijimaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Meiwa Hospital, Nishinomiya, Japan.
Satoru IwamotoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kyoto Medical Center, Kyoto, Japan.
Shunsuke OkuyamaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Kurashiki, Japan.
Makoto UmedaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center, Amagasaki, Japan.
Takeshi SetaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Japanese Red Cross Wakayama Medical Center, Wakayama, Japan.
Atsuyuki IkedaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kyoto Katsura Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.
Tomoyuki GotoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Shiga General Hospital, Moriyama, Japan.
Shin'ichi MiyamotoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kyoto Medical Center, Kyoto, Japan.
Takahisa KayaharaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Kurashiki, Japan.
Yoshito UenoyamaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Japanese Red Cross Wakayama Medical Center, Wakayama, Japan.
Kazuyoshi MatsumuraDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Shiga General Hospital, Moriyama, Japan.
Shigeharu NakanoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Masako MishimaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Tadashi InuzukaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Yuji EsoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Ken TakahashiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Hiroyuki MarusawaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Osaka Red Cross Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Yukio OsakiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Meiwa Hospital, Nishinomiya, Japan.
Etsuro HatanoDivision of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery and Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Hiroshi SenoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto University, 54 Kawahara-cho, Shogoin, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo/Bev) therapy has been used as the preferred first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), up to 26% of patients do not achieve disease control, suggesting alternative treatments might be more beneficial for such patients. We investigated key predictors for refractoriness to Atezo/Bev therapy, particularly in the first-line setting.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 302 patients with HCC who received Atezo/Bev therapy between October 2020 and September 2022 across nine hospitals in Japan. Refractoriness was defined as best overall response (BOR) of progressive disease or stable disease and a progression-free survival (PFS) of < 180 days (RECIST v1.1). Clinical benefit was defined as BOR of partial/complete response or stable disease with PFS of ≥ 180 days. Baseline characteristics and potential predictors, identified through literature review, were compared between these groups. Stratifications of overall survival (OS), and PFS were also assessed.

resultsRefractoriness was observed in 126 (41.7%) patients, while 154 (51.0%) achieved clinical benefit. Due to a significant association between the treatment line and refractory rate, the subsequent analysis focused on the first-line cohort (n = 214; 72 [33.6%] patients showed refractoriness). Among 13 potential predictors, the CRP and AFP in immunotherapy (CRAFITY) score had the best predictive performance, with refractory rates of 24.6%, 44.6%, and 57.9% in CRAFITY-0, 1, and 2 patients, respectively (p < 0.001). OS and PFS were also well-stratified by this scoring system.

conclusionsApproximately one-third of patients were refractory to first-line Atezo/Bev therapy. The CRAFITY score demonstrated superior performance in predicting refractoriness.

Indexed as

Antibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBevacizumabCarcinoma, HepatocellularLiver NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDrug Resistance, NeoplasmFemaleHumansJapanMaleMiddle AgedProgression-Free SurvivalRetrospective StudiesAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedatezolizumabBevacizumabAlpha-fetoproteinC-reactive proteinImmune checkpoint inhibitorLiver cancerPrecision medicine

Identifiers

PMID39289234
PMCPMC11541291

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.