4.1 Article

Network meta-analysis of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in the second-line setting for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Journal

JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH
Volume 10, Issue 5, Pages 343-352

Publisher

Becaris Publishing
DOI: 10.2217/cer-2020-0236

Keywords

advanced hepatocellular carcinoma; immunotherapy; network meta-analysis; nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy; objective response rate; overall survival; second-line treatment

Funding

  1. Bristol Myers Squibb
  2. Bayer
  3. Exact Sciences
  4. Glycotest
  5. Target Pharmasolutions

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study compared the efficacy of nivolumab 1 mg/kg + ipilimumab 3 mg/kg with other drugs for treating advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, showing superior objective response rate and overall survival in the former.
Aims: To compare the efficacy of nivolumab 1 mg/kg + ipilimumab 3 mg/kg with regorafenib 160 mg, cabozantinib 60 mg and nivolumab 3 mg/kg monotherapy for second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Materials & methods: Indirect comparison using network meta-analysis and propensity score weighting. Results: Nivolumab 1 mg/kg + ipilimumab 3 mg/kg had significantly higher objective response rate (median 31.2% [95% credible interval: 19.6-44.5%]) than cabozantinib (4.2% [2.0-6.5%]) and regorafenib (4.8% [1.1-8.3%]), and significantly longer overall survival (cabozantinib: hazard ratio: 0.46 [95% credible interval: 0.27-0.79]; regorafenib: 0.56 [0.32-0.97]). Nivolumab 1 mg/kg + ipilimumab 3 mg/kg had significantly better objective response rate (difference 21.0% [4.5-37.5%]) and overall survival (hazard ratio: 0.58 [0.35-0.96]) than nivolumab monotherapy. Conclusion: Nivolumab 1 mg/kg + ipilimumab 3 mg/kg had a superior efficacy versus cabozantinib 60 mg, regorafenib 160 mg and nivolumab 3 mg/kg monotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available