4.5 Article

Survival of patients treated with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
Volume 47, Issue 4, Pages 324-330

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2015.01.001

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma; Liver transplant; Recurrence; Sorafenib

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Data on survival and safety of sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplant are still equivocal. Aim: We performed a meta-analysis of published studies, with the aim of estimating the 1-year rates of survival, analysing the variability in survival rates and, finally, identifying the factors associated with a longer survival. Methods: Data from 8 of the 17 selected studies were pooled, while the other 9 were excluded because survival rates were missing. All included studies were retrospective. Results: Overall, the 1-year survival ranged from 18% to 90%. Tumour progression was the main cause of death. The second cause was bleeding, reported only in patients undergoing m-Tor inhibitor therapy. The pooled estimate of 1-year survival was 63%. There was a significant heterogeneity among studies (P < 0.0001). Among the 34 variables assessed by univariate meta-regression, 5 were associated with an increase in the 1-year survival rate: (1) male gender (P = 0.001); (2) Time to progression (P = 0.038); and adverse drug events, divided in (3) gastrointestinal (P= 0.038), (4) cardiovascular (P = 0.029), and (5) dermatological (P = 0.014). Conclusions: Additional data from multicentre prospective studies are required to clearly determine if sorafenib is a safe and acceptable treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplant. Nevertheless, its association with m-Tor inhibitors should be discouraged. (C) 2015 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available