Selection of first-line systemic therapies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Table 1 Details of included studies

Ref.	Year	Experimental arm(s)	Comparator arm	Primary endpoint	Analysis timing	Survival outcomes, mo
Yen et al[47]	2018	Nintedanib	Sorafenib	TTP	PFS: Final; OS: Final	PFS: 2.7 vs 3.7; OS: 10.2 vs 1.1
Ciuleanu et al[48]	2016	Mapatumumab + sorafenib	Placebo + sorafenib	TTP	PFS: Final; OS: Final	PFS: 3.2 vs 4.3; OS: 10.0 vs 10.1
Finn et al[11]	2020	Atezolizumab + bevacizumab	Sorafenib	OS and PFS	PFS: Final; OS: Final	PFS: 6.8 vs 4.3; OS: NE vs 13.2
Abou-Alfa et al[49]	2010	Doxorubicin + sorafenib	Doxorubicin + placebo	TTP	PFS: Final; OS: Final	PFS: 6.0 vs 2.7; OS: 13.7 vs 6.5
Cheng et al[50]	2016	Dovitinib	Sorafenib	OS and TTP	TTP: Final; OS: Final	TTP: 4.1 vs 4.1; OS: 8.0 vs 8.4
Cheng et al[28]	2015	Tigatuzumab (6 + 2) + sorafenib; Tigatuzumab (6 + 6) + sorafenib	Sorafenib	TTP	TTP: Final; OS: Final	TTP: 3.0 vs 3.9 vs 2.8; OS: 8.2 vs 12.2 vs 8.2
Hsu et al[51]	2012	Vandetanib 300 mg/d; Vandetanib 100 mg/d	Placebo	Tumor stabilization rate	PFS: Final; OS: Final	PFS: 1.1 vs 0.7 vs 1.0; OS: 6.0 vs 5.8 vs 4.3
Johnson et al[22]	2013	Sorafenib	Brivanib	OS	PFS: No; OS: Final	PFS: 4.1 vs 4.2; OS: 9.9 vs 9.5
Cainap et al[24]	2015	Linifanib	Sorafenib	OS	PFS: Final; OS: Final	PFS: 4.2 vs 2.9; OS: 9.1 vs 9.8
Kudo et al[10]	2018	Lenvatinib	Sorafenib	OS	PFS: No; OS: Final	PFS: 7.4 vs 3.7; OS: 13.6 vs 12.3
Yau et al[23]	2019	Nivolumab	Sorafenib	OS	PFS: Final; OS: Final	PFS: 3.7 vs 3.8; OS: 16.4 vs 14.7
Cheng et al[29]	2013	Sunitinib	Sorafenib	OS	PFS: Final;OS: Final	PFS: 3.6 vs 3.0; OS: 7.9 vs 10.2
Zhu et al[26]	2015	Sorafenib + erlotinib	Sorafenib + placebo	OS	TTP: Final; OS: Final	TTP: 3.2 vs 4.0; OS: 9.5 vs 8.5
Llovet et al[52]	2008	Sorafenib	Placebo	OS and TTP	TTP: Final; OS: Final	TSP: 5.5 vs 2.8; OS: 10.7 vs 7.9
Cheng et al[25]	2009	Sorafenib	Placebo	-	TTP: Final; OS: Final	TTP: 2.8 vs 1.4; OS: 6.5 vs 4.2
Palmer et al[53]	2018	Nintedanib	Sorafenib	TTP	PFS: Final; OS: Final	PFS: 5.3 vs 3.9; OS: 11.9 vs 11.4
Thomas et al[54]	2018	Bevacizumab + erlotinib	Sorafenib	OS	PFS: No; OS: Final	PFS: 4.4 vs 2.8; OS: 8.6 vs 8.6
Abou-Alfa et al[55]	2019	Sorafenib + doxorubicin	Sorafenib	OS	PFS: Final; OS: Final	PFS: 4.0 vs 3.7; OS: 9.3 vs. 9.4
Tak et al[27]	2018	Sorafenib	Sorafenib + resminostat	TTP	TTP: Final; OS: Final	TTP: 2.8 vs 2.8; OS: 14.1 vs 11.8
Jouve et al[56]	2019	Sorafenib + pravastatin	Sorafenib	OS	PFS: Final; OS: Final	PFS: 5.0 vs 5.4; OS: 10.7 vs 10.5
Lee et al[57]	2016	AEG35156 + sorafenib	Sorafenib	PFS	PFS: Final; OS: Final	PFS: 4.0 vs 2.6; OS: 6.5 vs 5.4
Assenat et al[58]	2019	Sorafenib + GEMOX	Sorafenib	PFS	PFS: Final; OS: Final	PFS: 6.2 vs 4.6; OS:13.5 vs 14.8
Azim et al[59]	2018	Sorafenib + tegafur–uracil	Sorafenib	TTP	PFS: Final; OS: Final	PFS: 6.0 vs 6.0; OS: 8.2 vs 10.5
Koeberle et al[60]	2016	Sorafenib	Sorafenib + everolimus	PFS	PFS: Final; OS: Final	PFS: 6.6 vs 5.7; OS: 10.0 vs 12
Bi et al[17]	2020	Donafinib	Sorafenib	OS	PFS: Final; OS: Final	PFS: 3.7 vs 3.6; OS: 21.1 vs 10.3
Qin et al[61]	2013	FOLFOX4	Doxorubicin	OS	PFS: Final; OS: Final	PFS: 2.9 vs 1.8; OS: 6.4 vs 5.0
Yeo et al[62]	2005	Doxorubicin	PIAF	OS	PFS: No; OS: Final	OS: 6.8 vs 8.7

FOLFOX4: Oxaliplatin/folinic acid/5-fluorouracil; GEMOX: Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin; NE, Not reported; OS, Overall survival; PFS, Progression-free survival; PIAF, Cisplatin/interferon α-2b/doxorubicin/5-fluorouracil; TTP, Time to progression.