Copyright
©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Hepatol. Dec 27, 2014; 6(12): 830-835
Published online Dec 27, 2014. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v6.i12.830
Published online Dec 27, 2014. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v6.i12.830
Ref. | Year | Phase | Investigational drug | Outcome |
Llovet et al[10] | 2008 | Phase 3 | Sorafenib | Increased survival |
Cheng et al[12] | 2009 | Phase 3 | Sorafenib | Increased survival |
Lencioni et al[13] | 2012 | Phase 4 | Sorafenib | High safety |
Lencioni et al[14] | 2014 | Phase 4 | Sorafenib | High safety |
Johnson et al[40] | 2013 | Phase 3 | Brivanib | Less well-tolerated |
Cheng et al[41] | 2013 | Phase 3 | Sunitinib | Significantly inferior than sorafenib |
Zhu et al[42] | 2012 | Phase 3 | Sorafenib plus erlotinib | No survival benefit |
Llovet et al[43] | 2013 | Phase 3 | Brivanib after sorafenib failed | No survival benefit |
Zhu et al[44] | 2014 | Phase 3 | Everolimus after sorafenib failed | No survival benefit |
- Citation: Sun H, Zhu MS, Wu WR, Shi XD, Xu LB. Role of anti-angiogenesis therapy in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: The jury is still out. World J Hepatol 2014; 6(12): 830-835
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5182/full/v6/i12/830.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v6.i12.830