Copyright
©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastrointest Oncol. Feb 15, 2025; 17(2): 98927
Published online Feb 15, 2025. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v17.i2.98927
Published online Feb 15, 2025. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v17.i2.98927
Table 1 Characteristics of included studies in the meta-analysis and systematic review
| Ref. | Year | Number of cases | Mean age (years) | Design | Dose of sorafenib | Chemoembolization agents |
| Zheng et al[18] | 2022 | 32 vs 32 | 56 vs 55 | RCT | 400 mg twice daily | Epirubicin, cisplatin, doxorubicin, mitomycin |
| He et al[16] | 2019 | 125 vs 122 | 49 vs 49 | RCT | 400 mg twice daily | Mitomycin, doxorubicin |
| Kondo et al[17] | 2019 | 35 vs 33 | 72 vs 71 | RCT | 400 mg twice daily | Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, epirubicin |
| Zhao et al[20] | 2019 | 46 vs 58 | NA | Retrospective cohort study | 400 mg twice daily | Oxaliplatin, epirubicin |
| Kudo et al[22] | 2018 | 102 vs 103 | 67 vs 68 | RCT | 400 mg twice daily | Cisplatin, fluorouracil |
| Ikuta et al[19] | 2018 | 26 vs 72 | 72 vs 69 | Retrospective cohort study | 400 mg twice daily | Cisplatin, fluorouracil, lipiodol |
| Ikeda et al[14] | 2016 | 65 vs 41 | 66 vs 64 | RCT | 400 mg twice daily | Cisplatin |
| Bai et al[24] | 2013 | 82 vs 164 | 54 vs 52 | Prospective nonrandomized study | 400 mg twice daily | Mitomycin, doxorubicin |
| Muhammad et al[25] | 2013 | 13 vs 30 | 61 vs 59 | Retrospective cohort study | 200 mg increased to 400 mg | Doxorubicin |
| Sansonno et al[23] | 2012 | 31 vs 31 | 73 vs 72.8 | RCT | 400 mg twice daily | Mitomycin, doxorubicin |
| Qu et al[21] | 2012 | 45 vs 45 | 51 vs 49 | Retrospective study | 400 mg twice daily | Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, epirubicin |
| Kudo et al[15] | 2011 | 229 vs 229 | 69 vs 70 | RCT | 200 mg twice daily | Epirubicin, cisplatin, doxorubicin, mitomycin |
Table 2 The quality assessment according to Newcastle-Ottawa Scale of each cohort study
| Ref. | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Total score | |||||
| Representativeness of the exposed cohort | Selection of the non-exposed cohort | Ascertainment of exposure | Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study | Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis | Assessment of outcome | Was follow-up long enough | Adequacy of follow up of cohorts | ||
| Zhao et al[20] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | |
| Ikuta et al[19] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Bai et al[24] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Muhammad et al[25] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
| Qu et al[21] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
- Citation: Xu M, Zhou SR, Li YL, Zhang CH, Liao DZ, Wang XL. Efficacy of sorafenib combined with transarterial chemoembolization in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2025; 17(2): 98927
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5204/full/v17/i2/98927.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v17.i2.98927
