Copyright
©The Author(s) 2026.
World J Gastrointest Oncol. Jan 15, 2026; 18(1): 113816
Published online Jan 15, 2026. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v18.i1.113816
Published online Jan 15, 2026. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v18.i1.113816
Table 1 Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis
| Ref. | Study design | Age, years (T: C) | Sex (M/F, T: C) | Sample size (T: C) | Treatment group | Control group | Child-Pugh classification |
| Lee et al[15], 2024 | Retrospective cohort study | 63: 59 | 120/17: 45/7 | 137: 52 | Regorafenib | Nivolumab | Regorafenib group: Child-Pugh B (24.1%); nivolumab group: Child-Pugh B (42.3%) |
| Adhoute et al[16], 2022 | Retrospective, multicenter | 68: 68 | 53/5: 24/4 | 58: 28 | Regorafenib | Cabozantinib | Combined A/B proportion approximately 24%-25% |
| Casadei-Gardini et al[19], 2021 | Retrospective study | Not reported | 222/46: 264/67 | 278: 331 | Regorafenib | Cabozantinib | Not reported |
| Iavarone et al[18], 2021 | Retrospective study | 60: 61 | 27/9: 38/7 | 36: 45 | Regorafenib | BSC | Not reported |
| Kuo et al[17], 2021 | Retrospective study | 63.4 ± 10.7: 62.2 ± 10.1 | 44/14: 23/9 | 58: 32 | Regorafenib | Nivolumab | Not reported |
| Choi et al[21], 2020 | Retrospective study | 58.5 ± 9.4: 56.9 ± 10.0 | 202/21: 125/25 | 223: 150 | Regorafenib | Nivolumab | Child-Pugh A: 132 patients; Child-Pugh B: 71 patients |
| Lee et al[20], 2020 | Retrospective cohort study | 62: 61 | 83/54: 39/9 | 102: 48 | Regorafenib | Nivolumab | Not reported |
| Finn et al[22], 2018 | RCT | 64: 62 | 333/46: 171/23 | 379: 194 | Regorafenib | Placebo | Child-Pugh A only |
| Bruix et al[23], 2017 | RCT | 64: 62 | 333/46: 171/23 | 379: 194 | Regorafenib | Placebo | Child-Pugh A only |
Table 2 The quality assessment according to Newcastle-Ottawa Scale of each retrospective study
| Ref. | 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 | Total score |
| Lee et al[15], 2024 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 8 |
| Adhoute et al[16], 2022 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 9 |
| Casadei-Gardini et al[19], 2021 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 8 | |
| Iavarone et al[18], 2021 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | 8 | |
| Kuo et al[17], 2021 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 9 |
| Choi et al[21], 2020 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | 9 |
| Lee et al[20], 2020 | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★ | ★★ | ★ | ★ | 8 |
- Citation: Cheng Z, Yue AM. Efficacy of regorafenib in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2026; 18(1): 113816
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5204/full/v18/i1/113816.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v18.i1.113816
