Simmitecan

To establish and verify a prognostic nomogram model for selecting in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) treated by transarterial chemoembolization plus lenvatinib (TACE-L) with or without PD-1 inhibitor.

Data of 241 uHCC patients who underwent TACE-L (n = 128) and TACE-L plus PD-1 inhibitor (TACE-L-P, n = 113) were retrospectively reviewed. The differences in tumour responses, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs) between two groups were compared, and a prognostic nomogram model was established based on independent clinical-radiologic factors and confirmed by Cox regression analysis for predicting PFS and OS. The treatment selection for uHCC patients was stratified by the nomogram score.

Compared to TACE-L, TACE-L-P presented prolonged PFS (14.0 vs. 9.0 months, P < .001), longer OS (24.0 vs. 15.0 months, P < .001), and a better overall objective response rate (54.0% vs. 32.8%, P = .001). There was no significant difference between the rate of AEs in the TACE-L-P and the TACE-L (56.64% vs. 46.09%, P = .102) and the rate of grade ≥ 3 AEs (11.50% vs. 9.38%, P = .588), respectively. The nomogram model presented good discrimination, with a C-index of 0.790 for predicting PFS and 0.749 for predicting OS. Patients who underwent TACE-L and obtained a nomogram score >9 demonstrated improved 2-year PFS when transferred to TACE-L-P, and those with a nomogram ≤25 had better 2-year OS when transferred to TACE-L-P.

TACE-L-P showed significant improvements in efficiency and safety for uHCC patients compared with TACE-L. The nomogram was useful for stratifying treatment decisions and selecting a suitable population for uHCC patients.

Prognostic nomogram model is of great value in predicting individualized survival benefits for uHCC patients after TACE-L or/and TACE-L-P. And the nomogram was helpful for selection between TACE-L-P and TACE-L among uHCC patients.

Objective: This study sought to quantify the pooled effects of lidocaine patch (LP) on postoperative pain and side effects through a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Approach: The study followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), AMSTAR, and the Cochrane Collaboration. Randomized controlled trials comparing LP with placebo were retrieved from five electronic databases. Primary outcome in the study was cumulative intravenous morphine equivalent consumption (mg) within 24 h postoperatively. Results: Twelve trials comprising 617 patients were included in the final analysis. Primary result indicated that the analgesic effects LP were only statistical but not clinically significant of postoperative intravenous morphine consumption within 24 h (mean difference, -4.61 mg; 95% confidence interval, -8.09 to -1.14). Interestingly, the results of subgroup and meta-regression analysis indicated that preoperative administration of LP had potential advantages in postoperative wound pain management. It is also worthwhile to mention that LP provided a clinically important benefit in rest pain scores within 24-h postoperatively. Apart from these, other secondary outcome analysis did not uncover any particularly significant analgesic or safety advantages to LP. Finally, LP also does not increase the risk of any local anesthetic-related side effects. Innovation: This systematic review and meta-analysis provides moderate-to-high quality evidence undermining the role of LP for management of acute postoperative wound pain after surgical procedures and the justification for the associated extra costs. Conclusion: Taken together, the current evidence does not support LP as part of a routine multimodal analgesia strategy to alleviate early postoperative acute pain. However, further studies should explore the clinical value of preoperative administration and the long-term effect of LP.