http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1494-6396
Figures
Abstract
Aims
The role of adoptive immunotherapy (AIT) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who have received curative therapy is still not well illustrated. This timely meta-analysis aims to update the current evidence on efficacy and safety of AIT for patients with HCC who have received curative therapy.
Methods
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library Through January 2017 for relevant studies. Mortality and tumor recurrence were compared between patients with or without adjuvant AIT. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3.
Results
Eight studies involving 1861 patients met the eligibility criteria and were meta-analyzed. Adjuvant AIT was associated with significantly lower mortality at 1 year (RR 0.64, 95%CI 0.52–0.79), 3 years (RR 0.73, 95%CI 0.65–0.81) and 5 years (RR 0.86, 95%CI 0.79–0.94). Similarly, adjuvant AIT was associated with significantly lower recurrence rate than curative therapies alone at 1 year (RR 0.64, 95%CI 0.49–0.82), 3 years (RR 0.85, 95%CI 0.79–0.91) and 5 years (RR 0.90, 95%CI 0.85–0.95). Short-term outcomes were confirmed in sensitivity analyses based on randomized trials or choice of random- or fixed-effect meta-analysis model. None of the included patients experienced grade 4 adverse events.
Citation: Mo H-Y, Liao Y-Y, You X-M, Cucchetti A, Yuan B-H, Li R-H, et al. (2017) Timely meta-analysis on the efficacy of adoptive immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma patients after curative therapy. PLoS ONE 12(3): e0174222. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174222
Editor: Teh-Ia Huo, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, TAIWAN
Received: August 4, 2016; Accepted: March 5, 2017; Published: March 24, 2017
Copyright: © 2017 Mo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This study was supported in part by the Guangxi University of Science and Technology Research Projects (KY2015LX056), the Self-Raised Scientific Research Fund of the Ministry of Health of Guangxi Province (Z2016512, Z2015621, GZZC15-34, Z2014241), the Innovation Project of Guangxi Graduate Education (YCBZ2015030), Guangxi Science and Technology Development Projects (14124003-4), the National Science and Technology Major Special Project (2012ZX10002010001009), the Traditional Chinese Medicine Science and Technology projects of the Ministry of Health of Guangxi Province (GZLC16-36), and the Guangxi Medical Care Appropriate Technology Research and Development (S201417-03).
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common cancer worldwide and ranking as the third most common cause of cancer mortality [1]. Moreover, only a small proportion of patients with HCC are with early stage HCC [2]. Hepatic resection, radiofrequency ablation, and percutaneous ethanol injection are curative treatments for such patients [3]. However, 5-year median disease-free survival after these treatments is only about 37% [4], and 5-year overall survival is about 30% [5]. Therefore, the poor prognoses of HCC patients highlight the need for effective adjuvant or postoperative treatments that will improve patients’ long-term outcomes [6].
In recent decades, many types of adjuvant or postoperative treatments for patients with HCC after surgery have been reported [7,8,9,10,11]. However, no adjuvant or postoperative treatments with definite efficacy is found by previous systematic reviews [12,13] or recommended by official guidelines [3,14]. More systematic review with strict inclusion criteria and comprehensive searching is needed.
It is recognized that immnunosuppression induced by surgery is associated with tumor recurrence [15–17]. Therefore, immunotherapy may inhibit growth of HCC cell [18] or even prevent the recurrence of HCC after surgery [19]. In 2012, two systematic reviews [20,21] concluded that adjuvant adoptive immunotherapy (AIT) for patients with HCC after primary treatments may not improve overall survival. Since then, additional studies [22–25] have been published with inconsistent findings. Therefore the present review intends to perform a timely meta-analysis to gain a comprehensive understanding of the available evidence on the benefits and harms of adjuvant AIT for patients with HCC after surgery.
Methods
Literature search strategy
A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases was performed for articles published up to 5 January 2017 relevant to adjuvant AIT for HCC after initially treatment. The systematic review was carried out in accordance with the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions [26]. The following search terms were used to identify comparative studies: ‘hepatocellular carcinoma’ or HCC or ‘hepatic cancer’ or ‘hepatic tumor’ or ‘liver tumor’ or ‘liver cancer’, and ‘hepatic resection’ or hepatectomy or ‘liver resection’ or ‘radiofrequency ablation’ or ‘percutaneous ethanol infection’, and ‘adoptive immunotherapy’ or ‘interleukin-2’ or ‘cytokine induced killer cells’ or ‘lymphokine activated killer cells’ or ‘tumor infiltrating lymphocytes’. Results from the four electronic databases were compared to obtain a list of unique articles for screening. Relevant references of all included studies were also searched manually to identify additional studies. Gray literature was not included in the present analysis.
The following search strategy was used in PubMed (Medline):
(‘hepatocellular carcinoma’ OR HCC OR ‘hepatic cancer’ OR ‘hepatic tumor’ OR ‘liver tumor’ OR ‘liver cancer’) AND (‘hepatic resection’ OR hepatectomy OR ‘liver resection’ OR ‘radiofrequency ablation’ OR ‘percutaneous ethanol infection’) AND (‘adoptive immunotherapy’ OR ‘interleukin-2’ OR ‘cytokine induced killer cells’ OR ‘lymphokine activated killer cells’ OR ‘tumor infiltrating lymphocytes’)
Selection criteria
The following criteria were applied when considering studies for this meta-analysis:
Types of studies.
The meta-analysis considered studies evaluating the effectiveness or efficacy of adjuvant AIT for patients with HCC after initial curative treatments. The studies must compare the intervention with no intervention or with a control intervention. Randomized trials, non-randomized trials, and observational studies would be eligible for inclusion.
Types of participants.
Patients of primary HCC after curative hepatic resection, radiofrequency ablation, percutaneous ethanol injection, or liver transplantation would be included.
Types of interventions.
Patients in the treatment group received adjuvant AIT. Patients in the control group were without adjuvant AIT.
Types of outcome measures.
Results must include quantitative data for outcomes measured. The primary outcomes were recurrence rate and mortality. The secondary outcome was treatment-related adverse events, which included treatment-related withdrawals and discontinuations.
Studies were excluded if they evaluated the efficacy of AIT for patients with with recurrent, advanced, or unresectable HCC. Patients who underwent initial TACE were excluded. Conference abstracts and other forms of summary publication were also excluded. In the case of multiple studies apparently based on the same population, only the study with the largest number of participants would be included.
Data collection
References will be managed using Thomson ISI ResearchSoft EndNote X3 software (Thomson Reuters, New York, USA). Two authors (H.-Y.M, Y.-Y.L) independently screened studies identified in literature searches. Discrepancies were arbitrated by a third author (J.-H.Z). Two authors (H.-Y.M, Y.-Y.L) independently extracted data from included studies using a predefined template. A third author (J.-H.Z) checked the extracted data against the original studies. Survival data were taken directly from tables or the text whenever possible; if such data were presented only in graphs, they were extracted by manual interpolation [27]. P values associated with inter-group differences in progression-free survival, disease-free survival, or overall survival were extracted directly from survival curves or text wherever possible.
Assessment of methodological quality in included studies
For randomized trials, two review authors (H.-Y.M, and Y.-Y.L) independently assessed methodological quality in included studies by considering the following characteristics using the Jadad scale [28]:
- Was the study described as randomized?
- Was the method of randomization described and appropriate?
- Was the study described as double blind?
- Was the method of double blinding described and appropriate?
- Were withdrawals and dropouts described?
For observational and non-randomized trials, two review authors (H.-Y.M, and Y.-Y.L) independently assessed methodological quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale [29]. Included case control studies will be assessed by considering the following characteristics:
- Selection of study groups: is the case definition adequate? Are the cases representative? From where are controls selected? Are controls adequately defined?
- Comparability of groups: are cases and controls comparable on the basis of the design or analysis? Ascertainment of exposure/outcome: how is the exposure ascertained? Is the same method of ascertainment of exposure used for cases and controls? Is the non-response rate the same for cases and controls?
Included cohort studies were assessed by considering the following characteristics:
- Selection: is the exposed cohort representative of the general population? Is the non-exposed cohort drawn from the same community as the exposed cohort? How is the exposure ascertained? Is it demonstrated that the outcome of interest was not present at the start of the study?
- Comparability: are the cohorts comparable on the basis of the design or analysis?
- Outcome: how is the outcome assessed? Was the follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur? Was the follow-up of cohorts adequate?
Disagreements between the review authors (H.-Y.M, and Y.-Y.L) over the risk of bias in particular studies would be resolved by discussion, with involvement of a third review author (J.-H.Z) where necessary.
Data synthesis and analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan, version 5.3, the Nordic Cochrane Centre, the Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen). Pooled risk ratios (RRs) using the Mantel-Haenszel method were calculated for dichotomous data. The Cochrane's Q-statistic and I2 index were used to assess statistical heterogeneity in the meta-analysis. For heterogeneous data, a random-effects model was used; otherwise, a fixed-effects model was employed. Publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of Begg’s funnel plots. Sensitivity analyses excluding cohort studies and choice of random- or fixed-effect meta-analysis model were performed. To assess attrition bias, we calculated recurrence and mortality using a ‘worst-case’ approach in which patients with missing data were counted as treatment failures (recurrence or death). For patients with missing data, we 'carried forward' data from the most recent measurement. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
Study selection
A total of 545 potentially eligible studies were identified and reviewed. According to inclusion criteria, 232 studies remained after removing the duplicates. Screening the titles and abstracts led to a final set of 20 studies that were read in full [22–25,30–45]. Of these, six studies [30–35] were excluded because they contained subsets of patients already contained in other larger studies. Three studies investigating AIT for patients with advanced HCC were excluded [36–38], and another study investigating a different type of postoperative immunotherapy was excluded [39]. Two studies including patients who underwent transarterial chemoembolization were also excluded [24,45]. In the end, 7 RCTs [22,23,40–44] and one cohort studies [25] involving 949 AIT-treated and 912 untreated patients were included in the meta-analysis (Fig 1, Table 1).
Studies characteristics
All studies came from Asia. One trial [40] contained two AIT-treated arms, one treated with 3 cycles and the other with 6 cycles. Data from the two arms were combined. Patients in one trial also undergoing postoperative transarterial adriamycin chemotherapy [41], and patients in another also receiving postoperative transarterial chemoembolization [43]. Of all patients in the trial by Zhou et al. [44], only those who underwent resection alone or resection followed by adjuvant AIT were included in the present meta-analysis; this trial reported recurrence data out to 1 year only [44]. In the trial by Lee and coworkers, most patients underwent hepatic resection, while some of them underwent radiofrequency ablation or percutaneous ethanol injection (Table 1).
Efficacy
Meta-analysis of 7 studies [22,23,25,40–43] suggested that adjuvant AIT was associated with significantly lower mortality than curative therapies alone at 1 year (Fig 2), 2 years, 3 years, and 5 years (all P < 0.05; Table 2). Similar results were obtained using a random- or fixed-effects meta-analysis model. Sensitivity analysis using data from only the 6 RCTs supported a benefit of adjuvant AIT for mortality at 1 year (RR 0.39, 95%CI 0.21–0.72) and 2 years (RR 0.51, 95%CI 0.34–0.76), 3 years (RR 0.71, 95%CI 0.55–0.92), but not at 5 years (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.83–1.19).
Meta-analysis of all 8 studies [22,23,25,40–44] suggested that adjuvant AIT was associated with significantly lower recurrence rate than curative therapies alone at 1 year (Fig 3), 2 years, 3 years, and 5 years (Table 2). Similar results were obtained using a random- or fixed-effects meta-analysis model. In addition, intermediate statistically significance was observed in 1 and 2 years. After excluding the non-randomized study [25], results confirmed the recurrence benefit of adjuvant AIT at 1 year (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.43–0.74), 2 years (RR 0.63, 95%CI 0.52–0.76) and 3 years (RR 0.81, 95%CI 0.71–0.93) (all P < 0.05). However, adjuvant AIT did not significantly reduce 5-year recurrence rate in this sensitivity analysis (RR 0.92, 95%CI 0.83–1.02). In addition, no statistically significance was observed after excluding the non-randomized study in any of the meta-analyses.
Safety
No hospital deaths or serious adverse events attributed to adjuvant AIT was reported in the 8 studies. The most frequent adverse events were grade 1 fever (defined as persistent or transient temperature of 37.5–39.3°C) and chills. In patients experiencing fever, the condition was easily controlled with symptomatic therapies. Rare adverse events included nausea, headache, fatigue, myalgia, dizziness, itching, and tachycardia. All adverse events were grade 1 or 2 and self-limiting.
Risk of bias of included studies
The Jadad Scale [28] was used to assess risk of bias for randomized trials (Table 3). Four RCTs [22,23,40,42] had a high methodological quality score (≥3) and three RCTs [41,43,44] had a low methodological quality score (≤2). Owing to the difficulties in blinding the intervention, none of the RCTs were able to score the maximum of five points; therefore a score of three, which is classified as high methodological quality, was the maximum score possible. Risk of bias of the non-randomized study was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa scale [29]. This study was judged to have low risk of bias [25].
Discussion
This timely meta-analysis found adjuvant AIT was safe for patients with primary HCC after curative hepatic resection, radiofrequency ablation, or percutaneous ethanol injection. Moreover, in contrast to those previous systematic reviews [20,21], our data found adjuvant AIT significantly reduced the rate of mortality and tumor recurrence for such patients. Our results were confirmed by other meta-analysis that AIT was a feasible adjuvant treatment for the improvement of the clinical outcomes for HCC patients after minimally invasive treatment [46].
Even after curative treatment, HCC is associated with a high recurrence rate. Moreover, recurrence is the primary cause of death of all patients with HCC. Previous meta-analysis found adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization shows promise for reducing recurrence and mortality for HCC patients with high risk of recurrence [47]. In addition, postoperative antiviral therapy with nucleoside/nucleotide analogues can be safe and effective treatment for patients with hepatitis B virus-related HCC [48,49]. However, some HCC patients are unfit for adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization or postoperative antiviral therapy after surgery. For these patients, and for those with low immune function, which is associated with HCC recurrence [50], adjuvant AIT may prevent tumor relapse. Adjuvant AIT involves transferring immune effectors into the cancer patient in the hopes of stimulating specific anti-tumor immune responses [51]. Such stimulation may counterbalance the strongly immunosuppressive microenvironment in the liver [52].
The discrepancy between our findings and those of previous systematic reviews likely reflects the more than two decades spanned by the literature, with the first randomized trial on adjuvant AIT for HCC after surgery published in 1995 [41,44] and the most recent in 2016 [23], combined with rapid scientific and technological advances in AIT [53,54]. In addition, no international guidelines or standards exist regarding route of AIT administration, dosing, or cycles. As a result, clinicians can vary substantially in what immune effector cells they use for AIT and what dosing/cycling protocols they follow. Indeed, in this timely meta-analysis, AIT was based on three types of immunological effector cells: anti-CD3–activated peripheral blood lymphocytes, cytokine-induced killer cells, and lymphokine-activated killer cells. AIT was administered via injection into the intrahepatic artery [43,44] or via intravenous infusion [22,23,25,42]. The number of cycles varied from one [43] to 16 [22]. Such heterogeneity highlights the importance of evidence updates like the present one, and the need for systematic assessment and optimization of AIT protocols, perhaps even tailored to HCC type or treatment history.
Our meta-analysis of two randomized data [40,42] suggests that adjuvant AIT did not significantly reduce mortality and recurrence rate at 5 years. This may mean that AIT-mediated immune boosting can eliminate small intrahepatic metastases, but it does not prevent multicentric relapse in remnant liver. This hypothesis is consistent with the findings of one study [23] that the ability of adjuvant AIT to prevent tumor recurrence was more obvious in the short term and less so in the long term, and that its ability to prolong time to recurrence was greater in patients with tumors >5 cm, moderately or poorly differentiated tumors, or preoperative α-fetoprotein levels ≥25 ng/mL. Adjuvant AIT may have no effect on liver cirrhosis of remnant liver, which is the main risk factor of postoperative recurrence of de novo HCC [55,56]. The effects of adjuvant AIT on HCC recurrence in the short and long term should be investigated in greater detail.
Our timely meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of adjuvant AIT for patients with primary HCC after curative therapies rests on four randomized trials with a low risk of bias and other studies with a high risk bias and is dominated by Asian populations. Similar results may not be observed in Western populations. Second, type of cytokines, number of infusion cycles, and duration of maintenance AIT therapy varied among the included studies, creating substantial heterogeneity for which we could not control using sensitivity analyses. In addition, length of follow-up varied across the studies and in some cases was too short to observe long-term efficacy of adjuvant AIT. As a result, meta-analysis of outcomes at 3 and 5 years had to be conducted on subsets of all included studies. Some studies did not clearly report procedures for randomization or allocation concealment, increasing the risk of selection or reporting bias. The findings must be interpreted with caution.
Conclusion
Our timely meta-analysis provides an updated picture of the evidence based on adjuvant AIT: AIT is safe and effective in reducing mortality and tumor recurrence for patients with HCC after curative therapies. Regarding future research, a randomized trial with adequate follow-up is highly desirable. In addition, this study should aim to expand the range of relevant endpoints examined, such as quality of life, duration of hospital stay, and cost-effectiveness. And last but not least, this study should also examine the possible clinical benefits of multi-modal immune therapies.
Author Contributions
- Conceptualization: J-HZ.
- Data curation: H-YM Y-YL.
- Formal analysis: H-YM Y-YL.
- Funding acquisition: J-HZ.
- Investigation: J-HZ X-MY AC B-HY R-HL L-QL.
- Methodology: X-MY AC.
- Project administration: B-HY J-HZ AC.
- Resources: J-HZ.
- Software: B-HY R-HL.
- Supervision: B-HY J-HZ AC.
- Validation: J-HZ.
- Visualization: B-HY J-HZ AC.
- Writing – original draft: H-YM Y-YL.
- Writing – review & editing: H-YM Y-YL J-HZ.
References
- 1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2017) Cancer Statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin 67: 7–30. pmid:28055103
- 2. Zhong JH, Peng NF, You XM, Ma L, Xiang X, Wang YY, et al. (2017) Tumor stage and primary treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma at a large tertiary hospital in China: A real-world study. Oncotarget: [Epub ahead of print].
- 3. European Association For The Study Of The Liver; European Organisation For Research And Treatment Of Cancer (2012) EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Cancer 48: 599–641. pmid:22424278
- 4. Lim KC, Chow PK, Allen JC, Siddiqui FJ, Chan ES, Tan SB. (2012) Systematic review of outcomes of liver resection for early hepatocellular carcinoma within the Milan criteria. Br J Surg 99: 1622–1629. pmid:23023956
- 5. Guo Z, Zhong JH, Jiang JH, Zhang J, Xiang BD, Li LQ. (2014) Comparison of survival of patients with BCLC stage A hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatic resection or transarterial chemoembolization: a propensity score-based analysis. Ann Surg Oncol 21: 3069–3076. pmid:24728740
- 6. Zhong JH, Ma L, Li LQ (2014) Postoperative therapy options for hepatocellular carcinoma. Scand J Gastroenterol 49: 649–661. pmid:24716523
- 7. Zhong JH, Mo XS, Xiang BD, Yuan WP, Jiang JF, Xie GS, et al. (2013) Postoperative use of the chemopreventive vitamin K2 analog in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. PLoS One 8: e58082. pmid:23505456
- 8. Miao RY, Zhao HT, Yang HY, Mao YL, Lu X, Zhao Y, et al. (2010) Postoperative adjuvant antiviral therapy for hepatitis B/C virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 16: 2931–2942. pmid:20556841
- 9. Shen YC, Hsu C, Chen LT, Cheng CC, Hu FC, Cheng AL. (2010) Adjuvant interferon therapy after curative therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): a meta-regression approach. J Hepatol 52: 889–894. pmid:20395009
- 10. Zhong JH, Li H, Li LQ, You XM, Zhang Y, Zhao YN, et al. (2012) Adjuvant therapy options following curative treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review of randomized trials. Eur J Surg Oncol 38: 286–295. pmid:22281155
- 11. Zhu GQ, Shi KQ, Yu HJ, He SY, Braddock M, Zhou MT, et al. (2015) Optimal adjuvant therapy for resected hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review with network meta-analysis. Oncotarget 6: 18151–18161. pmid:26061709
- 12. Samuel M, Chow PK, Chan Shih-Yen E, Machin D, Soo KC (2009) Neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy for surgical resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: CD001199. pmid:19160192
- 13. Mathurin P, Raynard B, Dharancy S, Kirzin S, Fallik D, Pruvot FR, et al. (2003) Meta-analysis: evaluation of adjuvant therapy after curative liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 17: 1247–1261. pmid:12755838
- 14. Omata M, Lesmana LA, Tateishi R, Chen PJ, Lin SM, Yoshida H, et al. (2010) Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver consensus recommendations on hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Int 4: 439–474. pmid:20827404
- 15. Xie ZB, Zhu SL, Peng YC, Chen J, Wang XB, Ma L, et al. (2015) Postoperative hepatitis B virus reactivation and surgery-induced immunosuppression in patients with hepatitis B-related hepatocellular carcinoma. J Surg Oncol 112: 634–642. pmid:26421419
- 16. He X, Qu F, Zhou F, Zhou X, Chen Y, Guo X, et al. (2016) High leukocyte mtDNA content contributes to poor prognosis through ROS-mediated immunosuppression in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Oncotarget 7: 22834–22845. pmid:26985767
- 17. Li X, Yao W, Yuan Y, Chen P, Li B, Li J, et al. (2017) Targeting of tumour-infiltrating macrophages via CCL2/CCR2 signalling as a therapeutic strategy against hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut 66: 157–167. pmid:26452628
- 18. Lee DH, Nam JY, Chang Y, Cho H, Kang SH, Cho YY, et al. (2017) Synergistic effect of cytokine-induced killer cell with valproate inhibits growth of hepatocellular carcinoma cell in a mouse model. Cancer Biol Ther 18:67–75. pmid:28055304
- 19. Chen CL, Pan QZ, Zhao JJ, Wang Y, Li YQ, Wang QJ, et al. (2016) PD-L1 expression as a predictive biomarker for cytokine-induced killer cell immunotherapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncoimmunology 5: e1176653. pmid:27622026
- 20. Xie F, Zhang X, Li H, Zheng T, Xu F, Shen R, et al. (2012) Adoptive immunotherapy in postoperative hepatocellular carcinoma: a systemic review. PLoS One 7: e42879. pmid:22916174
- 21. Zhong JH, Ma L, Wu LC, Zhao W, Yuan WP, Wu FX, et al. (2012) Adoptive immunotherapy for postoperative hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review. Int J Clin Pract 66: 21–27. pmid:22171902
- 22. Lee JH, Lim YS, Yeon JE, Song TJ, Yu SJ, Gwak GY, et al. (2015) Adjuvant immunotherapy with autologous cytokine-induced killer cells for hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 148: 1383–1391 e1386. pmid:25747273
- 23. Xu L, Wang J, Kim Y, Shuang ZY, Zhang YJ, Lao XM, et al. (2016) A randomized controlled trial on patients with or without adjuvant autologous cytokine-induced killer cells after curative resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncoimmunology 5: e1083671. pmid:27141337
- 24. Huang ZM, Li W, Li S, Gao F, Zhou QM, Wu FM, et al. (2013) Cytokine-induced killer cells in combination with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization and radiofrequency ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma patients. J Immunother 36: 287–293. pmid:23719239
- 25. Pan QZ, Wang QJ, Dan JQ, Pan K, Li YQ, Zhang YJ, et al. (2015) A nomogram for predicting the benefit of adjuvant cytokine-induced killer cell immunotherapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Sci Rep 5: 9202. pmid:25776856
- 26. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Loannidis JP, et al. (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6: e1000100. pmid:19621070
- 27. Zhong JH, Rodriguez AC, Ke Y, Wang YY, Wang L, Li LQ. (2015) Hepatic resection as a safe and effective treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma involving a single large tumor, multiple tumors, or macrovascular invasion. Medicine (Baltimore) 94: e396.
- 28. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17: 1–12. pmid:8721797
- 29.
Wells GA, Shea B, Connell DO, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastlee Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non-randomized studies in meta-analysis. Ottawa Health Research Institute. Available from: URL: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp [Accessed 27 December 2016].
- 30. Chen JL, Lao XM, Lin XJ, Xu L, Cui BK, Wang J, et al. (2016) Adjuvant Cytokine-Induced Killer Cell Therapy Improves Disease-Free and Overall Survival in Solitary and Nonmicrovascular Invasive Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Curative Resection. Medicine (Baltimore) 95: e2665.
- 31. Pan CC, Huang ZL, Li W, Zhao M, Zhou QM, Xia JC, et al. (2010) Serum alpha-fetoprotein measurement in predicting clinical outcome related to autologous cytokine-induced killer cells in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergone minimally invasive therapy. Chin J Cancer 29: 596–602. pmid:20507732
- 32. Pan K, Li YQ, Wang W, Xu L, Zhang YJ, Zheng HX, et al. (2013) The efficacy of cytokine-induced killer cell infusion as an adjuvant therapy for postoperative hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Ann Surg Oncol 20: 4305–4311. pmid:23892527
- 33. Takayama T, Makuuchi M (2002) Prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence: actuality and perspectives. Hepatogastroenterology 49: 87–90. pmid:11941990
- 34. Uchino J, Une Y, Kawata A, Wakisaka Y, Hosokawa M (1993) Postoperative chemoimmunotherapy for the treatment of liver cancer. Semin Surg Oncol 9: 332–336. pmid:8210915
- 35. Zhou QM, Wu PH, Zhao M, Wang QJ, Huang LX, Li YQ, et al. (2006) [Short-term curative efficacy of cytokine-induced killer cells combined micro-invasive treatments on hepatocellular carcinoma]. Ai Zheng 25: 1414–1418. pmid:17094912
- 36. Guo W, Liu L, Wu D (2014) [Dendritic cell-cytokine induced killer cell immunotherapy combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: safety and efficacy]. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao 34: 674–678. pmid:24849434
- 37. Hao MZ, Lin HL, Chen Q, Ye YB, Chen QZ, Chen MS. (2010) Efficacy of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization combined with cytokine-induced killer cell therapy on hepatocellular carcinoma: a comparative study. Chin J Cancer 29: 172–177. pmid:20109346
- 38. Yu X, Zhao H, Liu L, Cao S, Ren B, Zhang N, et al. (2014) A randomized phase II study of autologous cytokine-induced killer cells in treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Immunol 34: 194–203. pmid:24337625
- 39. Peng B, Liang L, Chen Z, He Q, Kuang M, Zhou F, et al. (2006) Autologous tumor vaccine lowering postsurgical recurrent rate of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatogastroenterology 53: 409–414. pmid:16795983
- 40. Hui D, Qiang L, Jian W, Ti Z, Da-Lu K (2009) A randomized, controlled trial of postoperative adjuvant cytokine-induced killer cells immunotherapy after radical resection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Dig Liver Dis 41: 36–41. pmid:18818130
- 41. Kawata A, Une Y, Hosokawa M, Wakizaka Y, Namieno T, Uchino J, et al. (1995) Adjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Adriamycin, interleukin-2, and lymphokine-activated killer cells versus adriamycin alone. Am J Clin Oncol 18: 257–262. pmid:7747715
- 42. Takayama T, Sekine T, Makuuchi M, Yamasaki S, Kosuge T, Yamamoto J, et al. (2000) Adoptive immunotherapy to lower postsurgical recurrence rates of hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised trial. Lancet 356: 802–807. pmid:11022927
- 43. Xie L, Pang R, Jin Y, Xiang S, Li H (2000) [Effects of hepatic artery chemotherapeutic embolization combined with perfusing LAK cells into hepatic artery after radical operation of liver cancer]. Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi 8: 142–143. pmid:10880159
- 44. Zhou WP, Wu MC, Chen H, Yao XP, Qiang GX. (1995) [The effects of combined hepatectomy and immuno-chemotherapy on postoperative recurrence rate of primary liver cancer]. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 33: 35–37. pmid:7774443
- 45. Weng DS, Zhou J, Zhou QM, Zhao M, Wang QJ, Huang LX, et al. (2008) Minimally invasive treatment combined with cytokine-induced killer cells therapy lower the short-term recurrence rates of hepatocellular carcinomas. J Immunother 31: 63–71. pmid:18157013
- 46. Ding M, Wang Y, Chi J, Wang T, Tang X, Cui D, et al. (2016) Is Adjuvant Cellular Immunotherapy Essential after TACE-Predominant Minimally-Invasive Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma? A Systematic Meta-Analysis of Studies Including 1774 Patients. PLoS One 11: e0168798. pmid:28006010
- 47. Zhong JH, Li LQ (2010) Postoperative adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization for participants with hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis. Hepatol Res 40: 943–953. pmid:20887328
- 48. Huang G, Lau WY, Wang ZG, Pan ZY, Yuan SX, Shen F, et al. (2015) Antiviral therapy improves postoperative survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 261: 56–66. pmid:25072444
- 49. Ke Y, Ma L, You XM, Huang SX, Liang YR, Xiang BD, et al. (2013) Antiviral therapy for hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma after radical hepatectomy. Cancer Biol Med 10: 158–164. pmid:24379991
- 50. Cheng JW, Shi YH, Fan J, Huang XW, Qiu SJ, Xiao YS, et al. (2011) An immune function assay predicts post-transplant recurrence in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 137: 1445–1453. pmid:21809031
- 51. Morse MA, Clay TM, Lyerly HK (2002) Current status of adoptive immunotherapy of malignancies. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2: 237–247. pmid:11890864
- 52. Tagliamonte M, Petrizzo A, Tornesello ML, Ciliberto G, Buonaguro FM, Buonaguro L. (2016) Combinatorial immunotherapy strategies for hepatocellular carcinoma. Curr Opin Immunol 39: 103–113. pmid:26851637
- 53. Prieto J, Melero I, Sangro B (2015) Immunological landscape and immunotherapy of hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 12: 681–700. pmid:26484443
- 54. Harding JJ, El Dika I, Abou-Alfa GK (2016) Immunotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma: Primed to make a difference? Cancer 122: 367–377. pmid:26540029
- 55. Sasaki K, Shindoh J, Margonis GA, Nishioka Y, Andreatos N, Sekine A, et al. (2017) Effect of Background Liver Cirrhosis on Outcomes of Hepatectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. JAMA Surg: e165059. pmid:28052155
- 56. Yuan BH, Li RH, Yuan WP, Yang T, Tong TJ, Peng NF, et al. (2017) Harms and benefits of adoptive immunotherapy for postoperative hepatocellular carcinoma: an updated review. Oncotarget. .