Association between antibiotic exposure and survival outcomes in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PeerJOct 28, 2026 (epub)
Clinical ResearchOncology (Medical)GastroenterologyOpen access

Shuaihang Chen, Shanshan Chen, Yuanqiang Li et al.

✦ AI-curated · Sources linked

In 30 seconds

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined whether antibiotic exposure was associated with survival outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. It included 12 retrospective cohort studies involving 3,643 patients, of whom 761 received antibiotics. Antibiotic exposure was associated with poorer overall survival (OS; HR = 1.29, 95% CI [1.17-1.41]); the association with poorer progression-free survival (PFS) was less robust in sensitivity analyses. Objective response and disease control rates did not differ significantly between exposure groups.

Key findings

  • Antibiotic-exposed patients had shorter median OS than unexposed patients (12.2 months vs 17.0 months); pooled HR = 1.29, 95% CI [1.17-1.41].
  • Median PFS was 5.2 months with antibiotic exposure and 7.5 months without; pooled HR = 1.27, 95% CI [1.01-1.59], but sensitivity analyses did not confirm robustness.
  • No significant differences between groups were found for objective response rate or disease control rate.

Why it matters

The findings identify antibiotic exposure as a marker associated with poorer OS among patients receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors for HCC. This may be relevant when interpreting outcomes in this population, while the retrospective evidence cannot establish that antibiotics themselves cause worse survival. The less robust PFS association and absence of response-rate differences further warrant cautious interpretation.

What to keep in mind

All 12 included studies were retrospective cohorts, so confounding may explain some of the observed associations. The PFS finding was not robust in sensitivity analyses.

Source

Published in PeerJ. This summary was written by xxcode from the publication's abstract and metadata. It is not peer reviewed and is not a substitute for the original article. For clinical decisions, review the original publication.

ShareTelegramLinkedIn

AI-generated summaries may contain errors or omissions. Verify clinically important information with the original publication.

More in Oncology (Medical)

Want this personalized?

Stop searching the literature. Choose what you follow and xxcode will build your personalized medical digest.

  • Your specialties
  • Your filters and thresholds
  • Clinical Research + Case Reports, tuned separately
  • Automatic weekly delivery
  • Audio and text

Prefer listening? Personalized audio digests are available with Pro.

Stay updated for free

Get the 3 most interesting publications in one specialty each week.

Weekly email. Unsubscribe anytime.