Importance: Tenofovir disoproxil and entecavir are both commonly used first-line antiviral treatments, but their comparative recurrence and overall survival (OS) benefits remain unclear.
Objective: To explore differences of tenofovir disoproxil vs entecavir in recurrence-free survival (RFS) and OS after liver resection with curative intent in patients with hepatocellular cancer (HCC) related to hepatitis B virus (HBV).
Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, a tertiary referral hospital in Shanghai, China, between January 4, 2015, and April 1, 2023. Participants included patients with HBV-related HCC who underwent liver resection with curative intent from January 2015 to December 2018. Patients who received tenofovir disoproxil were matched with patients who received entecavir in a 1:1 ratio using propensity score matching. Data were analyzed from April 3 to May 31, 2023.
Exposures: Receiving tenofovir disoproxil or entecavir as antiviral treatment for HBV.
Main outcomes and measures: Primary end points were RFS and OS rates.
Results: Among 4451 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.1 [10.0] years; 3764 male [84.6%]; median [range] follow-up, of 51 [3 to 91] months), 989 patients in each of the groups were selected in propensity score matching. Baseline characteristics were comparable. In propensity score-matched groups, OS rates were 92.2% at 1 year, 70.9% at 3 years, and 54.2% at 5 years in the entecavir group, compared with 90.9% at 1 year, 75.2% at 3 years, and 64.0% at 5 years in the tenofovir disoproxil group. RFS rates were 83.9% at 1 year, 50.0% at 3 years, and 43.3% at 5 years in the entecavir group, compared with 85.3% at 1 year, 55.6% at 3 years, and 51.4% at 5 years in the tenofovir disoproxil group. Patients in the tenofovir disoproxil group had better OS (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.94; P = .004) and RFS rates (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.92; P = .001) compared with the entecavir group. Restricted mean survival time differences of entecavir vs tenofovir disoproxil groups were -0.05 (95% CI, -0.18 to 0.08) months at 1 year (P = .45), 0.20 (95% CI, -0.62 to 1.03) months at 3 years (P = .63), and 1.82 (95% CI, 0.14 to 3.51) months at 5 years (P = .03).
Conclusions and relevance: These findings suggest that in patients undergoing curative liver resection for HBV-related HCC, tenofovir disoproxil was associated with better long-term OS and RFS rates compared with entecavir, providing insights for antiviral treatment.