Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine ›› 2026, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (4): 951-960.DOI: 10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.2026.04.015
• Original Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles
Effect of Jinlong capsule (金龙胶囊) on the survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching study
SHI Ke, ZHANG Yi, SUN lina, WANG Xianbo(
), FENG Ying()
Center of integrative medicine ,Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University Beijing 10015, China
-
Received:2025-02-12Accepted:2025-07-24Online:2026-08-15Published:2026-08-08 -
Contact:WANG Xianbo, FENG Ying, Center of integrative medicine, Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 10015, China. wangxb@ccmu.edu.cn;fengying@ccmu.edu.cn,Telephone: +86-13011001598, +86-18610551462
-
Supported by:Capital's Funds for Health Mprovement and Research: a Study on the Therapeutic Effect of Shugan Jianpi Huoxue Prescription on High Risk Population of Liver Cancer with Liver Cirrhosis in Compensatory Period and the Key Technology of Early Warning of Liver Cancer(2024-1-2173);Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation: a Study on the Mechanism of Fuzheng Jiedu Xiaoji Formula Inhibiting Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription 3 Pathway to Improve the Efficacy of Dual-target Chimeric Cntigen Receptor T-cell Based on Hepatocellular Carcinoma Organoids(7232272);National Natural Science Foundation of China: a Study on the Jiedu Liangxue Jianpi Decoction Inhibits Acute Liver Failure by Targeting Neutrophil Extracellular Traps Formation Induced by Wilms' Tumor 1-associating Protein/N6-methyladenosine-ras Homolog Family Member A/Macrophage-1 Antigen Axis(82474419);a Study on the Effect of Fuzheng Jidu Xiaoji Prescription on Regulating Pyruvate Kinase M2 Lactate Modification to Enhance the Efficacy of Chimeric Cntigen Receptor T-cell Cells Based on Hepatocellular Carcinoma Organoid Symbiosis System(82474426);Beijing High-level Innovation and Entrepreneurship Talent Support Programein-young Backbone Talent Projects: Evaluation of the Huoxue Jianpi Formula for Preventing Carcinogenesis in Hepatitis B-related Cirrhosis and the Establishment of an Early Warning System(G202532309)
Cite this article
SHI Ke, ZHANG Yi, SUN lina, WANG Xianbo, FENG Ying. Effect of Jinlong capsule (金龙胶囊) on the survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching study[J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2026, 46(4): 951-960.
share this article
Figure 1 Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma selection process for the study HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; TCM: Traditional Chinese Medicine.
Figure 1 Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma selection process for the study HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; TCM: Traditional Chinese Medicine.
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of patients with HCC before and after propensity matching
| Variable | Before propensity matching | After propensity matching | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jinlong group (n = 144) | Control group (n = 655) | P value | Jinlong group (n = 140) | Control group (n = 280) | P value | ||
| Age (years) [median (IQR)] | 55.0 (48.7, 63.0) | 58.0 (51.0, 64.0) | 0.015 | 55.0 (49.0, 63.0) | 58.0 (51.0, 64.0) | 0.078 | |
| Sex (male) [n (%)] | 118 (81.9) | 501 (76.5) | 0.124 | 115 (82.1) | 213 (76.0) | 0.156 | |
| Family history of HCC [n (%)] | 18 (12.5) | 52 (7.9) | 0.080 | 17 (12.1) | 28 (10.0) | 0.503 | |
| Alcohol consumption [n (%)] | 59 (41.0) | 273 (41.7) | 0.876 | 59 (42.1) | 114 (40.7) | 0.888 | |
| Cirrhosis [n (%)] | 124 (86.1) | 578 (88.2) | 0.478 | 118 (84.2) | 244 (87.1) | 0.424 | |
| Diabetes [n (%)] | 28 (19.4) | 147 (22.4) | 0.431 | 26 (18.6) | 64 (22.8) | 0.313 | |
| Hypertension [n (%)] | 35 (24.3) | 171 (26.1) | 0.655 | 35 (25.0) | 69 (24.6) | 0.516 | |
| Etiology [n (%)] | 0.198 | 0.202 | |||||
| HBV | 109 (75.6) | 447 (68.2) | 106 (75.7) | 191 (68.2) | |||
| Alcoholic liver | 18 (12.5) | 99 (15.1) | 18 (12.9) | 35 (12.5) | |||
| Other | 17 (11.8) | 109 (16.6) | 16 (11.4) | 54 (19.2) | |||
| Child-pugh score [median (IQR)] | 7.0 (6.0, 9.0) | 9.0 (7.0, 10.0) | 0.001 | 7.0 (6.0, 9.0) | 7.0 (6.0, 9.0) | 0.371 | |
| ALT (U/L) [median (IQR)] | 28.4 (19.3, 50.5) | 39.2 (24.4, 66.7) | 0.034 | 28.4 (19.3, 50.5) | 30.4 (20.0, 46.2) | 0.086 | |
| AST (U/L) [median (IQR)] | 35.3 (26.1, 61.1) | 60.6 (33.6, 132.7) | 0.003 | 35.3 (25.4, 61.1) | 37.1 (25.2, 64.8) | 0.891 | |
| TBIL (μmol/L) [median (IQR)] | 19.2 (12.5, 29.8) | 29.5 (16.2, 57.7) | 0.001 | 19.6 (12.6, 29.8) | 20.2 (12.4, 32.8) | 0.656 | |
| ALB (g/L) [median (IQR)] | 38.7 (30.5, 41.9) | 32.9 (28.5, 37.9) | <0.001 | 38.6 (30.4, 41.9) | 35.0 (30.8, 40.3) | 0.097 | |
| NLR [median (IQR)] | 2.0 (1.5, 3.4) | 3.5 (2.0, 6.1) | <0.001 | 2.0 (1.5, 3.3) | 2.5 (1.5, 3.7) | 0.117 | |
| Platelet (×109/L) [median (IQR)] | 95.0 (59.0, 144.4) | 103.2 (68.2, 155.6) | 0.041 | 94.4 (56.7, 142.3) | 97.0 (67.0, 138.0) | 0.406 | |
| Cr (μmol/L) [median (IQR)] | 69.0 (59.5, 78.0) | 67.8 (57.1, 84.0) | 0.294 | 69.0 (59.5, 79.6) | 67.0 (56.9, 78.7) | 0.071 | |
| INR [median (IQR)] | 1.1 (1.0, 1.3) | 1.2 (1.1, 1.4) | <0.001 | 1.1 (1.0, 1.3) | 1.1 (1.0, 1.3) | 0.183 | |
| AFP (≥400 ng/mL) [n (%)] | 36 (25.0) | 227 (34.7) | 0.026 | 36 (25.7) | 72 (25.7) | 0.437 | |
| BCLC stage [n (%)] | <0.001 | 0.561 | |||||
| 0-A | 81 (56.3) | 194 (29.6) | 79 (56.4) | 164 (58.6) | |||
| B | 28 (19.4) | 151 (23.1) | 27 (19.3) | 44 (15.7) | |||
| C | 22 (15.3) | 162 (24.7) | 21 (15.0) | 46 (16.4) | |||
| D | 13 (9.0) | 148 (22.6) | 13 (9.3) | 26 (9.3) | |||
| Tumor multiplicity (multiple) [n (%)] | 56 (38.9) | 407 (62.1) | <0.001 | 54 (38.6) | 109 (38.9) | 0.944 | |
| Tumor size (≥5 cm) [n (%)] | 63 (43.8) | 418 (63.8) | <0.001 | 60 (42.9) | 119 (42.5) | 0.945 | |
| Types of treatment [n (%)] | <0.001 | 0.455 | |||||
| Resection | 16 (11.1) | 34 (5.2) | 16 (11.4) | 25 (8.9) | |||
| Minimally invasive | 92 (63.9) | 330 (50.4) | 91 (65.0) | 183 (65.3) | |||
| Palliative | 36 (25.0) | 291 (44.4) | 33 (23.6) | 72 (25.7) | |||
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of patients with HCC before and after propensity matching
| Variable | Before propensity matching | After propensity matching | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jinlong group (n = 144) | Control group (n = 655) | P value | Jinlong group (n = 140) | Control group (n = 280) | P value | ||
| Age (years) [median (IQR)] | 55.0 (48.7, 63.0) | 58.0 (51.0, 64.0) | 0.015 | 55.0 (49.0, 63.0) | 58.0 (51.0, 64.0) | 0.078 | |
| Sex (male) [n (%)] | 118 (81.9) | 501 (76.5) | 0.124 | 115 (82.1) | 213 (76.0) | 0.156 | |
| Family history of HCC [n (%)] | 18 (12.5) | 52 (7.9) | 0.080 | 17 (12.1) | 28 (10.0) | 0.503 | |
| Alcohol consumption [n (%)] | 59 (41.0) | 273 (41.7) | 0.876 | 59 (42.1) | 114 (40.7) | 0.888 | |
| Cirrhosis [n (%)] | 124 (86.1) | 578 (88.2) | 0.478 | 118 (84.2) | 244 (87.1) | 0.424 | |
| Diabetes [n (%)] | 28 (19.4) | 147 (22.4) | 0.431 | 26 (18.6) | 64 (22.8) | 0.313 | |
| Hypertension [n (%)] | 35 (24.3) | 171 (26.1) | 0.655 | 35 (25.0) | 69 (24.6) | 0.516 | |
| Etiology [n (%)] | 0.198 | 0.202 | |||||
| HBV | 109 (75.6) | 447 (68.2) | 106 (75.7) | 191 (68.2) | |||
| Alcoholic liver | 18 (12.5) | 99 (15.1) | 18 (12.9) | 35 (12.5) | |||
| Other | 17 (11.8) | 109 (16.6) | 16 (11.4) | 54 (19.2) | |||
| Child-pugh score [median (IQR)] | 7.0 (6.0, 9.0) | 9.0 (7.0, 10.0) | 0.001 | 7.0 (6.0, 9.0) | 7.0 (6.0, 9.0) | 0.371 | |
| ALT (U/L) [median (IQR)] | 28.4 (19.3, 50.5) | 39.2 (24.4, 66.7) | 0.034 | 28.4 (19.3, 50.5) | 30.4 (20.0, 46.2) | 0.086 | |
| AST (U/L) [median (IQR)] | 35.3 (26.1, 61.1) | 60.6 (33.6, 132.7) | 0.003 | 35.3 (25.4, 61.1) | 37.1 (25.2, 64.8) | 0.891 | |
| TBIL (μmol/L) [median (IQR)] | 19.2 (12.5, 29.8) | 29.5 (16.2, 57.7) | 0.001 | 19.6 (12.6, 29.8) | 20.2 (12.4, 32.8) | 0.656 | |
| ALB (g/L) [median (IQR)] | 38.7 (30.5, 41.9) | 32.9 (28.5, 37.9) | <0.001 | 38.6 (30.4, 41.9) | 35.0 (30.8, 40.3) | 0.097 | |
| NLR [median (IQR)] | 2.0 (1.5, 3.4) | 3.5 (2.0, 6.1) | <0.001 | 2.0 (1.5, 3.3) | 2.5 (1.5, 3.7) | 0.117 | |
| Platelet (×109/L) [median (IQR)] | 95.0 (59.0, 144.4) | 103.2 (68.2, 155.6) | 0.041 | 94.4 (56.7, 142.3) | 97.0 (67.0, 138.0) | 0.406 | |
| Cr (μmol/L) [median (IQR)] | 69.0 (59.5, 78.0) | 67.8 (57.1, 84.0) | 0.294 | 69.0 (59.5, 79.6) | 67.0 (56.9, 78.7) | 0.071 | |
| INR [median (IQR)] | 1.1 (1.0, 1.3) | 1.2 (1.1, 1.4) | <0.001 | 1.1 (1.0, 1.3) | 1.1 (1.0, 1.3) | 0.183 | |
| AFP (≥400 ng/mL) [n (%)] | 36 (25.0) | 227 (34.7) | 0.026 | 36 (25.7) | 72 (25.7) | 0.437 | |
| BCLC stage [n (%)] | <0.001 | 0.561 | |||||
| 0-A | 81 (56.3) | 194 (29.6) | 79 (56.4) | 164 (58.6) | |||
| B | 28 (19.4) | 151 (23.1) | 27 (19.3) | 44 (15.7) | |||
| C | 22 (15.3) | 162 (24.7) | 21 (15.0) | 46 (16.4) | |||
| D | 13 (9.0) | 148 (22.6) | 13 (9.3) | 26 (9.3) | |||
| Tumor multiplicity (multiple) [n (%)] | 56 (38.9) | 407 (62.1) | <0.001 | 54 (38.6) | 109 (38.9) | 0.944 | |
| Tumor size (≥5 cm) [n (%)] | 63 (43.8) | 418 (63.8) | <0.001 | 60 (42.9) | 119 (42.5) | 0.945 | |
| Types of treatment [n (%)] | <0.001 | 0.455 | |||||
| Resection | 16 (11.1) | 34 (5.2) | 16 (11.4) | 25 (8.9) | |||
| Minimally invasive | 92 (63.9) | 330 (50.4) | 91 (65.0) | 183 (65.3) | |||
| Palliative | 36 (25.0) | 291 (44.4) | 33 (23.6) | 72 (25.7) | |||
Table 2 Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis for 3-year overall survival of patients with HCC
| Variable | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | P value | HR (95% CI) | P value | ||
| Jinlong treatment | 0.31 (0.23, 0.42) | <0.001 | 0.34 (0.25, 0.47) | <0.001 | |
| Age (years) | 1.01 (1.00, 1.02) | 0.021 | |||
| Sex (male vs female) | 0.93 (0.75, 1.15) | 0.521 | |||
| Cirrhosis (yes vs no) | 1.51 (1.14, 2.11) | 0.004 | |||
| Hypertension (yes vs no) | 1.06 (0.99, 1.03) | 0.118 | |||
| Diabetes (yes vs no) | 1.18 (0.76, 1.82) | 0.456 | |||
| Child-Pugh score | 1.46 (1.40, 1.53) | <0.001 | 1.23 (1.15, 1.33) | <0.001 | |
| ALT (IU/L) | 1.01 (1.01, 1.02) | <0.001 | |||
| AST (IU/L) | 1.01 (1.01, 1.01) | <0.001 | |||
| TBIL (μmol/L) | 1.03 (1.02, 1.04) | <0.001 | 1.01 (1.00, 1.02) | 0.002 | |
| ALB (g/L) | 0.93 (0.91, 0.94) | <0.001 | |||
| INR | 4.85 (3.96, 5.90) | <0.001 | 1.82 (1.32, 2.50) | <0.001 | |
| PLT (109/L) | 1.02 (1.01, 1.03) | <0.001 | 1.02 (1.01, 1.03) | <0.001 | |
| Cr (µmol/L) | 1.01 (1.01, 1.02) | <0.001 | |||
| NLR | 1.05 (1.03, 1.06) | <0.001 | |||
| AFP (≥ 400 ng/mL vs < 400 ng/mL) | 2.88 (2.41, 3.44) | <0.001 | 1.99 (1.63, 2.42) | <0.001 | |
| BCLC staging (C-D vs 0-B) | 5.64 (4.65, 6.84) | <0.001 | 2.67 (1.42, 3.07) | 0.028 | |
| Tumor multiplicity (multiple vs solitary) | 3.04 (2.49, 3.70) | <0.001 | 1.84 (1.35, 2.52) | 0.015 | |
| Tumor size (≥ 5 cm vs < 5 cm) | 4.22 (3.53, 5.04) | <0.001 | |||
| Type of treatment | |||||
| Palliative | Reference | Reference | |||
| Resection | 0.08 (0.03, 0.12) | 0.003 | 0.16 (0.07, 0.37) | <0.001 | |
| Minimally invasive | 0.16 (0.13, 0.20) | <0.001 | 0.25 (0.17, 0.35) | <0.001 | |
Table 2 Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis for 3-year overall survival of patients with HCC
| Variable | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | P value | HR (95% CI) | P value | ||
| Jinlong treatment | 0.31 (0.23, 0.42) | <0.001 | 0.34 (0.25, 0.47) | <0.001 | |
| Age (years) | 1.01 (1.00, 1.02) | 0.021 | |||
| Sex (male vs female) | 0.93 (0.75, 1.15) | 0.521 | |||
| Cirrhosis (yes vs no) | 1.51 (1.14, 2.11) | 0.004 | |||
| Hypertension (yes vs no) | 1.06 (0.99, 1.03) | 0.118 | |||
| Diabetes (yes vs no) | 1.18 (0.76, 1.82) | 0.456 | |||
| Child-Pugh score | 1.46 (1.40, 1.53) | <0.001 | 1.23 (1.15, 1.33) | <0.001 | |
| ALT (IU/L) | 1.01 (1.01, 1.02) | <0.001 | |||
| AST (IU/L) | 1.01 (1.01, 1.01) | <0.001 | |||
| TBIL (μmol/L) | 1.03 (1.02, 1.04) | <0.001 | 1.01 (1.00, 1.02) | 0.002 | |
| ALB (g/L) | 0.93 (0.91, 0.94) | <0.001 | |||
| INR | 4.85 (3.96, 5.90) | <0.001 | 1.82 (1.32, 2.50) | <0.001 | |
| PLT (109/L) | 1.02 (1.01, 1.03) | <0.001 | 1.02 (1.01, 1.03) | <0.001 | |
| Cr (µmol/L) | 1.01 (1.01, 1.02) | <0.001 | |||
| NLR | 1.05 (1.03, 1.06) | <0.001 | |||
| AFP (≥ 400 ng/mL vs < 400 ng/mL) | 2.88 (2.41, 3.44) | <0.001 | 1.99 (1.63, 2.42) | <0.001 | |
| BCLC staging (C-D vs 0-B) | 5.64 (4.65, 6.84) | <0.001 | 2.67 (1.42, 3.07) | 0.028 | |
| Tumor multiplicity (multiple vs solitary) | 3.04 (2.49, 3.70) | <0.001 | 1.84 (1.35, 2.52) | 0.015 | |
| Tumor size (≥ 5 cm vs < 5 cm) | 4.22 (3.53, 5.04) | <0.001 | |||
| Type of treatment | |||||
| Palliative | Reference | Reference | |||
| Resection | 0.08 (0.03, 0.12) | 0.003 | 0.16 (0.07, 0.37) | <0.001 | |
| Minimally invasive | 0.16 (0.13, 0.20) | <0.001 | 0.25 (0.17, 0.35) | <0.001 | |
Figure 2 Comparison of overall survival rates between Jinlong users and non-users in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma A: analysis before propensity score matching; B: analysis after propensity score matching; C: comparison of overall survival rates for varying durations of Jinlong use before propensity score matching; D: comparison of overall survival rates for varying durations of Jinlong use after propensity score matching. Patients in the Jinlong group received Jinlong capsule (0.25 g per capsule, four capsules three times per day) for at least three months. Patients in the control group received standard-of-care treatments without Jinlong capsule. Treatment duration subgroups: 3-12 months, 12-24 months, and > 24 months. HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; OS: overall survival; PSM: propensity score matching. Data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test. Survival rates are presented as percentages.
Figure 2 Comparison of overall survival rates between Jinlong users and non-users in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma A: analysis before propensity score matching; B: analysis after propensity score matching; C: comparison of overall survival rates for varying durations of Jinlong use before propensity score matching; D: comparison of overall survival rates for varying durations of Jinlong use after propensity score matching. Patients in the Jinlong group received Jinlong capsule (0.25 g per capsule, four capsules three times per day) for at least three months. Patients in the control group received standard-of-care treatments without Jinlong capsule. Treatment duration subgroups: 3-12 months, 12-24 months, and > 24 months. HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; OS: overall survival; PSM: propensity score matching. Data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test. Survival rates are presented as percentages.
Table 3 Mortality risk associated with cumulative Jinlong use in unmatched and matched cohorts.
| Strata | Total (n) | Mortality (n) | Crude HR (95% CI) | P value | Adjusted HR (95% CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unmatched cohort | ||||||
| Non-Jinlong users | 655 | 458 | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| Jinlong users | 144 | 51 | 0.45 (0.36, 0.55) | <0.001 | 0.48 (0.38, 0.60) | <0.001 |
| 3-12 months | 82 | 40 | 0.46 (0.33, 0.63) | <0.001 | 0.44 (0.31, 0.61) | <0.001 |
| 12-24 months | 34 | 8 | 0.19 (0.09, 0.39) | <0.001 | 0.27 (0.13, 0.56) | <0.001 |
| >24 months | 28 | 3 | 0.08 (0.03, 0.26) | <0.001 | 0.12 (0.04, 0.38) | <0.001 |
| Matched cohort | ||||||
| Non-Jinlong users | 280 | 146 | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| Jinlong users | 140 | 48 | 0.60 (0.48, 0.74) | <0.001 | 0.43 (0.32, 0.57) | <0.001 |
| 3-12 months | 79 | 38 | 0.80 (0.56, 1.15) | 0.236 | 0.36 (0.24, 0.54) <0.001 | <0.001 |
| 12-24 months | 33 | 7 | 0.30 (0.14, 0.64) | 0.002 | 0.28 (0.12, 0.65) <0.001 | <0.001 |
| >24 months | 28 | 3 | 0.14 (0.04, 0.44) | 0.001 | 0.09 (0.02, 0.37) | <0.001 |
Table 3 Mortality risk associated with cumulative Jinlong use in unmatched and matched cohorts.
| Strata | Total (n) | Mortality (n) | Crude HR (95% CI) | P value | Adjusted HR (95% CI) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unmatched cohort | ||||||
| Non-Jinlong users | 655 | 458 | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| Jinlong users | 144 | 51 | 0.45 (0.36, 0.55) | <0.001 | 0.48 (0.38, 0.60) | <0.001 |
| 3-12 months | 82 | 40 | 0.46 (0.33, 0.63) | <0.001 | 0.44 (0.31, 0.61) | <0.001 |
| 12-24 months | 34 | 8 | 0.19 (0.09, 0.39) | <0.001 | 0.27 (0.13, 0.56) | <0.001 |
| >24 months | 28 | 3 | 0.08 (0.03, 0.26) | <0.001 | 0.12 (0.04, 0.38) | <0.001 |
| Matched cohort | ||||||
| Non-Jinlong users | 280 | 146 | 1 (Reference) | 1 (Reference) | ||
| Jinlong users | 140 | 48 | 0.60 (0.48, 0.74) | <0.001 | 0.43 (0.32, 0.57) | <0.001 |
| 3-12 months | 79 | 38 | 0.80 (0.56, 1.15) | 0.236 | 0.36 (0.24, 0.54) <0.001 | <0.001 |
| 12-24 months | 33 | 7 | 0.30 (0.14, 0.64) | 0.002 | 0.28 (0.12, 0.65) <0.001 | <0.001 |
| >24 months | 28 | 3 | 0.14 (0.04, 0.44) | 0.001 | 0.09 (0.02, 0.37) | <0.001 |
Figure 3 Stratified analysis of overall survival rates based on tumor characteristics and treatment modalities A: patients with AFP level < 400 ng/mL; B: patients with AFP level ≥ 400 ng/mL; C: patients with tumor size < 5 cm; D: patients with tumor size ≥ 5 cm; E: patients receiving resection; F: patients receiving minimally invasive treatment; G: patients receiving palliative treatment. Patients in the Jinlong group received Jinlong capsule (0.25 g per capsule, four capsules three times per day) for at least three months. Patients in the control group received standard-of-care treatments without Jinlong capsule. AFP: alpha-fetoprotein; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; OS: overall survival. Data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test. Survival rates are presented as percentages.
Figure 3 Stratified analysis of overall survival rates based on tumor characteristics and treatment modalities A: patients with AFP level < 400 ng/mL; B: patients with AFP level ≥ 400 ng/mL; C: patients with tumor size < 5 cm; D: patients with tumor size ≥ 5 cm; E: patients receiving resection; F: patients receiving minimally invasive treatment; G: patients receiving palliative treatment. Patients in the Jinlong group received Jinlong capsule (0.25 g per capsule, four capsules three times per day) for at least three months. Patients in the control group received standard-of-care treatments without Jinlong capsule. AFP: alpha-fetoprotein; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; OS: overall survival. Data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test. Survival rates are presented as percentages.
Figure 4 Stratified survival analyses of patients with HCC based on BCLC stages and Child-Pugh classes A: patients with BCLC stages 0-A; B: patients with BCLC stage B; C: patients with BCLC stages C-D; D: patients with Child-Pugh class A-B; E: patients with Child-Pugh class C. Patients in the Jinlong group received Jinlong capsule (0.25 g per capsule, four capsules three times per day) for at least three months. Patients in the control group received standard-of-care treatments without Jinlong capsule. Data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test. Survival rates are presented as percentages. BCLC: barcelona clinic liver cancer; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; OS: overall survival.
Figure 4 Stratified survival analyses of patients with HCC based on BCLC stages and Child-Pugh classes A: patients with BCLC stages 0-A; B: patients with BCLC stage B; C: patients with BCLC stages C-D; D: patients with Child-Pugh class A-B; E: patients with Child-Pugh class C. Patients in the Jinlong group received Jinlong capsule (0.25 g per capsule, four capsules three times per day) for at least three months. Patients in the control group received standard-of-care treatments without Jinlong capsule. Data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test. Survival rates are presented as percentages. BCLC: barcelona clinic liver cancer; HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma; OS: overall survival.
Table 4 Multivariable stratified analyses of the association between Jinlong Capsule use and clinical outcomes after PSM
| Item | Jinlong users | Non-Jinlong users | HR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mortality/total [n (%)] | Mortality/Total [n (%)] | ||||
| Age (years) | <50 | 12/42 (28.5) | 27/55 (49.0) | 0.48 (0.24, 0.96) | 0.039a |
| ≥50 | 36/98 (36.7) | 119/225 (52.8) | 0.54 (0.37, 0.79) | 0.002a | |
| Gender | Female | 8/25 (32.0) | 36/67 (53.7) | 0.45 (0.21, 0.93) | 0.043a |
| Male | 40/115 (34.7) | 110/213 (51.6) | 0.54 (0.37, 0.78) | <0.001a | |
| Diabetes | Yes | 11/26 (42.3) | 40/64 (62.5) | 0.50 (0.26, 1.03) | 0.059 |
| No | 37/114 (32.4) | 106/216 (49.0) | 0.08 (0.03, 0.26) | <0.001a | |
| Alcohol consumption | Yes | 22/58 (37.9) | 62/114 (54.3) | 0.53 (0.32, 0.88) | 0.011a |
| No | 26/82 (31.7) | 84/166 (50.6) | 0.51 (0.33, 0.79) | 0.003a | |
| ALT (IU/L) | <40 | 34/92 (36.9) | 87/183 (47.5) | 0.65 (0.44, 0.97) | 0.038a |
| ≥40 | 14/48 (29.1) | 59/97 (60.8) | 0.34 (0.19, 0.62) | <0.001a | |
| TBIL (μmol/L) | <20 | 19/75 (25.3) | 42/126 (33.1) | 0.70 (0.41, 1.21) | 0.211 |
| ≥20 | 29/65 (44.6) | 104/154 (67.5) | 0.45 (0.30, 0.68) | <0.001a | |
| ALB (g/L) | <30 | 19/40 (47.5) | 49/61(80.3) | 0.32 (0.19, 0.56) | <0.001a |
| ≥30 | 29/100 (28.9) | 97/219 (44.2) | 0.55 (0.36, 0.83) | 0.005a | |
| NLR | <1.5 | 5/35(2.8) | 15/58 (25.8) | 0.52 (0.18, 1.43) | 0.207 |
| ≥1.5 | 43/105 (40.9) | 130/219 (59.3) | 0.51 (0.36, 0.73) | <0.001a | |
| INR | <1.2 | 27/97 (27.8) | 77/177 (43.5) | 0.54 (0.34, 0.83) | 0.006a |
| ≥1.2 | 21/43 (48.8) | 69/103 (66.9) | 0.51 (0.32, 0.83) | 0.007a | |
| Platelet (109/L) | <100 | 26/74 (35.1) | 68/146 (46.5) | 0.60 (0.38, 0.94) | 0.027a |
| ≥100 | 22/66 (33.3) | 78/134 (58.2) | 0.45 (0.28, 0.72) | 0.001a | |
| Tumor size (cm) | <5 | 5/180 (2.8) | 5/180 (2.8) | 0.46 (0.25, 0.86) | 0.015a |
| ≥5 | 5/180 (2.8) | 5/180 (2.8) | 0.43 (0.29, 0.64) | <0.001a | |
| Tumor multiplicity | Solitary | 21/86 (24.4) | 61/171 (35.6) | 0.60 (0.32, 0.95) | 0.050a |
| Multiple | 27/54 (50.0) | 85/109 (77.9) | 0.38 (0.24, 0.59) | <0.001a | |
Table 4 Multivariable stratified analyses of the association between Jinlong Capsule use and clinical outcomes after PSM
| Item | Jinlong users | Non-Jinlong users | HR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mortality/total [n (%)] | Mortality/Total [n (%)] | ||||
| Age (years) | <50 | 12/42 (28.5) | 27/55 (49.0) | 0.48 (0.24, 0.96) | 0.039a |
| ≥50 | 36/98 (36.7) | 119/225 (52.8) | 0.54 (0.37, 0.79) | 0.002a | |
| Gender | Female | 8/25 (32.0) | 36/67 (53.7) | 0.45 (0.21, 0.93) | 0.043a |
| Male | 40/115 (34.7) | 110/213 (51.6) | 0.54 (0.37, 0.78) | <0.001a | |
| Diabetes | Yes | 11/26 (42.3) | 40/64 (62.5) | 0.50 (0.26, 1.03) | 0.059 |
| No | 37/114 (32.4) | 106/216 (49.0) | 0.08 (0.03, 0.26) | <0.001a | |
| Alcohol consumption | Yes | 22/58 (37.9) | 62/114 (54.3) | 0.53 (0.32, 0.88) | 0.011a |
| No | 26/82 (31.7) | 84/166 (50.6) | 0.51 (0.33, 0.79) | 0.003a | |
| ALT (IU/L) | <40 | 34/92 (36.9) | 87/183 (47.5) | 0.65 (0.44, 0.97) | 0.038a |
| ≥40 | 14/48 (29.1) | 59/97 (60.8) | 0.34 (0.19, 0.62) | <0.001a | |
| TBIL (μmol/L) | <20 | 19/75 (25.3) | 42/126 (33.1) | 0.70 (0.41, 1.21) | 0.211 |
| ≥20 | 29/65 (44.6) | 104/154 (67.5) | 0.45 (0.30, 0.68) | <0.001a | |
| ALB (g/L) | <30 | 19/40 (47.5) | 49/61(80.3) | 0.32 (0.19, 0.56) | <0.001a |
| ≥30 | 29/100 (28.9) | 97/219 (44.2) | 0.55 (0.36, 0.83) | 0.005a | |
| NLR | <1.5 | 5/35(2.8) | 15/58 (25.8) | 0.52 (0.18, 1.43) | 0.207 |
| ≥1.5 | 43/105 (40.9) | 130/219 (59.3) | 0.51 (0.36, 0.73) | <0.001a | |
| INR | <1.2 | 27/97 (27.8) | 77/177 (43.5) | 0.54 (0.34, 0.83) | 0.006a |
| ≥1.2 | 21/43 (48.8) | 69/103 (66.9) | 0.51 (0.32, 0.83) | 0.007a | |
| Platelet (109/L) | <100 | 26/74 (35.1) | 68/146 (46.5) | 0.60 (0.38, 0.94) | 0.027a |
| ≥100 | 22/66 (33.3) | 78/134 (58.2) | 0.45 (0.28, 0.72) | 0.001a | |
| Tumor size (cm) | <5 | 5/180 (2.8) | 5/180 (2.8) | 0.46 (0.25, 0.86) | 0.015a |
| ≥5 | 5/180 (2.8) | 5/180 (2.8) | 0.43 (0.29, 0.64) | <0.001a | |
| Tumor multiplicity | Solitary | 21/86 (24.4) | 61/171 (35.6) | 0.60 (0.32, 0.95) | 0.050a |
| Multiple | 27/54 (50.0) | 85/109 (77.9) | 0.38 (0.24, 0.59) | <0.001a | |
| 1. |
Rumgay H, Arnold M, Ferlay J, et al. Global burden of primary liver cancer in 2020 and predictions to 2040. J Hepatol 2022; 77: 1598-606.
DOI PMID |
| 2. |
Yang J, Hainaut P, Gores G, Amadou A, Plymoth A, Roberts L. A global view of hepatocellular carcinoma: trends, risk, prevention and management. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 16: 589-604.
DOI PMID |
| 3. | Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel R, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71: 209-49. |
| 4. |
Singal A, Kanwal F, Llovet J. Global trends in hepatocellular carcinoma epidemiology: implications for screening, prevention and therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2023; 20: 864-84.
DOI PMID |
| 5. |
Ganesan P, Kulik LM. Hepatocellular carcinoma: new developments. Clin Liver Dis 2023; 27: 85-102.
DOI PMID |
| 6. |
Nevola R, Ruocco R, Criscuolo L, et al. Predictors of early and late hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence. World J Gastroenterol 2023; 29: 1243-60.
DOI URL |
| 7. |
Xu W, Li R, Liu F. Novel prognostic nomograms for predicting early and late recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after curative hepatectomy. Cancer Manag Res 2020; 12: 1693-712.
DOI PMID |
| 8. |
Liu Y, Wu J, Hao H. Antitumor immunostimulatory activity of the Traditional Chinese Medicine polysaccharide on hepatocellular carcinoma. Front Immunol 2024; 15: 1369110.
DOI URL |
| 9. | Li S, Gao Q, Li Y, Zhang Y, Chen X. Efficacy and safety of Yangxiao Fukang granule in the treatment of stage Ⅲ hepatitis B related liver cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. J Tradit Chin Med 2025; 45: 1127-34. |
| 10. |
Zhu L, Li S, Zheng W, Ni W, Cai M, Liu H. Targeted modulation of gut microbiota by Traditional Chinese Medicine and natural products for liver disease therapy. Front Immunol 2023; 14: 1086078.
DOI URL |
| 11. |
Liu X, Li M, Wang X, et al. Effects of adjuvant Traditional Chinese Medicine therapy on long-term survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Phytomedicine 2019; 62: 152930.
DOI URL |
| 12. | Liao Y, Kung P, Wang Y, Chu Y, Kao S, Tsai W. Effects and relative factors of adjunctive Chinese medicine therapy on survival of hepatocellular carcinoma patients: a retrospective cohort study in Taiwan. Integr Cancer Ther 2020; 19: 1534735420915275. |
| 13. |
Tang K, Du S, Wang Q, Zhang Y, Song H. Traditional Chinese Medicine targeting cancer stem cells as an alternative treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Integr Med 2020; 18: 196-202.
DOI URL |
| 14. |
Wu G, Zhang L, Li T, Chen J, Yu G, Li J. Short-term effect of combined therapy with Jinlong capsule and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization on patients with primary hepatic carcinoma and its influence on serum osteopontin expression. Chin J Integr Med 2010; 16: 109-13.
DOI URL |
| 15. |
Shi J, Zhang W, He L, et al. Jinlong capsule inhibits migration and invasion in human glioblastoma cells via the modulation of mTOR/ S6 signaling pathway. Drug Des Devel Ther 2019; 13: 1023-32.
DOI URL |
| 16. |
Li D, Ni T, Tao L, et al. Jinlong Capsule (JLC) inhibits proliferation and induces apoptosis in human gastric cancer cells in vivo and in vitro. Biomed Pharmacother 2018; 107: 738-45.
DOI URL |
| 17. |
Xu H, Wei W, Y M, Dong C. Efficacy and safety of Chinese patent medicine (Jinlong capsule) in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a Meta-analysis. Biosci Rep 2020; 40: BSR20194019.
DOI URL |
| 18. |
Omata M, Cheng A, Kokudo N, et al. Asia-Pacific clinical practice guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: a 2017 update. Hepatol Int 2017; 11: 317-70.
DOI PMID |
| 19. |
Li C, Li F, Ye H, et al. Molecular quantification, a new strategy for quality control of Chinese patent medicine containing animal-derived crude drug: Qishe in Jinlong capsule as an example. J Pharm Biomed Anal 2022; 207: 114428.
DOI URL |
| 20. |
Ruf A, Dirchwolf M, Freeman R. From child-pugh to MELD score and beyond: taking a walk down memory lane. Ann Hepatol 2022; 27: 100535.
DOI URL |
| 21. |
Liang J, Hu Z, Zhan C, Wang Q. Using propensity score matching to balance the baseline characteristics. J Thorac Oncol 2021; 16: e45-6.
DOI PMID |
| 22. |
Kane L, Fang T, Galetta M, et al. Propensity score matching: a statistical method. Clin Spine Surg 2020; 33: 120-2.
DOI PMID |
| 23. |
Wang Y, Deng B. Hepatocellular carcinoma: molecular mechanism, targeted therapy, and biomarkers. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2023; 42: 629-52.
DOI |
| 24. | Yuan H, Niu Q, Shang X, et al. Impact of Traditional Chinese Medicine on prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study. Integr Cancer Ther 2023; 22: 15347354231170536. |
| 25. |
Wei L, Wang Z, Jing N, et al. Frontier progress of the combination of modern medicine and Traditional Chinese Medicine in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Chin Med 2022; 17: 90.
DOI |
| 26. |
Jia S, Fu Y, Tao H. Trans-arterial chemoembolization combined with Jinlong capsule for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a PRISMA-compliant Meta-analysis in a Chinese population. Pharm Biol 2020; 58: 771-84.
DOI PMID |
| 27. |
Sun L, Fahey P, Zhu X, et al. A cohort study to examine the use of Chinese herbal medicine in combination with conventional therapies for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in China. Integr Cancer Ther 2018; 17: 902-11.
DOI PMID |
| 28. |
Li Y, Hu J, Huang H, He Y. Effect of Jinlong capsule on proliferation and apoptosis of human pancreatic cancer cells BxPC-3. J Tradit Chin Med 2013; 33: 205-10.
PMID |
| 29. |
Jin Y, Duan LX, Xu XL, et al. Mechanism of apoptosis induction in human hepatocellular carcinoma cells following treatment with a gecko peptides mixture. Biomed Rep 2016; 5: 73-8.
PMID |
| [1] | XU Jian, LIU Yuntao, LUO Zhihao, ZHAO Zhen, WANG Dawei, LIU Qing. Chinese patent medicine for atherosclerosis: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2024, 44(6): 1082-1090. |
| [2] | CHEN Yunhu, YIN Moqing, FAN Lihua, JIANG Xuechun, ZHANG Tao, ZHU Xingyu, XU Hongfeng. Mirror-like tongue is an important predictor of acute heart failure: a cohort study of acute heart failure in Chinese patients [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2023, 43(6): 1243-1251. |
| [3] | TIAN Xinrong, HOU Runsu, LIU Xinguang, ZHAO Peng, TIAN Yange, LI Jiansheng. Yangqing Chenfei formula (养清尘肺方) alleviates crystalline silica induced pulmonary inflammation and fibrosis by suppressing macrophage polarization [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2023, 43(6): 1126-1139. |
| [4] | Liu Yaru, Zhao Jianxin, Tian Yuanxiang. Efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture in treatment of lumbar disc herniation: a protocol for a cohort study [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2019, 39(01): 127-132. |
| [5] | Gao Wulin, Dai Guohua, Zhang Tong, Bi Dongxue, Liu Chunhua, Shi Xiaojing, Zhao Fang, Zhao Chen. Tonifying Qi and activating blood circulation in terms of Traditional Chinese Medicine: their effects in patients with myocardial infarction [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2018, 38(05): 726-732. |
| [6] | Dai Guohua, Gao Wulin, Bi Dongxue, Liu Chunhua, Liu Yuhan, Wang Ning, Zhao Chen. Efficacy of Traditional Chinese Medicine in patients with acute myocardial infarction suffering from diabetes mellitus [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2018, 38(03): 412-418. |
| [7] | Yaoyuan Li, Jieqing Hu, Hui Huang, Yonghe He. Effect of Jinlong capsule on proliferation and apoptosis of human pancreatic cancer cells BxPC-3 [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2013, 33(02): 205-210. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||
