Dataset Information

Phase II Study of First-Line Trebananib Plus Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

ABSTRACT: Trebananib leveraging anti-angiogenic mechanism that is distinct from the classic sorafenib anti-vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition did not demonstrate improved progression-free survival at 4 months in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).In support of previously reported high Ang-2 levels' association with poor outcome in HCC for patients, trebananib treatment with lower baseline Ang-2 at study entry was associated with improved overall survival to 22 months and may suggest future studies to be performed within the context of low baseline Ang-2.Ang-1 and Ang-2 are angiopoietins thought to promote neovascularization via activation of the Tie-2 angiopoietin receptor. Trebananib sequesters Ang-1 and Ang-2, preventing interaction with the Tie-2 receptor. Trebananib plus sorafenib combination has acceptable toxicity. Elevated Ang-2 levels are associated with poor prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).Patients with HCC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ?2, and Childs-Pugh A received IV trebananib at 10 mg/kg or 15 mg/kg weekly plus sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily. The study was planned for ?78% progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 4 months relative to 62% for sorafenib historical control (power?=?80% ??=?0.20). Secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability, overall survival (OS), and multiple biomarkers, including serum Ang-2.Thirty patients were enrolled sequentially in each of the two nonrandomized cohorts. Demographics were comparable between the two arms and the historical controls. PFS rates at 4 months were 57% and 54% on the 10 mg/kg and 15 mg/kg trebananib cohorts, respectively. Median OS was 17 and 11 months, respectively. Grade 3 and above events noted in ?10% of patients included fatigue, hypertension, diarrhea, liver failure, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, dyspnea, and hypophosphatemia. One death was due to hepatic failure. Serum Ang-2 dichotomized at the median was associated with improved OS in both cohorts.There was no improvement in PFS rate at 4 months in either cohort, when compared with sorafenib historical control.

SUBMITTER: Abou-Alfa GK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5507650 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Phase II Study of First-Line Trebananib Plus Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Abou-Alfa Ghassan K GK Blanc Jean-Frederic JF Miles Steven S Ganten Tom T Trojan Jörg J Cebon Jonathan J Liem Andre K AK Lipton Lara L Gupta Charu C Wu Benjamin B Bass Michael M Hollywood Ellen E Ma Jennifer J Bradley Margaret M Litten Jason J Saltz Leonard B LB

The oncologist 20170607 7

<h4>Lessons learned</h4>Trebananib leveraging anti-angiogenic mechanism that is distinct from the classic sorafenib anti-vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition did not demonstrate improved progression-free survival at 4 months in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).In support of previously reported high Ang-2 levels' association with poor outcome in HCC for patients, trebananib treatment with lower baseline Ang-2 at study entry was associated with improved overall surviv ...[more]

PMID: 28592620

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTreatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may prolong overall survival among patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. However, to our knowledge, the cost-effectiveness of using this high-priced therapy for this indication is currently unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma from the US payer perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation used a partitioned survival model consisting of 3 discrete health states to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib. The characteristics of patients in the model were similar to patients in a phase 3, open-label randomized clinical trial (IMbrave150) who had unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and had not previously received systemic treatment. Key clinical data were generated from the IMbrave150 trial conducted between March 15, 2018, and January 30, 2019, and cost and health preference data were collected from the literature.Main outcomes and measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net health benefits, and incremental net monetary benefits were calculated for the 2 treatment strategies. Subgroup, 1-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsTreatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab added 0.530 QALYs and resulted in an incremental cost of $89 807 compared with sorafenib therapy, which had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $169 223 per QALY gained. The incremental net health benefit was -0.068 QALYs, and the incremental net monetary benefit was -$10 202 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab achieved a 35% probability of cost-effectiveness at a threshold of $150 000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were most sensitive to the hazard ratio of overall survival. The subgroup analysis found that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with preferred incremental net health benefits in several subgroups, including patients with hepatitis B and C.Conclusions and relevanceAtezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment is unlikely to be a cost-effective option compared with sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Reducing the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab may improve cost-effectiveness. The economic outcomes also may be improved by tailoring treatments based on individual patient factors.

Project description:Objective: Nivolumab improves overall survival (OS) and is associated with fewer adverse events than sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared with sorafenib treatment for aHCC remains unclear. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and sorafenib in the treatment of aHCC. Materials and methods: A partitioned survival model that included three mutually exclusive health states was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and sorafenib for treating aHCC. The clinical characteristics and outcomes of the patients in the model were obtained from the CheckMate 459. We performed deterministic one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate the robustness of the model. Subgroup analyses were also performed. Costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were measured. Results: The base case analysis showed that compared with sorafenib, treatment with nivolumab was associated with an increment of 0.50 (2.45 vs. 1.95) life-years and an increment of 0.32 (1.59 vs. 1.27) QALYs, as well as a $69,762 increase in cost per patient. The ICER was $220,864/QALY. The INHB and INMB were -0.15 QALYs and -$22,362 at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was only 10.38% at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. The model was most sensitive to the costs of sorafenib and nivolumab according to the one-way sensitivity analysis. When the price of sorafenib exceeded $0.93/mg or nivolumab was less than $24.23/mg, nivolumab was more cost-effective. The subgroup analysis illustrated that the probability of cost-effectiveness was >50% in the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage B subgroups for nivolumab at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. This study also showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness was <50% in most subgroups. Conclusion: Nivolumab was not cost-effective, although it was associated with better clinical benefit and a favorable safety profile for the treatment of aHCC compared with sorafenib from the third-party payer perspective in the United States. If the price of nivolumab is substantially reduced, favorable cost-effectiveness can be achieved among patients with aHCC.

Dataset Information

Phase II Study of First-Line Trebananib Plus Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Publications

Phase II Study of First-Line Trebananib Plus Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets