Dataset Information

Phase I/II Randomized Trial of Sorafenib and Bevacizumab as First-Line Therapy in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma: North Central Cancer Treatment Group Trial N0745 (Alliance).

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Angiogenesis has been a major target of novel drug development in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It is hypothesized that the combination of two antiangiogenic agents, sorafenib and bevacizumab, will provide greater blockade of angiogenesis. OBJECTIVE:To determine the optimal dose, safety, and effectiveness of dual anti-angiogenic therapy with sorafenib and bevacizumab in patients with advanced HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS:Patients with locally advanced or metastatic HCC not amenable for surgery or liver transplant were eligible. The phase I starting dose level was bevacizumab 1.25 mg/kg day 1 and 15 plus sorafenib 400 mg twice daily (BID) days 1-28. In the phase II portion, patients were randomized to receive bevacizumab and sorafenib at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or sorafenib 400 mg BID. RESULTS:Seventen patients were enrolled in the phase I component. Dose-limiting toxicities included grade 3 hand/foot skin reaction, fatigue, hypertension, alanine/aspartate aminotransferase increase, dehydration, hypophosphatemia, creatinine increase, hypoglycemia, nausea/vomiting, and grade 4 hyponatremia. Seven patients were enrolled in the phase II component at the MTD: sorafenib 200 mg BID days 1-28 and bevacizumab 2.5 mg/kg every other week; 57% (4/7) had grade 3 AEs at least possibly related to treatment. No responses were observed in the phase II portion. Estimated median time to progression and survival were 8.6 months (95% CI: 0.4-16.3) and 13.3 months (95% CI 4.4 - not estimable), respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The MTD of the combination is sorafenib 200 mg twice daily on days 1-28 plus bevacizumab 2.5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. In the phase II portion of the trial, concerns regarding excessive toxicity, low efficacy, and slow enrollment led to discontinuation of the trial. (Clinical Trials ID: NCT00867321.).

SUBMITTER: Hubbard JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5586602 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Phase I/II Randomized Trial of Sorafenib and Bevacizumab as First-Line Therapy in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma: North Central Cancer Treatment Group Trial N0745 (Alliance).

Hubbard Joleen M JM Mahoney Michelle R MR Loui William S WS Roberts Lewis R LR Smyrk Thomas C TC Gatalica Zoran Z Borad Mitesh M Kumar Shaji S Alberts Steven R SR

Targeted oncology 20170401 2

<h4>Background</h4>Angiogenesis has been a major target of novel drug development in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It is hypothesized that the combination of two antiangiogenic agents, sorafenib and bevacizumab, will provide greater blockade of angiogenesis.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the optimal dose, safety, and effectiveness of dual anti-angiogenic therapy with sorafenib and bevacizumab in patients with advanced HCC.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>Patients with locally advanced or metastati ...[more]

PMID: 27943153

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:BackgroundMitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) activation and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)-dependent signaling are hallmarks of glioblastoma. In the current study, the authors conducted a phase 1/2 study of sorafenib (an inhibitor of Raf kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 [VEGFR-2]) and the mTOR inhibitor temsirolimus in patients with recurrent glioblastoma.MethodsPatients with recurrent glioblastoma who developed disease progression after surgery or radiotherapy plus temozolomide and with ≤2 prior chemotherapy regimens were eligible. The phase 1 endpoint was the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), using a cohorts-of-3 design. The 2-stage phase 2 study included separate arms for VEGF inhibitor (VEGFi)-naive patients and patients who progressed after prior VEGFi.ResultsThe MTD was sorafenib at a dose of 200 mg twice daily and temsirolimus at a dose of 20 mg weekly. In the first 41 evaluable patients who were treated at the phase 2 dose, there were 7 who were free of disease progression at 6 months (progression-free survival at 6 months [PFS6]) in the VEGFi-naive group (17.1%); this finding met the prestudy threshold of success. In the prior VEGFi group, only 4 of the first 41 evaluable patients treated at the phase 2 dose achieved PFS6 (9.8%), and this did not meet the prestudy threshold for success. The median PFS for the 2 groups was 2.6 months and 1.9 months, respectively. The median overall survival for the 2 groups was 6.3 months and 3.9 months, respectively. At least 1 adverse event of grade ≥3 was observed in 75.5% of the VEGFi-naive patients and in 73.9% of the prior VEGFi patients.ConclusionsThe limited activity of sorafenib and temsirolimus at the dose and schedule used in the current study was observed with considerable toxicity of grade ≥3. Significant dose reductions that were required in this treatment combination compared with tolerated single-agent doses may have contributed to the lack of efficacy. Cancer 2018;124:1455-63. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Project description:ImportanceAtezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma has been shown to improve overall and progression-free survival compared with standard sorafenib treatment. However, because of the high cost of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, assessment of its value by considering both efficacy and cost is needed.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation was performed from June through September 2020, with a 6-year investment time period. Hypothetical patients were male and female adults 18 years or older who had a diagnosis of locally advanced metastatic or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma confirmed by histologic or clinical features.Main outcomes and measuresHealth care costs (adjusted to 2020 US dollars), life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib were examined using a partitioned survival model. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. The model was also used to estimate price reductions of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab that would achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness.ResultsIn the base case analysis of a hypothetical sample of 424 patients, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with an increase of 0.623 life-years (1.840 vs 1.218 life-years) and 0.484 QALYs (1.412 vs 0.928 QALYs) and with an incremental cost of $156 210 per patient compared with sorafenib. The ICER was $322 500 per QALY (5th to 95th percentile, $149 364-$683 744 per QALY), with 0.6% and 5.1% chance of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100 000 and $150 000 per QALY, respectively. The ICER never decreased below $150 000 per QALY in the 1-way sensitivity analyses. To achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness under the thresholds of $150 000 to $100 000 per QALY, the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab would need to be reduced by 37% to 47%.Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with clinical benefit but was not cost-effective compared with sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective. A substantial reduction in price for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab would be needed to achieve favorable cost-effectiveness for this new therapy.

Project description:BackgroundSrc signaling is markedly upregulated in patients with invasive glioblastoma (GBM) after the administration of bevacizumab. The Src family kinase inhibitor dasatinib has been found to effectively block bevacizumab-induced glioma invasion in preclinical models, which led to the hypothesis that combining bevacizumab with dasatinib could increase bevacizumab efficacy in patients with recurrent GBM.MethodsAfter the completion of the phase 1 component, the phase 2 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00892177) randomized patients with recurrent GBM 2:1 to receive 100 mg of oral dasatinib twice daily (arm A) or placebo (arm B) on days 1 to 14 of each 14-day cycle combined with 10 mg/kg of intravenous bevacizumab on day 1 of each 14-day cycle. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS6).ResultsIn the 121 evaluable patients, the PFS6 rate was numerically, but not statistically, higher in arm A versus arm B (28.9% [95% CI, 19.5%-40.0%] vs 18.4% [95% CI, 7.7%-34.4%]; P = .22). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the median overall survival noted between the treatment arms (7.3 months and 7.7 months, respectively; P = .93). The objective response rate was 15.7% in arm A and 26.3% in arm B (P = .52), but with a significantly longer duration in patients treated on arm A (16.3 months vs 2 months). The incidence of grade ≥3 toxicity was comparable between treatment arms, with hematologic toxicities occurring more frequently in arm A versus arm B (15.7% vs 7.9%) (adverse events were assessed as per the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version 4.0]). Correlative tissue analysis demonstrated an association between pSRC/LYN signaling in patient tumors and outcome.ConclusionsDespite upregulation of Src signaling in patients with GBM, the combination of bevacizumab with dasatinib did not appear to significantly improve the outcomes of patients with recurrent GBM compared with bevacizumab alone.

Dataset Information

Phase I/II Randomized Trial of Sorafenib and Bevacizumab as First-Line Therapy in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma: North Central Cancer Treatment Group Trial N0745 (Alliance).

Publications

Phase I/II Randomized Trial of Sorafenib and Bevacizumab as First-Line Therapy in Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma: North Central Cancer Treatment Group Trial N0745 (Alliance).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets