Dataset Information

Baseline and Early Predictors of Good Patient Candidates for Second-Line after Sorafenib Treatment in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

ABSTRACT: : Background: Recent advances in the development of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have enabled patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to receive multiple TKIs in sequence. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of good candidates for second-line treatment after disease progression during sorafenib treatment. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of 190 consecutive HCC patients who were treated with sorafenib in our hospital. Three criteria of good candidates for second-line TKI at the time of disease progression during sorafenib treatment were defined as follows: criterion 1 was the same as the inclusion criteria of the regorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment (RESORCE) study, criterion 2 was the inclusion criteria of the RESORCE study plus Child-Pugh score 5, and criterion 3 was the inclusion criteria of the RESORCE study plus albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade 1. Factors at baseline and at week 4 during sorafenib treatment were used to predict patients fulfilling each of these three criteria. Results: The distribution of patients was 29%, 13%, and 6% in criteria 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Significant factors for meeting criterion 1 was the combination of baseline albumin >3.7 g/dL (odds ratio (OR) 2.7) plus degree of decrease in albumin (?albumin) at week 4 <0.2 g/dL (OR 2.6), or the combination of baseline ALBI score <-2.33 (OR 2.5) and ?ALBI at week 4 <0.255 (OR 4.9). For criterion 2, the value of baseline albumin and ALBI score was identical to criterion 1; however, ?albumin (<0.1 g/dL) and ?ALBI score (<0.19) became stricter. For criterion 3, the value of baseline albumin (>3.8 g/dL) and ALBI (<-2.55) became stricter, as did ?albumin (<0.1 g/dL) and ?ALBI (<0.085). Furthermore, tumor burden (>11) was selected as an additional predictor (OR 5.4). Conclusion: Predictors to satisfy the RESORCE study inclusion criteria were as follows: preserved liver function at baseline, as reflected by albumin or ALBI score, and small deterioration of liver function early during sorafenib therapy, as reflected by ?albumin or ?ALBI at week 4. Liver function at baseline and degree of change in liver function during sorafenib treatment need to be stricter for better outcomes of liver function with disease progression.

SUBMITTER: Takada H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6770447 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Baseline and Early Predictors of Good Patient Candidates for Second-Line after Sorafenib Treatment in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Takada Hitomi H Kurosaki Masayuki M Tsuchiya Kaoru K Komiyama Yasuyuki Y Itakura Jun J Takahashi Yuka Y Nakanishi Hiroyuki H Yasui Yutaka Y Tamaki Nobuharu N Maeyashiki Chiaki C Kaneko Shun S Takaura Kenta K Higuchi Mayu M Okada Mao M Wang Wan W Osawa Leona L Sekiguchi Shuhei S Hayakawa Yuka Y Yamashita Koji K Enomoto Nobuyuki N Izumi Namiki N

Cancers 20190827 9

: Background: Recent advances in the development of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have enabled patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to receive multiple TKIs in sequence. The aim of this study was to identify predictors of good candidates for second-line treatment after disease progression during sorafenib treatment. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of 190 consecutive HCC patients who were treated with sorafenib in our hospi ...[more]

PMID: 31461985

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSorafenib has been recommended as the first-line treatment and shown to prolong median overall survival (OS) of patients with advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Recently, a growing amount of research has supported the application of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with advanced-stage HCC. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of TACE and sorafenib and identify the prognostic factors related to OS for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage C patients with PS 1 but without vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread.MethodsA total of 323 consecutive patients in BCLC stage C with PS 1 but without vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread were enrolled in this retrospective study. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier analysis, and the statistical differences between the TACE and sorafenib groups were examined by the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to investigate the prognostic factors for OS.ResultsBased on the Kaplan-Meier curves, patients treated with TACE showed a better OS than those undergoing sorafenib, with respective OS at 1, 3, and 5 years (67.7%, 41.5%, 23.2% vs. 55.6%, 29.6%, 4.8%; log-rank P=0.002). The univariate analysis indicated that tumor size, tumor number, and treatment method, along with platelet (PLT), white blood cell (WBC), and α-fetoprotein (AFP) count, were associated with OS. The multivariate analysis demonstrated that tumor size, tumor number, and treatment method were significant prognostic factors for OS. According to the subgroups analyses based on the tumor size and tumor number, there were significant differences in OS among overall subsets between TACE and sorafenib therapy.ConclusionsTACE provided better prognostic performance than sorafenib and should be suggested as an alternative treatment modality to sorafenib for BCLC stage C patients with PS 1 but without vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread.

Project description:BackgroundIn a global, phase III, open-label, noninferiority trial (REFLECT), lenvatinib demonstrated noninferiority to sorafenib in overall survival and a statistically significant increase in progression-free survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Recently, lenvatinib became the first agent in more than 10 years to receive approval as first-line therapy for unresectable HCC, along with the previously approved sorafenib. The objective of this study was to determine the comparative cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib as a first-line therapy of unresectable HCC.Materials and methodsA state-transition model of unresectable HCC was developed in the form of a cost-utility analysis. The model time horizon was 5 years; the efficacy of the model was informed by the REFLECT trial, and costs and utilities were obtained from published literature. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model.ResultsLenvatinib dominated sorafenib in the base case analysis. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that lenvatinib remains a cost-saving measure in 64.87% of the simulations. However, if the cost of sorafenib was reduced by 57%, lenvatinib would no longer be the dominant strategy.ConclusionLenvatinib offered a similar clinical effectiveness at a lower cost than sorafenib, suggesting that lenvatinib would be a cost-saving alternative in treating unresectable HCC. However, lenvatinib may fail to remain cost-saving if a significantly cheaper generic sorafenib becomes available.Implications for practiceThis analysis suggests an actionable clinical policy that will achieve cost saving. This cost-utility analysis showed that lenvatinib had a similar clinical effectiveness at a lower cost than sorafenib, indicating that lenvatinib may be a cost-saving measure in patients with unresectable HCC, in which $23,719 could be saved per patient. The introduction of a new therapeutic option for the first time in 10 years in Canada provides an important opportunity for clinicians, researchers, and health care decision-makers to explore potential modifications in recommendations and practice guidelines.

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:IntroductionThe benefits of combining transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and sorafenib (TACE-S) over TACE alone for treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain controversial. Yet, such populations are heterogeneous in terms of baseline characteristics.ObjectiveTo investigate the predictors of survival benefits from added sorafenib and identify the potential candidates for TACE-S.MethodsThis multicenter observational study was conducted in 17 Chinese tertiary hospitals for patients with unresectable, liver-confined HCC. Eligible patients with performance status score of ≤1 and Child-Pugh score of ≤7 were treated with TACE or TACE-S. Interactions between treatment and baseline variables were evaluated to find indicators for survival benefits, based on which the patients were stratified. Multivariate models adjusted for baseline characteristics or propensity score were used to compare overall survival (OS) and time to tumor progression (TTP).ResultsFrom January 2009 to December 2015, 1,719 consecutive patients received TACE (n = 1,406) or TACE-S (n = 313). Although TACE-S compared with TACE improved TTP (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.75, p = 0.008), no difference in OS was observed (adjusted HR 0.87, p = 0.090). Nevertheless, the tumor burden (sum of maximum diameter of largest tumor [cm] and tumor number) and albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) score independently predicted the survival benefits from added sorafenib (interaction p< 0.001). For patients with either moderate tumor burden (7-13) or low ALBI score (no more than -2.8) defined as candidates, TACE-S prolonged OS (adjusted HR 0.73, p = 0.003) and TTP (adjusted HR 0.72, p = 0.014) compared to TACE alone, whereas its superiority disappeared in non-candidates.ConclusionsNot all unresectable HCC patients but those with moderate tumor burden or low ALBI score achieve survival benefits from TACE-S compared with TACE alone. Future randomized controlled trials focusing on the subset are warranted.

Project description:ImportanceHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, and additional first-line treatments are needed. The programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor tislelizumab demonstrated efficacy and a tolerable safety profile as second-line HCC treatment.ObjectiveTo investigate efficacy and safety of tislelizumab vs sorafenib tosylate for first-line treatment of unresectable HCC.Design, setting, and participantsThe open-label, global, multiregional phase 3 RATIONALE-301 randomized clinical trial enrolled systemic therapy-naive adults with histologically confirmed HCC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C disease, disease progression following (or patient was not amenable to) locoregional therapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, and Child-Pugh class A, between December 27, 2017, and October 2, 2019. Data cutoff was July 11, 2022.InterventionPatients were randomized 1:1 to receive tislelizumab, 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks, or sorafenib tosylate, 400 mg orally twice daily.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included objective response rate, progression-free survival, duration of response, and safety.ResultsA total of 674 patients were included in the analysis (570 men [84.6%]; median age, 61 years [range, 23-86 years]). As of July 11, 2022, minimum study follow-up was 33 months. The primary end point of OS noninferiority of tislelizumab vs sorafenib was met in the intention-to-treat population (n = 674); median overall survival was 15.9 (95% CI, 13.2-19.7) months vs 14.1 (95% CI, 12.6-17.4) months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 [95.003% CI, 0.71-1.02]), and superiority of tislelizumab vs sorafenib was not met. The objective response rate was 14.3% (n = 49) for tislelizumab vs 5.4% (n = 18) for sorafenib, and median duration of response was 36.1 (95% CI, 16.8 to not evaluable) months vs 11.0 (95% CI, 6.2-14.7) months, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.1 (95% CI, 2.1-3.5) months vs 3.4 (95% CI, 2.2-4.1) months with tislelizumab vs sorafenib (HR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.92-1.33]). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was 96.2% (325 of 338 patients) for tislelizumab and 100% (n = 324) for sorafenib. Grade 3 or greater treatment-related AEs were reported in 75 patients (22.2%) receiving tislelizumab and 173 (53.4%) receiving sorafenib. There was a lower incidence of treatment-related AEs leading to drug discontinuation (21 [6.2%] vs 33 [10.2%]) and drug modification (68 [20.1%] vs 187 [57.7%]) with tislelizumab vs sorafenib.Conclusions and relevanceIn RATIONALE-301, tislelizumab demonstrated OS benefit that was noninferior vs sorafenib, with a higher objective response rate and more durable responses, while median progression-free survival was longer with sorafenib. Tislelizumab demonstrated a favorable safety profile vs sorafenib.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03412773.

Dataset Information

Baseline and Early Predictors of Good Patient Candidates for Second-Line after Sorafenib Treatment in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Publications

Baseline and Early Predictors of Good Patient Candidates for Second-Line after Sorafenib Treatment in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets