Dataset Information

Sorafenib for the Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Preliminary Toxicity and Activity Data in Dogs.

ABSTRACT: Unresectable nodular and diffuse hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have a poor prognosis with limited treatment options. Systemic traditional chemotherapy has been only rarely reported, with unsatisfactory results. The aim of this prospective, non-randomized, non-blinded, single center clinical trial was to investigate safety profile, objective response rate, time to progression and overall survival of sorafenib in comparison with metronomic chemotherapy (MC) consisting of thalidomide, piroxicam and cyclophosphamide in dogs with advanced, unresectable HCC. Between December 2011 and June 2017, 13 dogs were enrolled: seven received sorafenib, and six were treated with MC. Median time to progression was 363 days (95% CI, 191-535) in dogs treated with sorafenib versus 27 days (95% CI, 0-68) in dogs treated with MC (p = 0.044). Median overall survival was 361 days (95% CI, 0-909) in dogs receiving sorafenib, while 32 days (95% CI, 0-235) in those receiving MC (p = 0.079). Sorafenib seems to be a good candidate for the treatment of dogs with advanced HCC, due to a benefit in disease control and an acceptable safety profile, offering a good basis on which new randomized prospective clinical trials should be undertaken to compare the efficacy and drawback of sorafenib versus MC or traditional chemotherapy.

SUBMITTER: Marconato L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7281367 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sorafenib for the Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Preliminary Toxicity and Activity Data in Dogs.

Marconato Laura L Sabattini Silvia S Marisi Giorgia G Rossi Federica F Leone Vito Ferdinando VF Casadei-Gardini Andrea A

Cancers 20200518 5

Unresectable nodular and diffuse hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have a poor prognosis with limited treatment options. Systemic traditional chemotherapy has been only rarely reported, with unsatisfactory results. The aim of this prospective, non-randomized, non-blinded, single center clinical trial was to investigate safety profile, objective response rate, time to progression and overall survival of sorafenib in comparison with metronomic chemotherapy (MC) consisting of thalidomide, piroxicam an ...[more]

PMID: 32443457

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, there are a few treatment options for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after progression following sorafenib (SOR) therapy, but with limited benefit. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) as second-line treatment.MethodsFrom May 2018 to May 2021, a total of 93 HCCs who failed SOR treatment were included in this study and divided into TKI group (n = 37) and TKI-ICI group (n = 56). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and safety were estimated among the two groups. In addition, univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed for OS and PFS to identify possible prognostic factors.ResultsWith a median follow-up time of 13.7 months, the median age of patients was 56 (range, 50-64) years and most were male. All of the patients were hepatitis virus-related HCC. Both median OS (7.63 months vs 19.23 months, P < 0.001) and median PFS (2.97 months vs 8.63 months, P < 0.001) were significantly improved in the TKI-ICI group compared to the TKI group. A significant increase in DCR was demonstrated in the TKI-ICI group compared to the TKI group (83.9% vs 45.9%, P = 0.0003), although no significant difference in ORR was reported (21.4% vs 8.1%, P = 0.1552). Multivariate Cox regression analysis of OS and PFS revealed that second-line regimen was an independent protective factor affecting death and progression in HCCs after SOR failure. In addition, Child-Pugh B7 was an independent risk factor of OS. Finally, there was no significant difference in the incidence of any grade or grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) between the two groups, and no treatment-related deaths were observed.ConclusionThis real-world study suggests that the combination of TKIs and ICIs benefits more than mono-TKIs and is well tolerated in HCCs with hepatitis virus infection after SOR failure.

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: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.

Project description::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 (Δalbumin) at week 4 <0.2 g/dL (OR 2.6), or the combination of baseline ALBI score <-2.33 (OR 2.5) and ΔALBI 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, Δalbumin (<0.1 g/dL) and ΔALBI 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 Δalbumin (<0.1 g/dL) and ΔALBI (<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 Δalbumin or ΔALBI 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.

Dataset Information

Sorafenib for the Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Preliminary Toxicity and Activity Data in Dogs.

Publications

Sorafenib for the Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Preliminary Toxicity and Activity Data in Dogs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets