Dataset Information

Apatinib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a preliminary study.

ABSTRACT: Background:Apatinib, a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR 2), has exhibited modest antitumor efficacy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of apatinib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC. Methods:All patients with advanced HCC who underwent sorafenib or apatinib between January 2016 to December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Seventy-two patients received apatinib (26 patients, 500 mg, daily) or sorafenib (46 patients, 400 mg, twice daily) until disease progression or intolerable toxicities. Primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) per modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST), disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Results:The median follow-up was 13.2 (5.7-20.7) months. The 1-year OS for apatinib of 62.0% was comparable to that of sorafenib [64.2%, hazard ratio (HR), 1.15; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.369-3.58]. The median PFS was 4.1 months in the apatinib group (95% CI, 3.2 to 7.4 months) and 3.6 months in the sorafenib group (95% CI, 2.7 to 5.9 months; HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.586 to 1.800; P=0.925). The apatinib group exhibited higher ORR (19.2% vs. 2.2%, P=0.012) but similar DCR (57.7% vs. 50%, P=0.530) compared with the sorafenib group. The most common any-grade adverse events in the apatinib and sorafenib groups were hand and foot syndrome (53.8% vs. 50%), hypertension (50% vs. 19.6%), diarrhea (34.6% vs. 28.3%), and elevated transaminase (57.7% vs. 63%). Conclusions:Compared with sorafenib, apatinib yielded comparable PFS and OS, and even better ORR, in patients with advanced HCC.

SUBMITTER: He W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7475472 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Apatinib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a preliminary study.

He Wei W Liao Leen L Hu Dandan D Li Binkui B Wang Chenwei C Qiu Jiliang J Liao Yadi Y Liu Wenwu W Yang Zhiwen Z Zhang Yuanping Y Yuan Yichuan Y Li Kai K Yuan Yunfei Y Zheng Yun Y

Annals of translational medicine 20200801 16

<h4>Background</h4>Apatinib, a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR 2), has exhibited modest antitumor efficacy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and tolerability of apatinib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC.<h4>Methods</h4>All patients with advanced HCC who underwent sorafenib or apatinib between January 2016 to December 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Seventy-two patients received apatinib (26 pati ...[more]

PMID: 32953800

Similar Datasets

Project description:LESSONS LEARNED:Combination therapies in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma can be associated with overlapping toxicity and are therefore poorly tolerated.Using sorafenib at the maximum tolerated dose can lead to a higher incidence of toxicities. Consequently, combination studies might evaluate sorafenib at alternative schedules or doses to improve tolerance, recognizing this could affect sorafenib efficacy.Although this combination was poorly tolerated, it does not exclude further evaluation of new-generation immunomodulator drugs or immune checkpoint inhibitors in the hope of optimizing tolerance and safety. BACKGROUND:Sorafenib is the standard treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and to date, no combination therapy has demonstrated superior survival compared with sorafenib alone. The immunosuppressive microenvironment in HCC is a negative predictor for survival. Lenalidomide is an immunomodulator and antiangiogenic agent, with limited single-agent efficacy in HCC. Based on these data, we designed a phase I study of sorafenib plus lenalidomide to determine the safety and preliminary antitumor activity of this combination. METHODS:This was an open-label, phase I study with a 3+3 dose escalation/de-escalation design. The starting dose of sorafenib was 400 mg p.o. b.i.d. and of lenalidomide was 15 mg p.o. daily with a planned dose escalation by 5 mg per cohort up to 25 mg daily. Dose de-escalation was planned to a sorafenib dose of 400 mg p.o. daily combined with two doses of lenalidomide: 10 mg p.o. daily for a 28-day cycle (cohort 1) and 10 mg p.o. daily for a 21- or 28-day cycle (cohort 2). Patients with cirrhosis, a Child-Pugh score of A-B7, and no previous systemic therapy were eligible. RESULTS:Five patients were enrolled. Their median age was 56 years (range 39-61), and the ECOG status was 0-2. Four patients were treated at dose level (DL) 1. Because of the poor tolerance to the combination associated with grade 2 toxicities, one more patient was treated at DL -1. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed as specified per protocol. The most common toxicities were nausea, anorexia, pruritus, elevated liver enzymes, and elevated bilirubin. Three patients experienced one or more of the following grade 3 toxicities: fatigue (DL 1), increased bilirubin (DL 1), skin desquamation (DL -1), and elevated transaminase levels (DL 1). The median duration of therapy was 1 cycle (range 1-3). All patients discontinued the study, 4 because of progressive disease and 1 by patient preference. The best confirmed response was progressive disease. The median progression-free survival was 1.0 month (95% confidence interval 0.9-2.8), and the median overall survival was 5.9 months (95% confidence interval 3.68-23.4). CONCLUSION:In our small study, the combination of lenalidomide and sorafenib was poorly tolerated and showed no clinical activity. Although the study was closed early because of toxicity concerns, future studies assessing combinations of sorafenib with new-generation immunomodulator drugs or other immunomodulatory agents, should consider lower starting doses of sorafenib to avoid excessive toxicity.

Project description:BackgroundPhase III trials show sorafenib improves survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Because of narrow trial eligibility, results may not be generalizable to a broader HCC population. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of initial sorafenib versus no treatment among Medicare beneficiaries with advanced HCC.Materials and methodsPatients with advanced HCC diagnosed from 2008 to 2011 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. Eligible patients received initial sorafenib or no therapy and were covered by Medicare parts A, B, and D. Sorafenib use and outcomes were described in this population. Using a propensity score (PS)-matched sample, we compared the effectiveness of sorafenib versus no treatment by Cox proportional hazards and binomial regression, using a landmark requiring all patients to survive ?60 days after diagnosis.ResultsOf 1,532 patients, 27% received initial sorafenib. Median duration of sorafenib use was 60 days (interquartile range [IQR], 30-107 days), and median survival from first prescription was 3 months (IQR, 1-8 months). In the PS-matched cohort, median survival was 3 months from the 60-day landmark in sorafenib-treated (n = 223) and 2 months in untreated (n = 223) patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.95 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.78-1.16]). Sorafenib was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in mortality at 3 months (44% versus 51%; adjusted risk ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.72-1.07]), but no reduction thereafter.ConclusionSurvival after sorafenib initiation in newly diagnosed Medicare beneficiaries with HCC is exceptionally short, suggesting trial results are not generalizable to all HCC patients. The downsides of sorafenib use-high drug-related symptom burden and high drug cost-must be considered in light of this minimal benefit.Implications for practiceThe findings of a median survival of only 3 months in Medicare beneficiaries with HCC prescribed sorafenib as first-line therapy highlight the questionable value of sorafenib in this population. Patients should be cautioned that outside of the narrow confines of randomized trials, their life expectancy may be very short, and any benefit of sorafenib is likely to be quite small. Given that sorafenib causes considerable adverse effects and offers no symptom palliation, supportive care should be discussed as a reasonable alternative to sorafenib, particularly for patients who have a poor performance status or advanced cirrhosis.

Project description:BackgroundSorafenib and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) might both provide survival benefit for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Adopting either as a first-line therapy carries major cost and resource implications. We aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of sorafenib and TACE in advanced HCC.MethodsA Markov model was constructed in a hypothetical cohort of patients aged 60 years with advanced HCC and Child-Pugh A/B cirrhosis over a 2-year time frame. Three strategies (full or dose-adjusted sorafenib and TACE) were compared in two cost settings: China and the USA. Transition probabilities, utility and costs were extracted from systematic review of 27 articles. Sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo analysis were conducted.ResultsFull and dose-adjusted sorafenib respectively produced 0.435 and 0.482 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) while TACE produced 0.375 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of full-dose sorafenib versus TACE was $101,028.83/QALY in China whereas full-dose sorafenib is a dominant strategy (ICER of -$1,014,507.20/ QALY) compared with TACE in the USA. Compared to full-dose sorafenib, dose-adjusted sorafenib was the dominant strategy with the negative ICERs in both China (-$132,238.94/QALY) and the USA (-$230,058.09/QALY). However, dose-adjusted sorafenib is not available currently, so full-dose sorafenib should be compared with TACE. As the acceptability curves shown, full-dose sorafenib was the optimal strategy at the accepted thresholds of WTP in these two countries. Specifically, full-dose sorafenib was the cost-effective treatment compared with TACE if a WTP was set above $21,670 in the USA, whereas in China, TACE could be more favorable than full-dose sorafenib if a WTP was set below $10,473.ConclusionsDose-adjusted sorafenib may be cost-effective compared to full-dose sorafenib or TACE for advanced HCC patients. However, when confining the comparisons between full-dose sorafenib and TACE, full-dose sorafenib was cost-effective for these patients, under the accepted thresholds of WTP.

Dataset Information

Apatinib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a preliminary study.

Publications

Apatinib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a preliminary study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure