Dataset Information

A Multicenter Phase II Study of Second-Line Axitinib for Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Failing First-Line Sorafenib Monotherapy.

ABSTRACT: LESSONS LEARNED:For patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after failure of first-line sorafenib monotherapy, second-line axitinib provides modest efficacy with tolerable toxicity. The discrepant tumor responses and survival outcomes in trials using axitinib as salvage therapy highlight the importance of optimal patient selection with the aid of clinical biomarkers. BACKGROUND:Multikinase inhibitors have been effective treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This multicenter phase II study explored the efficacy and safety of second-line axitinib for advanced HCC. METHODS:Patients with advanced HCC and Child-Pugh A liver function, experiencing progression on first-line sorafenib monotherapy, were eligible. Axitinib 5 mg twice daily was given continuously with allowed dose escalation. Tumor assessment was performed according to RECIST version 1.1. The primary endpoint was rate of disease control. RESULTS:From April 2011 to March 2016, 45 patients were enrolled. Thirty-seven patients (82%) tested positive for hepatitis B surface antigen. The disease control rate was 62.2%, and the response rate was 6.7%, according to RECIST criteria. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 2.2 months and 10.1 months, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events were compatible with previous reports of axitinib. CONCLUSION:Second-line axitinib has moderate activity and acceptable toxicity for patients with advanced HCC after failing the first-line sorafenib monotherapy.

SUBMITTER: Lin ZZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7485356 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Multicenter Phase II Study of Second-Line Axitinib for Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Failing First-Line Sorafenib Monotherapy.

Lin Zhong-Zhe ZZ Chen Bang-Bin BB Hung Yi-Ping YP Huang Po-Hsiang PH Shen Ying-Chun YC Shao Yu-Yun YY Hsu Chih-Hung CH Cheng Ann-Lii AL Lee Rheun-Chuan RC Chao Yee Y Hsu Chiun C

The oncologist 20200409 9

<h4>Lessons learned</h4>For patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after failure of first-line sorafenib monotherapy, second-line axitinib provides modest efficacy with tolerable toxicity. The discrepant tumor responses and survival outcomes in trials using axitinib as salvage therapy highlight the importance of optimal patient selection with the aid of clinical biomarkers.<h4>Background</h4>Multikinase inhibitors have been effective treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This mu ...[more]

PMID: 32271494

Similar Datasets

Project description:Lessons learnedTrebananib 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.BackgroundAng-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).MethodsPatients 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% α = 0.20). Secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability, overall survival (OS), and multiple biomarkers, including serum Ang-2.ResultsThirty 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.ConclusionThere was no improvement in PFS rate at 4 months in either cohort, when compared with sorafenib historical control.

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.

Project description:BackgroundAn unmet need exists for treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who progress on or are intolerant to sorafenib. A global randomized phase II trial (ClinicalTrial.gov No. NCT01210495) of axitinib, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1-3 inhibitor, in combination with best supportive care (BSC) did not prolong overall survival (OS) over placebo/BSC, but showed improved progression-free survival in some patients. Subgroup analyses were conducted to identify potential predictive/prognostic factors.MethodsThe data from this phase II study were analyzed for the efficacy and safety of axitinib/BSC in patients from Asia versus non-Asia versus Asian subgroups (Japan, Korea, or mainland China/Hong Kong/Taiwan) and predictive/prognostic values of baseline microRNAs and serum soluble proteins, using the Cox proportional hazards model.ResultsOf 202 patients, 78 were from non-Asia and 124 from Asia (37 Japanese, 36 Korean, and 51 Chinese). No significant differences in OS were found between axitinib/BSC and placebo/BSC in non-Asians, Asians, or Asian subgroups. However, in an exploratory analysis, axitinib/BSC showed favorable OS in Asians, especially Japanese, when patients intolerant to prior antiangiogenic therapy were excluded from the data set. Axitinib/BSC was well tolerated by non-Asians and Asians alike. The presence of 4 circulating microRNAs, including miR-5684 and miR-1224-5p, or a level lower than or equal to the median protein level of stromal cell-derived factor 1 at baseline was significantly associated with longer OS in axitinib/BSC-treated Asians or non-Asians.ConclusionsAxitinib/BSC did not prolong survival over placebo/BSC in non-Asians, Asians, or Asian subgroups, but favorable OS with axitinib/BSC was observed in a subset of Japanese patients. A patient population that excludes sorafenib-intolerant patients might potentially be more suitable for clinical trials of new agents in advanced HCC. Since these results are very preliminary, further investigation is warranted. The potential predictive/prognostic value of several baseline microRNAs and soluble proteins identified in this study would require validation in prospective studies on a large cohort of patients.

Dataset Information

A Multicenter Phase II Study of Second-Line Axitinib for Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Failing First-Line Sorafenib Monotherapy.

Publications

A Multicenter Phase II Study of Second-Line Axitinib for Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Failing First-Line Sorafenib Monotherapy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets