Dataset Information

A Real-World Comparative Analysis of Lenvatinib and Sorafenib as a Salvage Therapy for Transarterial Treatments in Unresectable HCC.

ABSTRACT:

Background/aims

Lenvatinib was recently approved as a first-line oral multikinase inhibitor for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable HCC in patients with prior failure of transarterial treatment.

Methods

Between January 2019 and September 2020, 98 unresectable HCC patients treated with lenvatinib or sorafenib as salvage therapy were enrolled from five Korean university-affiliated hospitals. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate were calculated to assess the antitumor response.

Results

A total of 43 and 55 patients were treated with lenvatinib and sorafenib, respectively, as salvage therapy after the failure of transarterial treatments. The median PFS was 4.97 months in the lenvatinib group and 2.47 months in the sorafenib group (p = 0.001, log-rank test). The ORR was significantly higher in the lenvatinib group (25.6%) than in the sorafenib group (3.6%, p = 0.002). Use of lenvatinib over sorafenib (hazard ratio: 0.359, 95% confidence interval: 0.203-0.635, p < 0.001) was the most significant factor for a favorable PFS after the failure of transarterial treatments in all enrolled patients. For favorable OS, achieving objective response was the significant factor (hazard ratio 0.356, 95% confidence interval: 0.132-0.957, p = 0.041). There were no significant differences in the safety profile between the two groups.

Conclusions

In this real-world study, lenvatinib was demonstrated to be more efficacious than sorafenib as a salvage therapy for transarterial treatments in unresectable HCC.

SUBMITTER: Lee J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7767204 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Real-World Comparative Analysis of Lenvatinib and Sorafenib as a Salvage Therapy for Transarterial Treatments in Unresectable HCC.

Lee Jaejun J Sung Pil Soo PS Yang Hyun H Lee Soon Kyu SK Nam Hee Chul HC Yoo Sun Hong SH Lee Hae Lim HL Kim Hee Yeon HY Lee Sung Won SW Kwon Jung Hyun JH Jang Jeong Won JW Kim Chang Wook CW Nam Soon Woo SW Bae Si Hyun SH Choi Jong Young JY Yoon Seung Kew SK

Journal of clinical medicine 20201221 12

<h4>Background/aims</h4>Lenvatinib was recently approved as a first-line oral multikinase inhibitor for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable HCC in patients with prior failure of transarterial treatment.<h4>Methods</h4>Between January 2019 and September 2020, 98 unresectable HCC patients treated with lenvatinib or sorafenib as salvage therapy were enrolled from five Ko ...[more]

PMID: 33371271

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLenvatinib and lenvatinib-based combination treatments are widely used in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) in clinical practice, but their curative effect and safety need further study in the real world.MethodsThis was a retrospective study involving patients with uHCC receiving lenvatinib monotherapy and lenvatinib-based combination treatment between Nov, 2018 and Sep, 2020 in Nanfang Hospital. Efficacy was evaluated with objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), time to tumor progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were recorded and graded. Efficacy and safety of monotherapy and combination therapy were compared. Stratified analysis was performed according to systemic line of treatment and medication regimen for combination therapy.ResultsFor lenvatinib monotherapy (n = 39), OS and PFS were 80 weeks and 24.3 weeks, respectively. For combination treatment (n = 72), median OS and PFS were 99 weeks and 45.6 weeks, respectively. OS, PFS, and TTP for patients in the combination treatment cohort were significantly longer compared to those of patients in the monotreatment cohort (OS: P = 0.04, PFS: P = 0.003; TTP, P = 0.005). The incidence of TRAEs could be controlled both in the monotherapy cohort and the combination treatment cohort. In the monotherapy cohort, OS and PFS were significantly decreased in the second-line treatment group compared with the first-line treatment group, while no differences were observed in the combination cohort. The efficacy of triple therapy (lenvatinib plus PD-1 antibody plus TACE or HAIF) was similar to lenvatinib plus PD-1 antibody or lenvatinib plus TACE or HAIF.ConclusionsOur real-world study showed that lenvatinib monotherapy and lenvatinib-based combination therapy were well tolerated, with encouraging efficacies in patients with uHCC. Lenvatinib-based combination therapy showed a better curative effect compared with lenvatinib single-agent therapy. In patients who have failed first-line TKI treatment, lenvatinib-based combination therapy may be a better choice than lenvatinib single-agent therapy. Lenvatinib-based triple therapy may not have an advantage over dual therapy.

Project description:BackgroundLenvatinib is approved for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) due to its non-inferiority to sorafenib of overall survival (OR) in clinical trials. This study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib and sorafenib in the real world.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated 338 patients with unresectable HCC who had undergone lenvatinib or sorafenib treatment between January 2018 and August 2020. Propensity-score matching analysis was performed with a 1:2 ratio to reduce the real-life baseline difference between the two groups.ResultsA total of 210 patients (Male/Female: 150/60, mean age: 65.8 years) were recruited including 70 patients in the Lenvatinib group and 140 patients in the Sorafenib group. Compared with sorafenib, lenvatinib had significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) (5.2 vs 3.3 months, p=0.019) but similar OR (13.3 vs 11.8 months, p=0.714). Additionally, lenvatinib had better disease control rates (62.3 vs 48.6%, p=0.029) and equivalent incidences of treatment-related adverse events over sorafenib. In multivariate analysis, lenvatinib was associated with better PFS over sorafenib (hazard ratio: 0.49, 95% confidence interval: 0.3-0.79, p=0.004) after adjustments of albumin-bilirubin grade and alpha-fetoprotein level; however, different agents using lenvatinib or sorafenib did not contribute to OS, whether in univariate or multivariate analysis. Patients who failed lenvatinib had a lower proportion of having sequential systemic therapies compared with the Sorafenib group (36.2 vs 47.8%, p=0.02). The most frequently used sequential therapy following lenvatinib and sorafenib was chemotherapy (n=9, 42.8%) and regorafenib (n=33, 50.8%), respectively.ConclusionsIn clinical real-life practice, lenvatinib illustrated promising survival benefits and acceptable safety for patients with unresectable HCC, while reducing the risk of progression disease compared with sorafenib. Additionally, lack of approved post-lenvatinib systemic therapies is a serious issue in the real world.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In 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 METHODS:A 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. RESULTS:Lenvatinib 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. CONCLUSION:Lenvatinib 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 PRACTICE:This 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.

Dataset Information

A Real-World Comparative Analysis of Lenvatinib and Sorafenib as a Salvage Therapy for Transarterial Treatments in Unresectable HCC.

Background/aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A Real-World Comparative Analysis of Lenvatinib and Sorafenib as a Salvage Therapy for Transarterial Treatments in Unresectable HCC.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets