Dataset Information

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: There is limited evidence on the efficacy of lenvatinib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. Aim of this meta-analysis was to compare lenvatinib and sorafenib as first-line treatment. Computerized bibliographic search was performed on main databases through November 2020. The primary outcome was overall survival, whereas survival rate (at 1-, and 2-year), progression-free survival (PFS), tumor response, and severe adverse event rate were the secondary outcomes. Results were expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Five studies enrolling 1481 patients were included. No difference in terms of overall survival was detected (HR 0.81, 0.58-1.11) and median survival was 13.4 months (9.38-17.48) in lenvatinib and 11.4 months (8.46-14.47) in sorafenib patients. Lenvatinib led to a significant improvement of PFS (HR 0.67, 0.48-0.94) and median PFS was 5.88 months (3.68-8) in lenvatinib and 4.17 months (3.08-5.25) in sorafenib patients. Lenvatinib determined a considerably higher rate of objective response (33.3%, 23.6%-43% versus 6.5%, 3.5%-9.5%; OR 7.70, 2.99-19.82), and of disease control rate (76.9%, 70.4%-83.5% versus 52.7%, 40.7%-64.6%; OR 2.41, 1.55-3.77). No difference between lenvatinib and sorafenib in terms of severe adverse event rate was observed (OR 1.31, 0.82-2.09). Lenvatinib prolongs progression-free survival as compared to sorafenib in HCC patients, although this result does not translate to a significant survival benefit.

SUBMITTER: Facciorusso A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8129234 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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: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: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.

Dataset Information

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets