Dataset Information

Comparative study between sorafenib and lenvatinib as the first-line therapy in the sequential treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in a real-world setting.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

There is a paucity of comparative data on the use of sorafenib and lenvatinib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. We assessed the real-world treatment outcomes between using sorafenib and lenvatinib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in the multiple molecular-targeted therapy era.

Methods and results

We enrolled 386 patients treated with sorafenib or lenvatinib as the first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma at multiple centers. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for differences in baseline and tumor characteristics between the two groups. Propensity score matching identified 110 patients in each treatment group. The median overall survival was similar between lenvatinib and sorafenib (14.8 and 13.0 months, respectively; P = 0.352). The median progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib than with sorafenib (7.6 and 3.9 months, respectively; P < 0.001). The overall response rate (P < 0.001) and disease control rate (P = 0.015), as defined by the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, were significantly better with lenvatinib than with sorafenib. The median overall survival was longer in patients who received subsequent treatment than in those who did not in the sorafenib group (23.1 and 5.7 months, respectively; P < 0.001), whereas the median overall survival with or without subsequent treatment did not differ significantly in the lenvatinib group (17.8 and 14.7 months, respectively; P = 0.439).

Conclusion

Overall survival with sorafenib and lenvatinib was not significantly different. However, patients who received subsequent treatments had longer overall survival than those who received only first-line treatment with sorafenib, whereas lenvatinib did not show this effect.

SUBMITTER: Fukushima T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8762625 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.