Dataset Information

Clinical usefulness of geriatric assessment in elderly patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma receiving sorafenib or lenvatinib therapy.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Therapeutic strategies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC) in geriatric patients are important for real-world practice. However, there remain no established biomarkers or therapeutic strategies regarding the best second-line agent after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab therapy.

Aim

In this study, we investigated the usefulness of modified Geriatric 8 (mG8) score in examining elderly patients (≥75 years old) with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC) using sorafenib or lenvatinib as first-line therapy.

Methods and results

This study assessed 101 elderly patients with u-HCC for their mG8 score (excluding elements of age from 8 items) and classified them into 2 groups according to their mG8 score: ≥11 as the high-score group and ≤ 10 as the low-score group. Among those taking sorafenib, no significant differences were noted in overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) between low and high mG8 score groups. Only modified albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade (2b/3 vs. 1/2a: HR 0.34; 95% CI, 0.17-0.69; p = .0029) was significantly associated with OS. Among those taking lenvatinib, patients with a high mG8 score (n = 26) had longer survival than those with a low mG8 score (n = 10) (20.0 months vs. 7.7 months: HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.11-0.89; p = .029). Intrahepatic tumor volume (<50% vs. ≥50%: HR 16.7; 95% CI, 1.71-163; p = .016) and α-fetoprotein (AFP) (<400 vs. ≥400: HR 3.38; 95% CI 0.84-19.7; p = .031) remained significant factors independently associated with OS.

Conclusions

The mG8 score may contribute to making a decision when considering either sorafenib or lenvatinib as a treatment option for u-HCC in elderly patients.

SUBMITTER: Sekiguchi S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9675392 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical usefulness of geriatric assessment in elderly patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma receiving sorafenib or lenvatinib therapy.

Sekiguchi Shuhei S Tsuchiya Kaoru K Yasui Yutaka Y Inada Kento K Kirino Sakura S Yamashita Koji K Hayakawa Yuka Y Osawa Leona L Higuchi Mayu M Takaura Kenta K Maeyashiki Chiaki C Kaneko Shun S Tamaki Nobuharu N Nakanishi Hiroyuki H Itakura Jun J Takahashi Yuka Y Asahina Yasuhiro Y Okamoto Ryuichi R Kurosaki Masayuki M Izumi Namiki N

Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) 20220318 11

<h4>Background</h4>Therapeutic strategies for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC) in geriatric patients are important for real-world practice. However, there remain no established biomarkers or therapeutic strategies regarding the best second-line agent after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab therapy.<h4>Aim</h4>In this study, we investigated the usefulness of modified Geriatric 8 (mG8) score in examining elderly patients (≥75 years old) with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC) u ...[more]

PMID: 35302279

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundA growing body of evidence suggests that non-viral hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) might benefit less from immunotherapy.Materials and methodsWe carried out a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients with non-viral advanced HCC, treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib, or sorafenib, in 36 centers in 4 countries (Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, and UK). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib, and OS and PFS with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib. For the primary and secondary endpoints, we carried out the analysis on the whole population first, and then we divided the cohort into two groups: non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)/non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) population and non-NAFLD/NASH population.ResultsOne hundred and ninety patients received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, 569 patients received lenvatinib, and 210 patients received sorafenib. In the whole population, multivariate analysis showed that treatment with lenvatinib was associated with a longer OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.95; P = 0.0268] and PFS (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.51-0.86; P = 0.002) compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. In the NAFLD/NASH population, multivariate analysis confirmed that lenvatinib treatment was associated with a longer OS (HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.26-0.84; P = 0.0110) and PFS (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.38-0.82; P = 0.031) compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. In the subgroup of non-NAFLD/NASH patients, no difference in OS or PFS was observed between patients treated with lenvatinib and those treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. All these results were confirmed following propensity score matching analysis. By comparing patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib, no statistically significant difference in survival was observed.ConclusionsThe present analysis conducted on a large number of advanced non-viral HCC patients showed for the first time that treatment with lenvatinib is associated with a significant survival benefit compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, in particular in patients with NAFLD/NASH-related HCC.

Dataset Information

Clinical usefulness of geriatric assessment in elderly patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma receiving sorafenib or lenvatinib therapy.

Background

Aim

Methods and results

Conclusions

Publications

Clinical usefulness of geriatric assessment in elderly patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma receiving sorafenib or lenvatinib therapy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets