Ferroptosis inhibitor alleviates sorafenib-induced cardiotoxicity by attenuating KLF11-mediated FSP1-dependent ferroptosis.

Sorafenib is a standard first-line drug for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, but the serious cardiotoxic effects restrict its therapeutic applicability. Here, we show that iron-dependent ferroptosis plays a vital role in sorafenib-induced cardiotoxicity. Remarkably, our in vivo and in vitro experiments demonstrated that ferroptosis inhibitor application neutralized sorafenib-induced heart injury. By analyzing transcriptome profiles of adult human sorafenib-treated cardiomyocytes, we found that Krüppel-like transcription factor 11 (KLF11) expression significantly increased after sorafenib stimulation. Mechanistically, KLF11 promoted ferroptosis by suppressing transcription of ferroptosis suppressor protein 1 (FSP1), a seminal breakthrough due to its ferroptosis-repressing properties. Moreover, FSP1 knockdown showed equivalent results to glutathione peroxidase 4 (GPX4) knockdown, and FSP1 overexpression counteracted GPX4 inhibition-induced ferroptosis to a substantial extent. Cardiac-specific overexpression of FSP1 and silencing KLF11 by an adeno-associated virus serotype 9 markedly improved cardiac dysfunction in sorafenib-treated mice. In summary, FSP1-mediated ferroptosis is a crucial mechanism for sorafenib-provoked cardiotoxicity, and targeting ferroptosis may be a promising therapeutic strategy for alleviating sorafenib-induced cardiac damage.

Understanding Sorafenib-Induced Cardiovascular Toxicity: Mechanisms and Treatment Implications.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been recognized as crucial agents for treating various tumors, and one of their key targets is the intracellular site of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR). While TKIs have demonstrated their effectiveness in solid tumor patients and increased life expectancy, they can also lead to adverse cardiovascular effects including hypertension, thromboembolism, cardiac ischemia, and left ventricular dysfunction. Among the TKIs, sorafenib was the first approved agent and it exerts anti-tumor effects on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) by inhibiting angiogenesis and tumor cell proliferation through targeting VEGFR and RAF. Unfortunately, the adverse cardiovascular effects caused by sorafenib not only affect solid tumor patients but also limit its application in curing other diseases. This review explores the mechanisms underlying sorafenib-induced cardiovascular adverse effects, including endothelial dysfunction, mitochondrial dysfunction, endoplasmic reticulum stress, dysregulated autophagy, and ferroptosis. It also discusses potential treatment strategies, such as antioxidants and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, and highlights the association between sorafenib-induced hypertension and treatment efficacy in cancer patients. Furthermore, emerging research suggests a link between sorafenib-induced glycolysis, drug resistance, and cardiovascular toxicity, necessitating further investigation. Overall, understanding these mechanisms is crucial for optimizing sorafenib therapy and minimizing cardiovascular risks in cancer patients.

Electrolyte disorders induced by six multikinase inhibitors therapy for renal cell carcinoma: a large-scale pharmacovigilance analysis.

To provide evidence for optimization of multi-kinase inhibitors (MKIs) use in the clinic, we use the public database to describe and evaluate electrolyte disorders (EDs) related to various MKIs treated for renal cell carcinoma. We analyzed spontaneous reports submitted to the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) in an observational and retrospective manner. Selecting electrolyte disorders' adverse events to multikinase inhibitors (axitinib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, pazopanib, sunitinib, and sorafenib). We used Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR), Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR), Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network (BCPNN), and multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS) algorithms to analyze suspected adverse reactions of electrolyte disorders induced by MKIs (which were treated for renal cell carcinoma) between January 2004 and December 2022. As of December 2022, 2772 MKIs (which were treated for renal cell carcinoma) ICSRs were related to electrolyte disorders AEs. In general, there were more AEs cases in males, except lenvatinib and 71.8% of the cases were submitted from North America. ICSRs in this study, the age group most frequently affected by electrolyte disorders AEs was individuals aged 45-64 years for axitinib, cabozantinib, pazopanib, and sunitinib, whereas electrolyte disorders AEs were more common in older patients (65-74 years) for sorafenib and lenvatinib. For all EDs documented in ICSRs (excluding missing data), the most common adverse outcome was hospitalization(1429/2674, 53.4%), and the most serious outcome was death/life-threat(281/2674, 10.5%). The prevalence of mortality was highest for sunitinib-related EDs (145/616, 23.5%), excluding missing data (n = 68), followed by cabozantinib-related EDs (20/237, 8.4%), excluding missing data (n = 1). The distribution of time-to-onset of Each drug-related ICSRs was not all the same, and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.001). With the criteria of ROR, the six MKIs were all significantly associated with electrolyte disorders AEs, the strongest association was the association between cabozantinib and hypermagnesaemia. MKIs have been reported to have significant electrolyte disorders AEs. Patients and physicians need to recognize and monitor these potentially fatal adverse events.

Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Inhibitors and the Risk of Aortic Aneurysm and Aortic Dissection.

Importance: Vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibitors (VPIs) pose a concern for aortic aneurysm (AA) and aortic dissection (AD), signaling potential vascular disease development. Objective: To investigate VPI-associated AA and AD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study with a nested design used full population data from a national claims database in Taiwan between 2011 and 2019. Eligible participants were aged 20 years or older with kidney, hepatic, gastrointestinal, or pancreatic cancer diagnosed between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2019. The first cancer diagnosis date was defined as the cohort entry date. Cases were patients who received a diagnosis of AA or AD in hospitalizations or emergency visits between the cohort entry date and December 31, 2019. Controls were matched by ratio (up to 1:5) based on age, sex, cancer type, cohort entry date, and the index date (ie, the first AA or AD event date). Data analysis was performed between January 2022 and December 2023. Exposures: Use of the oral VPIs sorafenib, sunitinib, and pazopanib between cohort entry date and index date. Main Outcomes and Measures: In the primary analysis, AA and AD were evaluated compositely, while in the secondary analyses, they were evaluated separately. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were calculated using conditional logistic regression to assess the association with VPI use (sorafenib, sunitinib, and pazopanib) considering various VPI exposure windows and cumulative use. Results: A total of 1461 cases were included (mean [SD] age, 73.0 [12.3] years; 1118 male patients [76.5%]), matched to 7198 controls. AA or AD risk increased with a VPI exposure of 100 days or less before the index date (aOR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.40-3.15), mainly from VPI-associated AD (aOR, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.77-5.39). Longer VPI duration (68 days or more: aOR, 2.64; 95% CI, 1.66-4.19) and higher cumulative dose (61 or more defined daily doses: aOR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.66-4.23) increased the risk. Conclusions and Relevance: The use of the 3 study VPIs (sorafenib, sunitinib, and pazopanib) was associated with an increased risk of AA and AD in patients with cancer, essentially all of the risk from VPI-associated AD. Future studies are needed to determine the risk factors of VPI-associated AA and AD, as well as to establish a class effect.

Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (COSMIC-312): final results of a randomised phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the COSMIC-312 trial was to evaluate cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib in patients with previously untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. In the initial analysis, cabozantinib plus atezolizumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus sorafenib. Here, we report the pre-planned final overall survival analysis and updated safety and efficacy results following longer follow-up. METHODS: COSMIC-312 was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study done across 178 centres in 32 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma were eligible. Patients must have had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), and adequate marrow and organ function, including Child-Pugh class A liver function; those with fibrolamellar carcinoma, sarcomatoid hepatocellular carcinoma, or combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma were ineligible. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1) using a web-based interactive response system to a combination of oral cabozantinib 40 mg once daily plus intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks, oral sorafenib 400 mg twice daily, or oral single-agent cabozantinib 60 mg once daily. Randomisation was stratified by disease aetiology, geographical region, and presence of extrahepatic disease or macrovascular invasion. Dual primary endpoints were for cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib: progression-free survival per RECIST 1.1, as assessed by a blinded independent radiology committee, in the first 372 randomly assigned patients (previously reported) and overall survival in all patients randomly assigned to cabozantinib plus atezolizumab or sorafenib. The secondary endpoint was progression-free survival in all patients randomly assigned to cabozantinib versus sorafenib. Outcomes in all randomly assigned patients, including final overall survival, are presented. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03755791. FINDINGS: Between Dec 7, 2018, and Aug 27, 2020, 432 patients were randomly assigned to combination treatment, 217 to sorafenib, and 188 to single-agent cabozantinib, and included in all efficacy analyses. 704 (84%) patients were male and 133 (16%) were female. 824 of these patients received at least one dose of study treatment and were included in the safety population. Median follow-up was 22·1 months (IQR 19·3-24·8). Median overall survival was 16·5 months (96% CI 14·5-18·7) for the combination treatment group and 15·5 months (12·2-20·0) for the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·98 [0·78-1·24]; stratified log-rank p=0·87). Median progression-free survival was 6·9 months (99% CI 5·7-8·2) for the combination treatment group, 4·3 months (2·9-6·1) for the sorafenib group, and 5·8 months (99% CI 5·4-8·2) for the single-agent cabozantinib group (HR 0·74 [0·56-0·97] for combination treatment vs sorafenib; HR 0·78 [99% CI 0·56-1·09], p=0·05, for single-agent cabozantinib vs sorafenib). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 281 (66%) of 429 patients in the combination treatment group, 100 (48%) of 207 patients in the sorafenib group, and 108 (57%) of 188 patients in the single-agent cabozantinib group; the most common were hypertension (37 [9%] vs 17 [8%] vs 23 [12%]), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (36 [8%] vs 18 [9%] vs 16 [9%]), aspartate aminotransferase increased (42 [10%] vs eight [4%] vs 17 [9%]), and alanine aminotransferase increased (40 [9%] vs six [3%] vs 13 [7%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 223 (52%) patients in the combination treatment group, 84 (41%) patients in the sorafenib group, and 87 (46%) patients in the single agent cabozantinib group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in six (1%) patients in the combination treatment group (encephalopathy, hepatic failure, drug-induced liver injury, oesophageal varices haemorrhage, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and tumour lysis syndrome), one (<1%) in the sorafenib group (general physical health deterioration), and four (2%) in the single-agent cabozantinib group (asthenia, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, sepsis, and gastric perforation). INTERPRETATION: First-line cabozantinib plus atezolizumab did not improve overall survival versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The progression-free survival benefit of the combination versus sorafenib was maintained, with no new safety signals. FUNDING: Exelixis and Ipsen.

Four-year overall survival update from the phase III HIMALAYA study of tremelimumab plus durvalumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III HIMALAYA study (NCT03298451) in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC), STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus sorafenib; durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib for OS. Results reported herein are from a 4-year updated OS analysis of HIMALAYA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants with uHCC and no previous systemic treatment were randomized to STRIDE (n = 393), durvalumab (n = 389), or sorafenib (n = 389). The updated data cut-off was 23 January 2023. OS and serious adverse events (AEs) were assessed. Additionally, baseline characteristics and subsequent therapies were analyzed in long-term survivors (≥36 months beyond randomization). RESULTS: For STRIDE, durvalumab, and sorafenib, median [95% confidence interval (CI)] follow-up was 49.12 months (46.95-50.17 months), 48.46 months (46.82-49.81 months), and 47.31 months (45.08-49.15 months), respectively. OS hazard ratio (95% CI) for STRIDE versus sorafenib was 0.78 (0.67-0.92). The 36-month OS rate for STRIDE was 30.7% versus 19.8% for sorafenib. The 48-month OS rate remained higher for STRIDE at 25.2%, versus 15.1% for sorafenib. The long-term OS benefit of STRIDE was observed across clinically relevant subgroups and was further improved in participants who achieved disease control. Long-term survivors with STRIDE (n = 103) included participants across clinically relevant subgroups, and 57.3% (59/103) had no reported subsequent anticancer therapy. No new serious treatment-related AEs occurred with STRIDE from the primary analysis (17.5%; 68/388). Durvalumab maintained OS noninferiority to sorafenib and no late-onset safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: These data represent the longest follow-up to date in phase III studies in uHCC. The unprecedented 3- and 4-year OS rates reinforce the sustained long-term OS benefit of STRIDE versus sorafenib. STRIDE maintained a tolerable yet differentiated safety profile from other current uHCC therapies. Results continue to support the long-term benefits of STRIDE in a diverse population, reflective of uHCC globally.

The long-term efficacy and safety of apatinib are inferior to sorafenib in the first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Apatinib, a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor independently developed by China, has been widely used in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in recent years. For more than a decade, sorafenib has been the classic first-line treatment option for patients with advanced HCC. However, the results of clinical studies comparing the efficacy and safety of these 2 drugs are still controversial. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of apatinib versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced HCC. METHODS: Up to August 14, 2023, the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang were searched, and clinical studies of experimental group (apatinib or apatinib plus transarterial chemoembolization [TACE]) versus control group (sorafenib or sorafenib plus TACE) in the first-line treatment of advanced HCC were included. Two researchers evaluated the quality of the included studies and extracted the data. Revman 5.4 software was used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies involving 1150 patients were included. Five studies are apatinib alone versus sorafenib alone, and the other 7 studies are apatinib plus TACE versus sorafenib plus TACE. The results of the meta-analysis showed that compared with sorafenib alone, apatinib could improve (OR = 3.06, 95%CI: 1.76-5.31), had no advantage in improving DCR (OR = 1.52, 95%CI: 0.86-2.68) and prolonging PFS (HR = 1.35, 95%CI: 0.94-1.96), and was significantly worse in prolonging OS (HR = 1.43, 95%CI: 1.08-1.88). Similarly, apatinib plus TACE was inferior to sorafenib plus TACE in prolonging OS (HR = 1.15, 95%CI: 1.03-1.28), although it improved ORR (OR = 1.49, 95%CI: 1.03-2.16). In terms of adverse drug events, the overall incidence of adverse events, and the incidence of drug reduction and discontinuation in the experimental group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P < .05). The incidence of hypertension, proteinuria, and oral mucositis in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < .05). CONCLUSION: In the setting of first-line treatment of advanced HCC, apatinib has improved short-term efficacy (ORR) compared with sorafenib, but the safety and long-term efficacy of apatinib are inferior to sorafenib.

Long-Term Survival in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Tivozanib: Analysis of the Phase III TIVO-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Tivozanib is an oral vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) with efficacy in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Long-term exploratory analyses from the TIVO-3 trial in relapsed/refractory (R/R) RCC including patients (26%) with prior immuno-oncology (IO) therapy are reported. METHODS: Patients with R/R advanced RCC that progressed with 2 or 3 prior systemic therapies (≥1 VEGFR TKI) were randomized to tivozanib 1.5 mg QD or sorafenib 400 mg BID, stratified by IMDC risk and previous therapy. Safety, investigator-assessed long-term progression-free survival (LT-PFS), and serial overall survival (OS) were assessed. RESULTS: Mean time on treatment was 11.0 months with tivozanib (n = 175) and 6.3 months with sorafenib (n = 175). Fewer grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred with tivozanib (46%) than sorafenib (55%). Dose modification rates were lower with tivozanib than sorafenib across age/prior IO subgroups; prior IO therapy did not impact dose reductions or discontinuations in either arm. Landmark LT-PFS rates were higher with tivozanib (3 years: 12.3% vs 2.4%; 4 years: 7.6% vs 0%). After 22.8 months mean follow-up, the OS HR was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.70-1.14); when conditioned on 12-month landmark PFS, tivozanib showed significant OS improvement over sorafenib (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.22-0.91; 2-sided P = .0221). CONCLUSIONS: Tivozanib demonstrated a consistent safety profile and long-term survival benefit in patients with R/R advanced RCC who were alive and progression free at 12 months. These post hoc exploratory analyses of LT-PFS and conditional OS support a clinically meaningful improvement with tivozanib versus sorafenib in this advanced RCC population.

Cardiovascular toxicities following the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in hepatocellular cancer patients: a retrospective, pharmacovigilance study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac adverse events (AEs) are common in tyrosine kinase inhibitors(TKIs). This study explored the cardiac AEs of TKIs through the Food and Drug Administration's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). METHODS: Disproportionality analysis and Bayesian analysis were utilized for data mining of the suspected cardiac AEs of TKIs, based on FAERS data from January 2004 to December 2021. RESULTS: A total of 4708 cardiac AEs reports of sorafenib, regorafenib, lenvatinib, and cabozantinib were identified. Hypertension accounts for the most reported cardiac AE. Lenvatinib appears to induce cardiac failure with the highest signals strength [ROR = 7.7 (3.46,17.17)]. Acute myocardial infarction was detected in lenvatinib [ROR = 7.91 (5.64,11.09)] and sorafenib [ROR = 2.22 (1.74, 2.84)]. Acute coronary syndrome was detected in lenvatinib [ROR = 11.57 (6.84, 19.58)] and sorafenib [ROR = 2.81 (1.87,4.24)]. Atrial fibrillation was detected in sorafenib [ROR = 1.82 (1.55,2.14)] and regorafenib [ROR = 1.36 (1.03,1.81)]. Meanwhile, aortic dissections were detected in sorafenib [ROR = 5.08 (3.31,7.8)] and regorafenib [ROR = 3.39 (1.52,7.56)]. Most patients developed hypertension and cardiac failure within 30 days of initiating TKI treatments. Patients taking lenvatinib had an increased incidence of developing acute coronary syndrome after 180 days of treatment. CONCLUSION: Analysis of FAERS data provides a precise profile on the characteristics of cardiac AEs associated with different TKI regimens. Distinct monitoring and appropriate management are needed in the care of TKI recipients.

Cardiovascular adverse events in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, including tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and anti-angiogenics, are first-line therapies for advanced and metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma. Although TKIs have a greater potential for off-target adverse effects compared with bevacizumab (anti-angiogenics), a direct comparison of the risk of cardiovascular adverse events between these two types of therapies has not been performed. OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of and characterize cardiovascular adverse events in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving TKIs versus bevacizumab. METHODS: This cohort study included adult patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who received first-line TKIs (sorafenib or lenvatinib) or bevacizumab at two academic medical centers and one community cancer center from September 2018 to August 2021. The primary outcome was risk of cardiovascular adverse events. Major secondary outcomes included the incidence of individual types of cardiovascular adverse events and risk factors associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). RESULTS: The study included 221 patients (159 TKI patients; 62 bevacizumab patients). At a median follow-up of 5 months, the probability of cardiovascular adverse events was not significantly different between the two groups (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.85; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.58-1.24; p = 0.390). The cumulative incidence of cardiovascular events was highest in patients receiving lenvatinib (sub-distribution hazard ratio [SHR]: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.02-2.30) compared with those receiving sorafenib (reference) or bevacizumab (SHR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.68-1.64) after adjustment for comorbidities, liver transplant status, and presence of portal vein thrombosis at baseline. Cardiovascular adverse events were observed in 151 (68%) patients, and MACE were observed in 27 (12%) patients. Risk factors associated with MACE were hypertension (SHR: 3.5; 95% CI: 0.9087-15.83; p = 0.086), prior history of MACE (SHR: 2.01; 95% CI: 0.83-4.87; p = 0.124), and tobacco use (SHR: 2.85; 95% CI: 0.90-8.97; p = 0.074). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiovascular risk was not significantly different between TKIs and bevacizumab. Lenvatinib appears to have the highest risk of cardiovascular adverse events among these first-line VEGF inhibitors.

Sorafenib plus triplet therapy with venetoclax, azacitidine and homoharringtonine for refractory/relapsed acute myeloid leukemia with FLT3-ITD: A multicenter phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (R/R AML) and FLT3-internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD) respond infrequently to salvage chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of sorafenib plus triplet therapy with venetoclax, azacitidine, and homoharringtonine (VAH) as a salvage therapy in this population. METHODS: This multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 study was conducted at 12 hospitals across China. Eligible patients had R/R AML with FLT3-ITD (aged 18-65 years) who were treated with VAH. The primary endpoint was composite complete remission (CRc) after two cycles. Secondary outcomes included the overall response rate (ORR), safety, and survival. RESULTS: Between July 9, 2020, and March 19, 2022, 58 patients were assessed for eligibility, 51 of whom were enrolled. The median patient age was 47 years (interquartile range [IQR] 31-57). CRc was 76.5% with ORR of 82.4%. At a median follow-up of 17.7 months (IQR, 8.7-24.7), the median duration of CRc was not reached (NR), overall survival was 18.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.8-NR) and event-free survival was 11.4 months (95% CI, 5.6-NR). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in ≥10% of patients included neutropenia in 47 (92.2%), thrombocytopenia in 41 (80.4%), anemia in 35 (68.6%), febrile neutropenia in 29 (56.9%), pneumonia in 13 (25.5%), and sepsis in 6 (11.8%) patients. Treatment-related death occurred in two (3.9%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: The sorafenib plus VAH regimen was well tolerated and highly active against R/R AML with FLT3-ITD. This regimen may be a suitable therapeutic option for this population, but larger population trials are needed to be explored. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Registry: NCT04424147.

Efficacy and safety comparison between Lenvatinib and Sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world study.

OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Lenvatinib compared with Sorafenib for treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients under real-world setting. METHODS: We retrieved relevant literature through the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from 1 January 2000 to 25 June 2022. The differences in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) as well as treatment adverse related events were evaluated between HCC patients treated with Lenvatinib and Sorafenib using fixed or random-effects models. The MINORS evaluation questionnaire was used to assess the quality of the included literature. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included a total of 9 single-arm studies and 6 comparative studies. In the meta-analysis, Lenvatinib showed significantly longer median OS than Sorafenib ( P  < 0.01, MD = 1.20, 95% CI [0.92-1.48]), as well as median PFS ( P  < 0.01, OR = 2.68, 95% CI [1.59-3.76]), and higher ORR( P  < 0.01, OR = 5.36, 95% CI [3.42-8.40]), DCR( P  < 0.01, OR = 2.17, 95% CI [1.64-2.86]). The occurrence of Hypertension was higher in Lenvatinib than in Sorafenib treatment ( P  < 0.01, MD = 5.27, 95% CI [2.38-11.66]), and there was no significant difference in Hand-foot syndrome between Lenvatinib and Sorafenib. CONCLUSION: We found that treatment with Lenvatinib in HCC patients resulted in better OS, PFS, and higher ORR and DCR compared to Sorafenib. However, safety data indicated that Lenvatinib did not exhibit a significant advantage.

Real-world evidence of sorafenib for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: A single-center study.

Context: Hepatocellular carcinoma is the third leading cause of cancer death. Currently, sorafenib is the treatment of choice in advanced hepatocarcinoma. Aims: Assessing the effectiveness and toxicity of sorafenib in real-word clinical practice in patients with hepatocarcinoma. Settings and Design: Single-centered observational retrospective study. Methods and Material: We included patients with hepatocarcinoma who began treatment with sorafenib between 2008 and 2018. We evaluated overall survival, time to progression, and response using RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria. Toxicity was assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5. 2020. Statistical Analysis Used: Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test were used to determine the survival time and estimate factors associated with these events. Data were analyzed with SPSS 19.0 software. Results: We included 36 patients (88.9% male) with an average age of 64 ± 3.4 years. The tumor stage was advanced (C) in 21 patients (61.8%). We obtained a median overall survival of 8.5 months (IQR 3.14-18.9) and a time to progression of 4.5 months (IQR 2.4-8.8). The main degree of response was progression in 19 patients (36.1%), followed by stable disease in 13 (52.8%). The most commonly reported adverse reactions were: constitutional (83.3%), gastrointestinal (55%) and dermatological symptoms (50.0%). The development of grades 3 or 4 toxicity was not associated with increased overall survival (P = 0.719). Conclusions: The findings of the survival analysis obtained in real practice are similar to those obtained in pivotal clinical trials. Adverse reactions were different from those expected.

Efficacy and safety analysis of TACE + Donafenib + Toripalimab versus TACE + Sorafenib in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of TACE combined with Donafenib and Toripalimab versus TACE combined with Sorafenib in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), aiming to guide personalized treatment strategies for HCC and improve patient prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 169 patients with unresectable advanced-stage HCC who underwent treatment at the Interventional Department of Wuhan Union Hospital from January 2020 to December 2022. Based on the patients' treatment strategies, they were divided into two groups: TACE + Donafenib + Toripalimab group (N = 81) and TACE + Sorafenib group (N = 88). The primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) of the two groups' tumors. The secondary endpoint was the occurrence of treatment-related adverse events in the two groups of patients. RESULTS: The TACE + Donafenib + Toripalimab group showed higher ORR and DCR compared to the TACE + Sorafenib group (66.7% vs. 38.6%, 82.6% vs. 68.2%, P < 0.05). The TACE + Donafenib + Toripalimab group also demonstrated longer median progression-free survival (mPFS) (10.9 months vs. 7.0 months, P < 0.001) and median overall survival (mOS) (19.6 months vs. 10.9 months, P < 0.001) compared to the TACE + Sorafenib group. When comparing the two groups, the TACE + Sorafenib group had a higher incidence of grade 3-4 hypertension (14.8% vs. 4.9%, P = 0.041), higher incidence of diarrhea (all grades) (18.2% vs. 7.4%, P = 0.042), and higher incidence of hand-foot syndrome (all grades) (26.1% vs. 12.3%, P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: TACE combined with Donafenib and Toripalimab demonstrates superior efficacy and safety in treating unresectable HCC patients. This combination therapy may serve as a feasible option to improve the prognosis of unresectable HCC patients.

Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, and additional first-line treatments are needed. The programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor tislelizumab demonstrated efficacy and a tolerable safety profile as second-line HCC treatment. Objective: To investigate efficacy and safety of tislelizumab vs sorafenib tosylate for first-line treatment of unresectable HCC. Design, Setting, and Participants: The open-label, global, multiregional phase 3 RATIONALE-301 randomized clinical trial enrolled systemic therapy-naive adults with histologically confirmed HCC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C disease, disease progression following (or patient was not amenable to) locoregional therapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, and Child-Pugh class A, between December 27, 2017, and October 2, 2019. Data cutoff was July 11, 2022. Intervention: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive tislelizumab, 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks, or sorafenib tosylate, 400 mg orally twice daily. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included objective response rate, progression-free survival, duration of response, and safety. Results: A total of 674 patients were included in the analysis (570 men [84.6%]; median age, 61 years [range, 23-86 years]). As of July 11, 2022, minimum study follow-up was 33 months. The primary end point of OS noninferiority of tislelizumab vs sorafenib was met in the intention-to-treat population (n = 674); median overall survival was 15.9 (95% CI, 13.2-19.7) months vs 14.1 (95% CI, 12.6-17.4) months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 [95.003% CI, 0.71-1.02]), and superiority of tislelizumab vs sorafenib was not met. The objective response rate was 14.3% (n = 49) for tislelizumab vs 5.4% (n = 18) for sorafenib, and median duration of response was 36.1 (95% CI, 16.8 to not evaluable) months vs 11.0 (95% CI, 6.2-14.7) months, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.1 (95% CI, 2.1-3.5) months vs 3.4 (95% CI, 2.2-4.1) months with tislelizumab vs sorafenib (HR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.92-1.33]). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was 96.2% (325 of 338 patients) for tislelizumab and 100% (n = 324) for sorafenib. Grade 3 or greater treatment-related AEs were reported in 75 patients (22.2%) receiving tislelizumab and 173 (53.4%) receiving sorafenib. There was a lower incidence of treatment-related AEs leading to drug discontinuation (21 [6.2%] vs 33 [10.2%]) and drug modification (68 [20.1%] vs 187 [57.7%]) with tislelizumab vs sorafenib. Conclusions and Relevance: In RATIONALE-301, tislelizumab demonstrated OS benefit that was noninferior vs sorafenib, with a higher objective response rate and more durable responses, while median progression-free survival was longer with sorafenib. Tislelizumab demonstrated a favorable safety profile vs sorafenib. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03412773.

Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy combined with sorafenib versus sorafenib alone for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The clinical benefits and safety of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) combined with sorafenib versus sorafenib alone for advanced HCC are inconsistent in clinical studies. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of HAIC combined with sorafenib versus sorafenib alone for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We searched the database up to March 1, 2023, for studies evaluating the effectiveness and safety of HAIC combined with sorafenib versus sorafenib alone for advanced HCC. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022323712). Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), diseases control rate (DCR), and adverse effects (AEs). The hazard ratio (HR) and odd ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to measure the pooled effect. Six studies with 318 patients in the combination group and 338 patients in the control group were included. Meta-analysis showed that HAIC combined with sorafenib significantly improves OS compared with sorafenib alone (HR = 9.70, 95% CI 4.52-20.82] and HAIC combined with sorafenib significantly improves PFS compared with sorafenib alone (HR = 9.48, 95% CI 4.47-20.13). Besides, HAIC combined with sorafenib did not show significantly advantage of DCR rate (OR = 1.85, 95% CI 0.93-3.69), but associated with higher rates of ORR compared with sorafenib alone (OR = 9.85, 95% CI 3.05-31.85). HAIC combined with sorafenib can achieve a better effect and survival benefits than sorafenib alone in patients with advanced HCC, but the limitation should be treated with cautions.

Cost-effectiveness and prognostic model of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma with high tumor burden and/or Vp4 tumor thrombus compared with sorafenib: a post-hoc analysis of the FOHAIC-1 trial.

OBJECTIVES: The phase III FOHAIC-1 trial revealed that hepatic arterial infusion of chemotherapy (HAIC) improved overall survival compared to sorafenib in the high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study therefore set out to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and establish a prognostic clinico-radiological score of HAIC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 409 patients with high-risk HCC who received HAIC between 2014 and 2020 were included. A Markov model was applied in the cost-effectiveness analysis using data from the FOHAIC-1 trial. In prognosis analysis, a clinico-radiological score was developed using a Cox-regression model and subsequently confirmed in the internal validation and test cohorts. The area under the curve from receiver operator characteristic analysis was used to assess the performance of the clinico-radiological score. RESULTS: HAIC resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $10190.41/quality-adjusted life years compared to sorafenib, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis predicted a ≥99.9% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was below the willingness-to-pay. The Cox analysis identified five factors, namely extrahepatic metastasis (m), arterial enhancing type (a), tumor number (nu), albumin-bilirubin index (a), and involved lobe (l), which together comprise the clinico-radiological score (HAIC-manual). Patients were classified into three groups based on the number of factors present, with cutoffs at 2 and 4 factors. The stratified median overall survival for these groups were 21.6, 10.0, and 5.9 months, respectively ( P <0.001). These findings were verified through internal validation and test cohorts with a significance level of P ≤0.01. The time-dependent area under the curve from receiver operator characteristic for the ability of the HAIC-manual to predict survival in 1, 2, and 3 years were 0.71, 0.76, and 0.78, which significantly outperformed existing staging systems. CONCLUSION: HAIC is a promising and cost-effective strategy for patients with high-risk HCC. The clinico-radiological score may be a simple prognostic tool for predicting HAIC treatment.

The efficacy and safety in radioactive iodine refractory thyroid cancer patients treated with sorafenib.

Background: Sorafenib included in Chinese medical insurance is the earliest targeted drug for radioactive iodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC). This study is to further demonstrate the clinical efficacy and safety of sorafenib used in Zhujiang Hospital of Southern Medical University. Methods: RR-DTC patients treated at our Department of Nuclear Medicine in Zhujiang Hospital of Southern Medical University (October 2017-May 2020) were retrospectively analyzed. Treatment effects, progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse effects (AEs) during medication were evaluated. Results: Of the 31 patients included, 26 patients were evaluated for efficacy with a median follow-up time of 17.5 months (4.0-51.0 months). The disease control rate (DCR) was 57.7% (n = 15) and the objective response rate (ORR) was 26.9% (n = 7). Most patients with disease control had thyroglobulin decreases of more than 60% (p = 0.004), ORRs were favorable in patients with lung metastasis and lung-only metastasis (p = 0.010 and 0.001, respectively). The PFS of the 26 patients analyzed was 16.5 months (95%CI: 14.41 -23.90 months). In the subgroup analysis, female, patients with lung-only metastasis, hand-foot skin syndrome (HFS), and thyroglobulin response ≥ 60% observed longer PFS (p = 0.038, 0.045, 0.035, and 0.000, respectively), while patients with bone metastasis had lower PFS (p = 0.035). The most common toxicity profile was HFS (93.5%), followed by diarrhea (83.9%), alopecia (74.2%). All the side effects were mainly grade 1-2. Grade 3-4 adverse reactions were more common in diarrhea and HFS. Conclusions: Sorafenib has promising efficacy in RR-DTC, especially in patients with lung metastasis and lung-only metastasis. The AEs of sorafenib were generally mild, and the main AE was HFS.

Efficacy and tolerability of sorafenib in desmoid-type fibromatosis: A need to review dose.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is currently one of the recommended treatments for symptomatic patients with desmoid-type fibromatosis (DTF). In this study, we aim to assess the clinical efficacy and tolerability of sorafenib in DTF patients. METHODOLOGY: Patients aged>18 years with a histological diagnosis of DTF and who have received sorafenib were enroled in this prospective observational study. Demographic data, clinical profile, the initial dose of sorafenib, treatment-related toxicities, dose modifications, and responses were recorded. The primary objective was to assess the objective response rate (ORR). The secondary objectives were to evaluate progression-free survival (PFS), tolerability, and adverse effects of sorafenib. Response assessment was based on response evaluation criteria in solid tumours 1.1 criteria. Adverse effects were graded according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 criteria. Time to event was calculated by Kaplan-Meier analysis, and survival was compared by log-rank test. Univariate and multivariable cox regression analysis were used to find independent predictors of relapse. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were enroled in the study. The median age of the study population was 32 (range, 18-81) years, and 66.35% of patients were females. On response assessment, ORR was 46.1% and stable disease was observed in 31.7% patients. ORR was higher in the appendicular site (51.7%) compared to the abdominal site (27.2%). PFS at 1 and 2 years was 86.6% (79.6-92.7%) and 73.7% (62.4-82.8%), respectively. Two-thirds (66.6%) of patients had already received some form of treatment. At the time of analysis, 70 (67.3%) patients were continuing sorafenib. Only 4.8% stopped sorafenib due to progression, 10.5% due to intolerable adverse effects, and 17.3% due to other reasons. The common treatment-related toxicities were hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) (89.4%), fatigue (79.8%), alopecia (70.1%), and diarrhoea (48.0%). In the patients with a starting dose of ≥400 mg (48.0% of patients), discontinuation was necessitated in 12% of patients, and further dose reduction was required in 58%, while only about 13% required dose reduction or discontinuation at a starting dose of 200 mg (51.9% of patients). Responses were not compromised due to lower starting doses. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib has good activity in DTF, but it is associated with significant toxicity. The adverse effect profile is distinct in Indian patients with higher HFSR and alopecia. Due to the high rate of dose reduction/discontinuation with a starting dose of 400 mg, a starting dose of 200 mg may be recommended in Indian patients.