Refining sorafenib therapy: lessons from clinical practice.

Understanding the best use of sorafenib is essential in order to maximize clinical benefit in hepatocellular carcinoma. Based on Phase III and noninterventional study data, as well as our extensive experience, we discuss dose modification in order to manage adverse events, disease response evaluation and how to maximize treatment benefit. Sorafenib should be initiated at the approved dose (400 mg twice daily) and reduced/interrupted as appropriate in order to manage adverse events. Dose modification should be considered before discontinuation. Appropriate tumor response assessment is critical. Focusing on radiologic response may result in premature sorafenib discontinuation; symptomatic progression should also be considered. If second-line therapies or trials are unavailable, continuing sorafenib beyond radiologic progression may provide a clinical benefit. Our recommendations enable the maximization of treatment duration, and hence clinical benefit, for patients.

Continuation of Lorlatinib in ALK-Positive NSCLC Beyond Progressive Disease.

INTRODUCTION: Lorlatinib, a potent, selective third-generation ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), exhibited overall and intracranial antitumor activity in patients with ALK-positive NSCLC. METHODS: Retrospective analyses in the ongoing phase 2 trial (NCT01970865) investigated the clinical benefit of continuing lorlatinib beyond progressive disease (LBPD). Patients with previous crizotinib treatment as the only ALK TKI were group A (n = 28); those with at least one previous second-generation ALK TKIs were group B (n = 74). LBPD was defined as greater than 3 weeks of lorlatinib treatment after investigator-assessed progressive disease. Only patients with the best overall response of complete or partial response or stable disease were included. RESULTS: There were no major differences in baseline characteristics between groups. The median duration of treatment for patients who continued LBPD was 32.4 months (group A) and 16.4 months (group B) versus 12.5 months (group A) and 7.7 months (group B) for patients who did not continue LBPD. The median overall survival in group A was not reached (NR) in patients who continued LBPD versus 24.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.1-NR); group B's median was 26.5 months (95% CI: 18.7-35.5) in patients who continued LBPD versus 14.7 months (95% CI: 9.3-38.5) in patients who did not continue LBPD. The median overall survival postprogression for groups A and B was NR (95% CI: 21.4-NR) and 14.6 months (95% CI: 11.2-19.2) in patients who continued LBPD and 8.0 months (95% CI: 1.5-NR) versus 5.3 months (95% CI: 2.8-14.3) in patients who did not continue LBPD. CONCLUSIONS: Continuing LBPD is a viable treatment strategy for select patients with ALK-positive NSCLC who progressed on lorlatinib.

What Can Be Done to Solve the Unmet Clinical Need of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients following Lenvatinib Failure?

BACKGROUND/AIM: An effective postprogression treatment of lenvatinib (LEN) against unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC) has not been established. We aimed to elucidate the clinical role of continuing LEN beyond progression of disease (PD). METHODS: From March 2018 to October 2020, 99 u-HCC patients, in whom PD was confirmed (male:female = 78:21, median age 72 years, Child-Pugh A = 99, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage A:B:C = 2:43:54, LEN as first-line = 55), were enrolled (stopped LEN at PD [A group], n = 26; continued LEN beyond PD [B group], n = 73). Radiological response was evaluated with RECIST 1.1. Clinical features and prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) were retrospectively investigated using inverse probability weighting (IPW) calculated by propensity score. RESULTS: Median time to progression, best response, and modified albumin-bilirubin grade (mALBI) at both baseline and PD did not show significant difference between the groups. Postprogression treatment in the A group was best supportive care in 17, sorafenib in 4, regorafenib in 3, ramucirumab in 1, and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy in 1. After adjusting with IPW, the B group showed better prognosis in regard to OS after PD and OS after introducing LEN than the A group (10.8/19.6 vs. 5.8/11.2 months, p < 0.001, respectively). In IPW-adjusted Cox hazard multivariate analysis, significant prognostic factors for OS after PD were mALBI 2b/3 at PD (HR 1.983, p = 0.021), decline of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) from baseline at PD (HR 3.180, p < 0.001), elevated alpha-fetoprotein (≥100 ng/mL) at introducing LEN (HR 2.511, p = 0.004), appearance of new extrahepatic metastasis (HR 2.396, p = 0.006), positive for hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) before PD (any grade) (HR 0.292, p < 0.001), and continuing LEN beyond PD (HR 0.297, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: When ECOG PS and hepatic reserve function permit, continuing LEN treatment beyond PD, especially in u-HCC patients showed HFSR during LEN treatment, might be a good therapeutic option, at least until a more effective drug as a postprogression treatment after LEN failure is developed.