Efficacy and safety of sequential therapy with sorafenib and regorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a two-center study in China.

Background: Regorafenib is a standard 2nd-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the efficacy and safety of sequential therapy with sorafenib and regorafenib among advanced HCC patients in China is not clear. Methods: This was a retrospective, two-center, cohort study of advanced HCC patients who received sequential therapy of sorafenib and regorafenib from October 2018 to April 2020 at 2 Chinese institutions. The patients were converted directly to regorafenib after failing to respond to sorafenib monotherapy. The patients underwent evaluations every 4-6 weeks to determine the efficacy and safety of the treatment according to physiological, laboratory, and radiological results. A radiological evaluation using computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scans was conducted. The outcomes included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: A total of 43 patients received regorafenib as a 2nd-line treatment after sorafenib progression. Of these patients, 26 (60.5%) and 17 (39.5%) were diagnosed with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stages B and C, respectively. The median PFS was 11.0 [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.8-16.2] months, and the median OS was 17.0 (95% CI: 12.8-21.2) months. Conversely, the most common toxicities were hand-foot skin reaction (48.8%), diarrhea (32.6%), and hypertension (14%). The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were hypoalbuminemia (4.7%), anemia (4.7%), and thrombocytopenia (4.7%). Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥400, alanine transaminase (ALT) ≥60 IU/L, and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) ≥60 IU/L before 2nd-line treatment were associated with PFS in the univariable analyses. The Cox proportional-hazards regression analysis showed that AFP [hazard ratio (HR) =0.225; 95% CI: 0.073-0.688; P=0.009], ALT (HR =0.195; 95% CI: 0.051-0.741; P=0.016), AST (HR =0.209; 95% CI: 0.063-0.697; P=0.011), and presence of extrahepatic metastasis (HR =0.074; 95% CI: 0.009-0.608; P=0.015) before 2nd-line treatment were independently associated with PFS. Conclusions: The sequential therapy of sorafenib and regorafenib is well-tolerated and effective in advanced HCC patients after sorafenib progression based on our two-center real-world data. Patients with good liver function reserve and a high level of AFP before 2nd-line treatment may benefit from sequential treatment. These results still need further validation.

Regorafenib versus cabozantinb as second-line treatment after sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recently, three published phase III trials highlighted the superiority of investigational drugs compared to placebo, thus leading to their approval in the second-line setting. We report here a MAIC of second-line MKI options for patients with HCC previously treated with sorafenib using individual real-world data of regorafenib and aggregate data of second-line cabozantinib from the CELESTIAL trial. METHODS: Data from 278 patients who received regorafenib as second-line therapy after sorafenib failure for unresectable HCC were used as IPD. Data inclusion were adapted to those reported in the CELESTIAL trial in the subset of patients who received sorafenib as the only prior therapy. Survival medians and rates were obtained from Kaplan-Meier curves, and differences between regorafenib and cabozantinib groups were explored through Cox regression adjusted for weights originating from MAIC. RESULTS: The median OS of the weighted regorafenib group was 11.1 months (IQR: 5.6-16.4) and 11.3 (IQR: 6.7-22.4) for cabozantinib; HR 0.83 (95%CI 0.62-1.09). The median PFS of the weighted regorafenib group was 3.0 months (IQR: 1.9-4.8) and 5.5 (IQR: 2.3-9.3) for cabozantinib; HR 0.50 (95%CI 0.41-0.62). In the subgroup who received prior sorafenib for < 3 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 6.5 months (IQR: 4.7-10.9) and 9.5 months (IQR: 5.9-18.2) for cabozantinib; HR 0.68 (95%CI 0.39-1.16). In the subgroup receiving prior sorafenib for 3 to < 6 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 8.0 months (IQR: 4.2-15.2) and 11.5 (IQR: 6.5-23.9) for cabozantinib; HR 0.66 (95%CI 0.42-1.02). In the subgroup receiving prior sorafenib for ≥ 6 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 13.4 (IQR: 8.1-46.5) and 12.3 (IQR: 6.6-22.9) for cabozantinib; HR 0.89 (95%CI 0.52-1.51). CONCLUSION: Our results confirmed no differences between regorafenib and cabozantinib in terms of OS. However, in earlier progressors on prior sorafenib a larger benefit might be expected from cabozantinib treatment.

Comparative Efficacy of Cabozantinib and Regorafenib for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: No trials have compared cabozantinib and regorafenib for the second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). OBJECTIVES: Conduct a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of the efficacy and safety of second-line cabozantinib and regorafenib in patients with advanced HCC and disease progression after prior sorafenib. METHODS: The CELESTIAL and RESORCE trials were used for indirect comparison of second-line cabozantinib and regorafenib in advanced HCC. Population-level data were available for RESORCE, individual patient data (IPD) for CELESTIAL. To align with RESORCE, the CELESTIAL population was limited to patients who received first-line sorafenib only. To minimize potential effect-modifying population differences, the CELESTIAL IPD were weighted to balance the distribution of clinically relevant baseline characteristics with those of RESORCE. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated for the matching-adjusted second-line CELESTIAL population and compared with those for RESORCE using weighted Kaplan-Meier curves and parametric modeling. Rates of grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) affecting > 5% of patients in any study arm were compared. RESULTS: In the matching-adjusted second-line populations (CELESTIAL, effective sample size = 266; RESORCE, n = 573), median (95% confidence interval) OS was similar for cabozantinib and regorafenib (11.4 [8.9-17.0] versus 10.6 [9.1-12.1] months; p = 0.3474, log-rank test). Median PFS was longer for cabozantinib than regorafenib (5.6 [4.9-7.3] versus 3.1 [2.8-4.2] months; p = 0.0005, log-rank test). There was a trend for lower rates of some grade 3/4 TEAEs with regorafenib than with cabozantinib, which may reflect the exclusion of sorafenib-intolerant patients from RESORCE but not from CELESTIAL, a difference that the MAIC methods could not remove. Only diarrhea rates were statistically significantly lower for regorafenib (p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cabozantinib may achieve similar OS and prolonged PFS compared with regorafenib in patients with progressive advanced HCC after prior sorafenib.

Cabozantinib and regorafenib are treatments approved for some patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a type of liver cancer, after disease progression despite prior sorafenib treatment. Cabozantinib, regorafenib and sorafenib are tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), meaning that they slow cancer progression by targeting specific ways that tumors grow. Cabozantinib and regorafenib offer benefits to patients compared with placebo (i.e., no treatment) for those who have progressed despite sorafenib treatment. No clinical studies have compared cabozantinib and regorafenib directly. This study compared the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib and regorafenib using data from trials of each drug versus placebo: CELESTIAL for cabozantinib and RESORCE for regorafenib. These two trials were similar­both involved patients with progressive advanced HCC who had received previous cancer treatment. There were some important differences, but these were minimized using statistical methods (matching and adjustments/"weighting") allowing outcomes to be meaningfully compared. One difference that could not be removed by the statistical methods was that patients who were intolerant to prior sorafenib were excluded from RESORCE but were eligible for the CELESTIAL trial. In the otherwise matched populations, treatment with cabozantinib was associated with similar overall survival and significantly longer progression-free survival than regorafenib. Rates of diarrhea were significantly lower for regorafenib than cabozantinib, suggesting that regorafenib may be better tolerated, but this may reflect the exclusion of sorafenib-intolerant patients from RESORCE. These findings cannot replace a head-to-head study, but may help in guiding decision-making between cabozantinib and regorafenib in patients with progressive advanced HCC after soraftenib treatment.

Sequential therapy with sorafenib and regorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study in Japan.

Background Conversion from sorafenib to regorafenib is primarily an evidence-based treatment strategy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of sequential therapy with sorafenib and regorafenib in patients with advanced HCC by analysis of outcomes in clinical practice with the aim to complement phase III findings. Methods The medical records of patients with advanced HCC receiving regorafenib were retrieved to collect data on sorafenib administration at seven Japanese institutions. Radiological responses and adverse events were evaluated using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0, respectively. Results Before March 2018, 44 patients were administered regorafenib for advanced HCC. The median sorafenib treatment duration was 8.4 months. The most common adverse events were similar to those reported by the RESORCE trial. The median overall survival (OS) was 17.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.4-22.9), and 17 of 37 patients (45.9%) discontinued regorafenib and received sequential systemic therapy after regorafenib. These patients had significantly longer OS than those who were treated by the best supportive care or sub-optimal therapy (not reached versus 8.7 months [95% CI 5.8-11.7]; P < 0.001). Conclusion The results based on Japanese clinical practices verified the tolerability of regorafenib in advanced HCC. Major regorafenib-associated adverse events were similar to those related to sorafenib. OS was significantly longer than expected, which might be associated with the sequential systemic therapies after regorafenib, mainly lenvatinib.

Prognostic Factors Associated with Postprogression Survival in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with Sorafenib Not Eligible for Second-Line Regorafenib Treatment.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic factors associated with postprogression survival (PPS) in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated with sorafenib, who were not eligible for second-line treatment with regorafenib. METHODS: A total of 103 patients with radiological confirmation of progressive disease (PD) were enrolled. RESULTS: The median PPS (n = 67) was 6.1 months. Significant and independent prognostic factors at initial radiological PD associated with good PPS were an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) score of 0, the absence of macrovascular invasion (MVI), and time to progression (TTP) ≥4 months. Upon scoring these three variables as good PPS factors, the median PPS in the good PPS score of 3 or 2 group (n = 38) was significantly longer than that in the good PPS score of 1 or 0 group (n = 29) (16.6 vs. 2.9 months; p < 0.0001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: An ECOG-PS score of 0, the absence of MVI, and TTP ≥4 months at first radiological confirmation of PD may be useful for predicting good PPS in patients with advanced HCC who do not meet the eligibility criteria for the RESORCE trial.

Characteristics of patients with sorafenib-treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma eligible for second-line treatment.

Background Regorafenib has been investigated for its efficacy and safety as a second-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We assessed the characteristics of patients with HCC treated with sorafenib who might be eligible for second-line treatment in general and regorafenib in particular. Methods Patients with HCC treated with sorafenib were retrospectively analyzed. We defined second-line candidate patients as maintaining Child-Pugh A and ECOG-PS ≤1 at the time of sorafenib failure. We also defined regorafenib candidate patients as follows: 1) continuing sorafenib at the time of radiological progression, 2) maintaining Child-Pugh A and ECOG-PS ≤ 1 at the time of sorafenib failure, and 3) continuing sorafenib 400 mg or more without intolerable adverse events at least 20 days of the last 28 days of treatment. Results Of 185 patients, 130 (70%) and 69 (37%) were candidates for second-line treatment and regorafenib. Child-Pugh score 6 and ECOG-PS 1 at the time of starting sorafenib were significantly lower in both second-line treatment and regorafenib candidate patients. Moreover, hand-foot skin reaction and liver failure during sorafenib treatment were associated with significantly low and high probabilities, respectively, of both Child-Pugh score > 6 and ECOG-PS > 1 at the time of sorafenib failure. Conclusion Regorafenib candidate patients after sorafenib failure are limited, and generally fewer than those who are candidates for second-line treatment. A lower Child-Pugh score and a better ECOG-PS were predictors of eligibility for second-line therapy and regorafenib treatment in sorafenib-treated patients with advanced HCC patients.

Cost effectiveness of regorafenib as second-line therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, has demonstrated prolonged survival by 2.8 months as a second-line agent in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who progress on sorafenib therapy. The objective of the current study was to examine the cost effectiveness of regorafenib for the treatment of HCC. METHODS: The authors constructed a Markov simulation model of patients with unresectable HCC and Child-Pugh A cirrhosis who received treatment with regorafenib versus best supportive care. Model inputs for regorafenib effectiveness and rates of adverse events in patients with HCC were based on published clinical trial data and literature review. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated along with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of regorafenib therapy. One-way sensitivity analyses also were conducted simultaneously on all model parameters and on various Monte-Carlo simulation parameters, and the regorafenib cost threshold at which cost effectiveness would be achieved was determined. RESULTS: Regorafenib provided an increase of 0.18 QALYs at a cost of $47,112. The ICER for regorafenib, compared with best supportive care, was $224,362. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, there were no scenarios in which regorafenib was cost effective. In cost threshold analysis, regorafenib would have to be priced at or below $67 per pill to be cost effective at an ICER of $100,000. CONCLUSIONS: Regorafenib is not cost effective as a second-line agent in the treatment of HCC, with a marginal increase in QALYs at a high cost. Lowering the cost of regorafenib or improving the selection of patients who can achieve maximal survival benefit would improve its value as a second-line treatment option for patients with HCC. Cancer 2017;123:3725-3731. © 2017 American Cancer Society.