Assessment of disease control rate and safety of sorafenib in targeted therapy for advanced liver cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The clinical efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced liver cancer (ALC) were evaluated based on transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). METHODS: 92 patients with ALC admitted to our hospital from May 2020 to August 2022 were randomly rolled into a control (Ctrl) group and an observation (Obs) group, with 46 patients in each. Patients in the Ctrl group received TACE treatment, while those in the Obs group received sorafenib molecular targeted therapy (SMTT) on the basis of the treatment strategy in the Ctrl group (400 mg/dose, twice daily, followed by a 4-week follow-up observation). Clinical efficacy, disease control rate (DCR), survival time (ST), immune indicators (CD3+, CD4+, CD4+/CD8+), and adverse reactions (ARs) (including mild fatigue, liver pain, hand-foot syndrome (HFS), diarrhea, and fever) were compared for patients in different groups after different treatments. RESULTS: the DCR in the Obs group (90%) was greatly higher to that in the Ctrl group (78%), showing an obvious difference (P < 0.05). The median ST in the Obs group was obviously longer and the median disease progression time (DPT) was shorter, exhibiting great differences with those in the Ctrl group (P < 0.05). Moreover, no great difference was observed in laboratory indicators between patients in various groups (P > 0.05). After treatment, the Obs group exhibited better levels in all indicators. Furthermore, the incidence of ARs in the Obs group was lower and exhibited a sharp difference with that in the Ctrl group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: SMTT had demonstrated good efficacy in patients with ALC, improving the DCR, enhancing the immune response of the body, and reducing the incidence of ARs, thereby promoting the disease outcome. Therefore, it was a treatment method worthy of promotion and application.

Prevalence and management of proteinuria associated with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment in advanced renal cell carcinoma, hepatocellular carcinoma, and thyroid cancer.

Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (VEGFR-TKIs) are often used for treatment of several types of cancer; however, they are associated with an increased risk of proteinuria, sometimes leading to treatment discontinuation. We searched PubMed and Scopus to identify clinical studies examining the incidence and risk factors for proteinuria caused by VEGFR-TKIs in patients with renal cell carcinoma, thyroid cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The global incidence of proteinuria ranged from 6% to 34% for all grades of proteinuria, and from 1% to 10% for grade ≥3 proteinuria. The incidence of proteinuria did not differ significantly by cancer type, but in all three cancer types, there was a trend toward a higher incidence of proteinuria with lenvatinib than with other VEGFR-TKIs. In terms of risk factors, the incidence of proteinuria was significantly higher among Asians (including Japanese) compared with non-Asian populations. Other risk factors included diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and previous nephrectomy. When grade 3/4 proteinuria occurs, patients should be treated according to the criteria for dose reduction or withdrawal specified for each drug. For grade 2 proteinuria, treatment should be continued when the benefits outweigh the risks. Referral to a nephrologist should be considered for symptoms related to decreased renal function or when proteinuria has not improved after medication withdrawal. These management practices should be implemented universally, regardless of the cancer type.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as the third-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer in China.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to regorafenib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in China. METHODS: A three-state Markov model with monthly cycle was constructed to estimate lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of fruquintinib versus regorafenib as third-line treatment for patients with mCRC from Chinese health care perspective. Survival analysis was applied to calculate transition probabilities using the data from the clinical trials FRESCO and CONCUR, which were also the data sources accessing probabilities of adverse events. Background mortality rate and drug costs were derived from government published data. Costs for medical services were obtained from real-world data and published literatures. Utilities applied to calculate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were obtained from literature review. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were adopted to verify the robustness of the results. RESULTS: Fruquintinib provided 0.74 QALYs at a cost of CNY 151,058 (USD 22,888), whereas regorafenib provided 0.79 QALYs at a cost of CNY 226,657 (USD 32,224). Compared to fruquintinib, the ICER of regorafenib was CNY 1,529,197/QALY (USD 231,697/QALY) from Chinese health care perspective, which was above the triple GDP per capita of China in 2019 (CNY 212,676) (USD 32,224) as the threshold to define the cost-effectiveness. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the results were generally robust. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves derived from probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated the probability that fruquintinib was more cost-effective was 100% when the threshold was the triple GDP per capita of China. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to regorafenib, fruquintinib, which leads to forego about 0.05 QALYs and save about CNY 75,599 (USD 11,454), is a cost-effective choice as the third-line treatment for patients with mCRC in China.

Urinalysis by combination of the dipstick test and urine protein-creatinine ratio (UPCR) assessment can prevent unnecessary lenvatinib interruption in patients with thyroid cancer.

BACKGROUND: Proteinuria induced by lenvatinib is a class effect that occurs secondary to VEGFR suppression. Withholding of lenvatinib is required in cases with severe proteinuria. Urine protein-creatinine ratio (UPCR, g/gCre) has recently attracted attention as an alternative to 24-h urine collection for assessing proteinuria. The aim of this study was to examine the correlation between the results of proteinuria assessed by the dipstick test and UPCR, and to investigate the influence of proteinuria grading with UPCR on lenvatinib dose adjustment compared to that with only the dipstick test. METHOD: Three hundred and ten urine samples from 63 patients with advanced thyroid cancer under treatment with lenvatinib, which were tested by both the dipstick test and UPCR were analyzed. Lenvatinib was withheld when there was evidence of CTCAE grade 3 proteinuria, and restarted when it resolved. The frequency of proteinuria, correlation between the results of the dipstick test and UPCR test, and the effect of dose withholding in cases with results of 3 + in the dipstick test were calculated. RESULTS: Proteinuria was seen in 56 (88.9%) patients. Of the 154 dipstick 3 + samples, only 56 (36.4%) were judged as more than 3.5 g/gCre by UPCR (grade 3 proteinuria), although none of the 1 + and only 3.7% of 2 + samples were judged as grade 3 proteinuria. We were able to prevent unnecessary lenvatinib interruption due to proteinuria in 63.6% of dipstick 3 + samples by assessment of UPCR. CONCLUSIONS: Urinalysis by combination of the dipstick test and UPCR assessment might be a better strategy for preventing unnecessary interruption of lenvatinib.

Safety assessment of sorafenib in Chinese patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: subgroup analysis of the GIDEON study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the safety of sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in Chinese patients. METHODS: A subgroup of 345 Chinese patients from the international database of the Global Investigation of therapeutic DEcisions in hepatocellular carcinoma and Of its treatment with sorafeNib (GIDEON) study was included in this analysis. Safety assessment measures were adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria version 3.0. RESULTS: Of 331 evaluable patients, 98% started sorafenib at 800 mg/day. The median treatment duration was 22 weeks (range, 0.1-116 weeks), and median overall survival (OS) was 322 days (10.7 months). Approximately 50% of patients had at least one adverse event, and 6% had grade 3-4 adverse events. Drug-related adverse events were experienced by 29% of patients, and 3.6% had grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events. Overall, 23% of patients (n = 77) experienced serious adverse events, among which only 1 event was drug-related (0.3%). No differences in overall adverse events, serious adverse events, and deaths were observed between Child-Pugh A and Child-Pugh B patients. The most frequent drug-related adverse events were dermatological/skin (24%), hand-foot skin reaction (20%), gastrointestinal (11%), and diarrhea (11%). The majority of adverse events occurred within 30 days of beginning sorafenib. CONCLUSION: Sorafenib has satisfactory efficacy and safety in Chinese Child-Pugh A and B patients with unresectable HCC using the recommended dosage of 800 mg/day, and the safety of sorafenib is not affected by liver function. Prophylaxis for gastrointestinal adverse events may help to decrease dose interruptions or discontinuation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ; Identifier: NCT00812175. Date of registration: December 19, 2008.

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.

Cost Effectiveness of Lenvatinib, Sorafenib and Placebo in Treatment of Radioiodine-Refractory Differentiated Thyroid Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib (Lenvima®) and sorafenib (Nexavar®) are the two most recently Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs for treating radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC). Both demonstrated superior progression-free survival over placebo in their respective Phase III clinical trials. This study compared the cost-effectiveness of the two treatments with placebo from a limited societal perspective. METHODS: A Markov model was developed to estimate the costs and health benefits for treatment of RR-DTC. The probabilities and survival rates were obtained from two Phase III trials: the SELECT trial comparing lenvatinib to placebo, and the DECISION trial comparing sorafenib to placebo. A bimonthly cycle length and half-cycle correction were used for a lifetime time horizon. Medical costs and utility data were obtained from RedBook, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, and the published literature. All costs were adjusted to US$2015, discounted at 3% annually. Then second-order Monte Carlo simulation with distributions was conducted to obtain the acceptability curve to address the uncertainty around model inputs. RESULTS: In the base case, lenvatinib was the most cost-effective treatment compared to sorafenib (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] = $25,275/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) and placebo (ICER = $40,869). Sorafenib is also cost-effective compared to placebo (ICER = $64,067/QALY). The treatment decisions were found to be sensitive to the treatment costs and the health utility associated with lenvatinib and its side effects. The acceptability curve showed lenvatinib optimal 80% of time at WTP of $100,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that lenvatinib is the optimally cost-effective treatment for RR-DTC, although both lenvatinib and sorafenib are cost-effective compared to placebo.

Clinical and molecular assessment of regorafenib monotherapy.

Regorafenib has shown survival benefits in metastatic colorectal cancer patients who were exacerbated after all standard therapies. Some patients, however, exhibit severe adverse events (AEs) resulting in treatment discontinuation. Therefore, the selection of patients likely to benefit from regorafenib is crucial. Twenty patients were treated with regorafenib for metastatic colorectal cancer; 122 plasma samples were taken from 16 of these patients for monitoring of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in the blood. The treatment response, AEs, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and tumor morphologic changes on CT images were evaluated. KRAS mutant ctDNA was determined using digital PCR. Median PFS and OS were 2.5 and 5.9 months, respectively. Treatment was discontinued because of disease progression (PD) in 10 patients, and AEs in another 10 patients. AEs included hyperbilirubinemia, severe fatigue and skin rash. Hyperbilirubinemia was seen in two patients with multiple bilateral liver metastases, and severe fatigue in another 2 patients with poor performance status (PS). These severe AEs resulted in treatment discontinuation. Ten patients had a median PFS of 2.1 months with AE related discontinuation; PD occurred at 3.5 months (p=0.00334). Four patients exhibited a morphologic response, achieving better PFS times of 3.5, 5.3, 5.6 and 14.2 months. Emergence of the KRAS mutation in ctDNA was observed during anti-EGFR antibody treatment in 3 patients among 11 with KRAS wild-type tumors; it was detectable in the blood prior to radiographic detection of PD. Moreover, the KRAS mutation declined in two patients during regorafenib monotherapy. These patients were re-challenged with anti-EGFR antibody. Patients with extensive multiple liver metastases or poor PS are unlikely to benefit from regorafenib. Patients with a morphologic response will probably benefit from regorafenib with adequate management of other AEs. KRAS monitoring in ctDNA could be useful regarding treatment response and in determining treatment strategy.

Sorafenib Effectiveness in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Phase III trials show sorafenib improves survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Because of narrow trial eligibility, results may not be generalizable to a broader HCC population. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of initial sorafenib versus no treatment among Medicare beneficiaries with advanced HCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced HCC diagnosed from 2008 to 2011 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. Eligible patients received initial sorafenib or no therapy and were covered by Medicare parts A, B, and D. Sorafenib use and outcomes were described in this population. Using a propensity score (PS)-matched sample, we compared the effectiveness of sorafenib versus no treatment by Cox proportional hazards and binomial regression, using a landmark requiring all patients to survive ≥60 days after diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 1,532 patients, 27% received initial sorafenib. Median duration of sorafenib use was 60 days (interquartile range [IQR], 30-107 days), and median survival from first prescription was 3 months (IQR, 1-8 months). In the PS-matched cohort, median survival was 3 months from the 60-day landmark in sorafenib-treated (n = 223) and 2 months in untreated (n = 223) patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.95 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.78-1.16]). Sorafenib was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in mortality at 3 months (44% versus 51%; adjusted risk ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.72-1.07]), but no reduction thereafter. CONCLUSION: Survival after sorafenib initiation in newly diagnosed Medicare beneficiaries with HCC is exceptionally short, suggesting trial results are not generalizable to all HCC patients. The downsides of sorafenib use-high drug-related symptom burden and high drug cost-must be considered in light of this minimal benefit. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The findings of a median survival of only 3 months in Medicare beneficiaries with HCC prescribed sorafenib as first-line therapy highlight the questionable value of sorafenib in this population. Patients should be cautioned that outside of the narrow confines of randomized trials, their life expectancy may be very short, and any benefit of sorafenib is likely to be quite small. Given that sorafenib causes considerable adverse effects and offers no symptom palliation, supportive care should be discussed as a reasonable alternative to sorafenib, particularly for patients who have a poor performance status or advanced cirrhosis.

[Tyrosine kinase inhibiting the VEGF pathway and elderly people: Tolerance, pre-treatment assessment and side effects management]. / Inhibiteurs de tyrosine kinase ciblant l'angiogenèse et sujets âgés : tolérance, évaluation pré-thérapeutique et gestion des effets indésirables.

Angiogenesis inhibition is a major antitumor strategy that has emerged during the last decade. Oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) targeting the VEGF receptor, including sunitinib, sorafenib, axitinib, regorafenib, pazopanib, and vandetanib reduce tumor growth and metastasis. These agents are approved for the treatment of metastatic diseases in first or second-line. They display a narrow therapeutic index. However, data in the elderly and/or in patients with multiple illnesses remain scarce. This population is classically excluded from clinical trials. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of existing literature regarding antiangiogenic TKI tolerance in the elderly (>70 years old). We also highlight key points of the pre-therapeutic evaluation and summarize the management of common toxicities.

A phase 2 trial of lenvatinib (E7080) in advanced, progressive, radioiodine-refractory, differentiated thyroid cancer: A clinical outcomes and biomarker assessment.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib is an oral, multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1 through 3 (VEGFR1-VEGFR3), fibroblast growth factor receptors 1 through 4 (FGFR1-FGFR4), platelet-derived growth factor receptor α (PDGFRα), ret proto-oncogene (RET), and v-kit Hardy-Zuckerman 4 feline sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KIT) signaling networks implicated in tumor angiogenesis. Positive phase 1 results in solid tumors prompted a phase 2 trial in patients with advanced, radioiodine-refractory, differentiated thyroid cancer (RR-DTC). METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with RR-DTC who had disease progression during the previous 12 months received lenvatinib 24 mg once daily in 28-day cycles until disease progression, unmanageable toxicity, withdrawal, or death. Previous VEGFR-targeted therapy was permitted. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR) based on independent imaging review. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Serum levels of 51 circulating cytokines and angiogenic factors also were assessed. RESULTS: After ≥14 months of follow-up, patients had an ORR of 50% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37%-63%) with only partial responses reported. The median time to response was 3.6 months, the median response duration was 12.7 months, and the median PFS was 12.6 months (95% CI, 9.9-16.1 months). The ORR for patients who had received previous VEGF therapy (n = 17) was 59% (95% CI, 33%-82%). Lower baseline levels of angiopoietin-2 were suggestive of tumor response and longer PFS. Grade 3 and 4 treatment-emergent adverse events, regardless of their relation to treatment, occurred in 72% of patients and most frequently included weight loss (12%), hypertension (10%), proteinuria (10%), and diarrhea (10%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with and without prior exposure to VEGF therapy, the encouraging response rates, median time to response, and PFS for lenvatinib have prompted further investigation in a phase 3 trial. Cancer 2015;121:2749-2756. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

Radioembolisation with yttrium‒90 microspheres versus sorafenib for treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is linked to poor prognosis. While sorafenib is the current recommended treatment for advanced HCC, radioembolisation (RE; also called selective internal radiation therapy or SIRT) with yttrium-90 microspheres has shown efficacy in cohort studies. However, there are no head-to-head trials comparing radiation therapy with yttrium-90 microspheres and sorafenib in advanced HCC. The SARAH trial has been designed to compare the efficacy and safety of sorafenib therapy and RE using yttrium-90 resin microspheres (SIR-Spheres™; Sirtex Medical Limited, North Sydney, Australia) in patients with advanced HCC. Quality of life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness will also be compared between therapies. METHODS/DESIGN: SARAH is a prospective, randomised, controlled, open-label, multicentre trial comparing the efficacy of RE with sorafenib in the treatment of patients with advanced HCC. The trial aims to recruit adults with a life expectancy of >3 months, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤ 1, and: advanced HCC according to the Barcelona criteria (stage C) or recurrent HCC after surgical or thermoablative treatment who are not eligible for surgical resection, liver transplantation or thermal ablation; or two rounds of failed chemoembolisation. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to receive either RE or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. All patients will be monitored for between 12 and 48 months following start of treatment. The primary endpoint of the SARAH trial is overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints include: adverse events, progression-free survival at 6 months; tumour response rate; general or liver disease-specific QoL scores; and cost of each treatment strategy. Assuming an increase in median OS of 4 months with RE versus sorafenib therapy, randomising at least 400 patients (200 in each treatment arm) will be sufficient for 80% power and a bilateral alpha risk of 5%; therefore, 440 patients will be enrolled to allow for 10% loss of patients due to ineligibility. DISCUSSION: The SARAH trial is the first randomised head-to-head study to compare RE with sorafenib in advanced HCC, and will establish the potential role of RE in HCC treatment guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01482442, first received 28 November 2011.

Drug safety evaluation of sorafenib for treatment of solid tumors: consequences for the risk assessment and management of cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Sorafenib is a multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Considerable clinical experience has been accumulated since its first Phase III clinical trial in metastatic renal cancer patients in 2007. The management of its early acute toxicity in fit patients is well known. The management of prolonged treatment becomes the new challenge. AREAS COVERED: Using sorafenib as a key word for PubMed search, we review preclinical and clinical data and discuss the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of sorafenib, its acute and cumulative toxicities and their consequences for patient management. EXPERT OPINION: The systematic multi-disciplinary risk assessment of cancer patients prior to TKI initiation reduces the risks of acute and late toxicity, especially drug-drug interactions and arterial risks. Sarcopenia is now identified as a major risk of severe toxicity. The very diverse clinical pictures of cumulative toxicity must be known. The monitoring of sorafenib systemic exposure is helpful especially in elderly patients. Moreover, at disease progression, it allows distinguishing between underexposure to sorafenib and truly acquired resistance to the drug. The optimal use of sorafenib should allow improving the reported results of flat-dose. Finally, most of this knowledge could be used for the development and optimal use of the other TKIs.

In a 'real-world', clinic-based community setting, sorafenib dose of 400 mg/day is as effective as standard dose of 800 mg/day in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcimona, with better tolerance and similar survival.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib, an oral multityrosine kinase inhibitor, has been approved for treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). British Columbia (BC) was the first province in Canada to provide drug coverage for sorafenib. OBJECTIVE: To review the BC experience with sorafenib to assess its effectiveness and tolerance in a 'real-world' clinical setting. METHODS: A retrospective clinic chart review identified 99 patients referred to the BC Cancer Agency from 2008 to 2010 with a diagnosis of HCC who qualified for treatment with sorafenib. RESULTS: Therapy with sorafenib was initiated and continued at a reduced dosage of 400 mg/day in 66 of 99 patients, with 22 patients requiring further dose reduction. Full- and reduced-dose group patients had similar baseline characteristics, except for a higher proportion of female patients (P=0.02) and individuals with alcoholic liver disease (P=0.04) in the full-dose group. The incidence of any grade of adverse effects was higher in the full-dose group (94% versus 77% in the reduced-dose group; P=0.04). Dose reduction rates were significantly higher in the full-dose group, occurring in 66% versus 24% of reduced-dose group patients (P=0.001). The overall survival rates were similar between the two groups: 7.8 months versus 7.1 months in full- versus reduced-dose groups (P=0.14), as were radiological progression rates and alpha-fetoprotein levels. CONCLUSIONS: In a review of 99 patients in a 'real-world' community setting, a sorafenib dose of 400 mg/day was better tolerated and had similar efficacy compared with a sorafenib dose of 800 mg/day with respect to survival and outcomes.

Influence of the sorafenib patients assistance program on treatment compliance and overall survival of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

AIM: to evaluate treatment compliance and survival of patients receiving oral sorafenib in Indonesia. METHODS: a prospective cohort trial. Unresectable Hepatocelullar carcinoma patients receiving Sorafenib in NexPAP program were recruited between October 2008 and September 2011. A historical cohort from Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, between 1998 and 2000 was selected to serve as control group. Patients in the control group received symptomatic treatment. Survival analysis was done by the Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis and the log-rank test. Median survival difference between the NexPAP and control group was tested using the Cox-regression hazard analysis. RESULTS: There were 48 patients in the NexPAP group and 40 patients in the control group. Treatment compliance was very good; no patient with drew from the study. Sorafenib generally could be tolerated by the patients. The most common adverse events are mild or moderate hand and foot skin reaction and diarrhea. The median survival was 49 weeks in NexPAP group (95% CI 37.9-60.1) vs. 20 weeks in the control group (95% CI 9.0-31.0). Cox-regression analysis showed that sorafenib significantly prolonged overall survival with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.339 (95% CI: 0.196-0.584). There was no survival difference between patients with Child-Pugh class A and class B in both NexPAP (median 49 vs. 52 weeks; HR 1.1; 95% CI 0.5-2.3; p=0.855) and control groups (27 vs. 20 weeks; HR 1.1; 95% CI 0.5-2.4; p=0.822). CONCLUSION: Sorafenib patient assistant program in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma ensured compliance treatment and significantly prolonged overall survival over the historical cohort receiving palliative treatment.

Model-based treatment optimization of a novel VEGFR inhibitor.

AIM: To evaluate dosing and intervention strategies for the phase II programme of a VEGF receptor inhibitor using PK-PD modelling and simulation, with the aim of maximizing (i) the number of patients on treatment and (ii) the average dose level during treatment. METHODS: A previously developed PK-PD model for lenvatinib (E7080) was updated and parameters were re-estimated (141 patients, once daily and twice daily regimens). Treatment of lenvatinib was simulated for 16 weeks, initiated at 25 mg once daily. Outcome measures included the number of patients on treatment and overall drug exposure. A hypertension intervention design proposed for phase II studies was evaluated, including antihypertensive treatment and dose de-escalation. Additionally, a within-patient dose escalation was investigated, titrating up to 50 mg once daily unless unacceptable toxicity occurred. RESULTS: Using the proposed antihypertension intervention design, 82% of patients could remain on treatment, and the mean dose administered was 21.5 mg day⁻¹. The adverse event (AE) guided dose titration increased the average dose by 4.6 mg day⁻¹, while only marginally increasing the percentage of patients dropping out due to toxicity (from 18% to 20.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed hypertension intervention design is expected to be effective in maintaining patients on treatment with lenvatinib. The AE-guided dose titration with blood pressure as a biomarker yielded a higher overall dose level, without relevant increases in toxicity. Since increased exposure to lenvatinib seems correlated with increased treatment efficacy, the adaptive treatment design may thus be a valid approach to improve treatment outcome.

Assessment of QT(c)-prolonging potential of BX471 in healthy volunteers. A 'thorough QT study' following ICH E14 using various QT(c) correction methods.

AIMS: Within the framework of the clinical development of BX471, this study was intended to provide experience in conducting 'thorough QT(c) studies' according to ICH E14. A broad range of QT correction methods and analysis strategies was employed. METHODS A double-blind, placebo- and positive-controlled, single-centre, three-way cross-over study was conducted in 74 healthy volunteers. Electrocardiograms were read by blinded experts. QT correction methods included Bazett's (QT(c)B), Fridericia's (QT(c)F) and several regression-based corrections. RESULTS: There was a significant QT(c)F prolongation of 10.26 ms by the positive control compared with placebo [95% confidence interval (7.83, 12.70)]. BX471 at therapeutic doses did not cause substantial QT(c) prolongation [QT(c)F estimate 2.93 ms, 95% confidence interval (1.00, 4.86); QT(c)B estimate 3.30 ms, 95% confidence interval (0.85, 5.74)]. Regression-based QT correction methods yielded similar results to Fridericia's correction [e.g. using a linear regression across the study population, QT(c) estimate 2.39 ms, 95% confidence interval (0.55, 4.23)]. Differences between the various regression-based correction methods were small. Results were not affected by whether the QT corrections were performed per ECG or per beat. CONCLUSIONS: BX471 does not cause meaningful QT(c) prolongation. Three QT correction methods may be sufficient in future studies: Bazett's (required by regulatory authorities), Fridericia's (as the most reliable fixed formula) and a regression-based correction (individually or population-based), each performed per ECG (i.e. applied to the means of several beats of one ECG recording).

[Evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of WHR-1142A in the treatment of non-specific acute diarrhea]. / Valoración de la seguridad y eficacia del WHR-1142A en el tratamiento de la diarrea aguda inespecífica.

A randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial of the safety and efficacy of lidamidine hydrochloride (WHR-1142A) in thirty patients with acute nonspecific diarrhea was conducted. During their 29-hour hospital treatment period, the average number of bowel movements for each ten patient treatment group was: placebo, 5.1: lidamidine hydrochloride (10 mg), 2.4; lidamidine hydrochloride (18 mg), 2.5. The average weight of the feces of the patients in each treatment group was: placebo, 576 grams; lidamidine hydrochloride (10 mg), 364 grams; lidamidine hydrochloride (18 mg), 435 grams. Time intervals between each of the first two doses were greater for those patients in the active treatment groups (lidamidine hydrochloride) when compared to the placebo group. Overall evaluation of therapy was rated by physician and patient at end of study: placebo, 10 of 10, not effective; lidamidine hydrochloride (10 mg), 10 of 10 (100%) effective; lidamidine hydrochloride (18 mg), 10 of 10 (100%) effective. Vital signs and laboratory values remained within normal ranges throughout the duration of study, and no clinically significant adverse effects were reported.