Lenvatinib versus sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: patient-reported outcomes from a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma is the third-leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Preservation of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) during treatment is an important therapeutic goal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of treatment with lenvatinib versus sorafenib on HRQOL. METHODS: REFLECT was a previously published multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib versus sorafenib as a first-line systemic treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and one or more measurable target lesion per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C categorisation, Child-Pugh class A, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 1 or lower, and adequate organ function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system; stratification factors for treatment allocation included region; macroscopic portal vein invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; ECOG performance status; and bodyweight. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), collected at baseline, on day 1 of each subsequent cycle, and at the end of treatment, were evaluated in post-hoc analyses of secondary and exploratory endpoints in the analysis population, which was the subpopulation of patients with a PRO assessment at baseline. A linear mixed-effects model evaluated change from baseline in PROs, including European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and hepatocellular carcinoma-specific QLQ-HCC18 scales (both secondary endpoints of the REFLECT trial). Time-to-definitive-deterioration analyses were done based on established thresholds for minimum differences for worsening in PROs. Responder analyses explored associations between HRQOL and clinical response. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01761266. FINDINGS: Of 954 eligible patients randomly assigned to lenvatinib (n=478) or sorafenib (n=476) between March 14, 2013, and July 30, 2015, 931 patients (n=468 for lenvatinib; n=463 for sorafenib) were included in this analysis. Baseline PRO scores reflected impaired HRQOL and functioning and considerable symptom burden relative to full HRQOL. Differences in overall mean change from baseline estimates in most PRO scales generally favoured the lenvatinib over the sorafenib group, although the differences were not nominally statistically or clinically significant. Patients treated with lenvatinib experienced nominally statistically significant delays in definitive, meaningful deterioration on the QLQ-C30 fatigue (hazard ratio [HR] 0·83, 95% CI 0·69-0·99), pain (0·80, 0·66-0·96), and diarrhoea (0·52, 0·42-0·65) domains versus patients treated with sorafenib. Significant differences in time to definitive deterioration were not observed for other QLQ-C30 domains, and there was no difference in time to definitive deterioration on the global health status/QOL score (0·89, 0·73-1·09). For most PRO scales, differences in overall mean change from baseline estimates favoured responders versus non-responders. Across all scales, HRs for time to definitive deterioration were in favour of responders; median time to definitive deterioration for responders exceeded those for non-responders by a range of 4·8 to 14·6 months. INTERPRETATION: HRQOL for patients undergoing treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is an important therapeutic consideration. The evidence of HRQOL benefits in clinically relevant domains support the use of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib to delay functional deterioration in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. FUNDING: Eisai and Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Brivanib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who were intolerant to sorafenib or for whom sorafenib failed: results from the randomized phase III BRISK-PS study.

PURPOSE: Brivanib is a selective dual inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor receptors implicated in tumorigenesis and angiogenesis in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). An unmet medical need persists for patients with HCC whose tumors do not respond to sorafenib or who cannot tolerate it. This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial assessed brivanib in patients with HCC who had been treated with sorafenib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 395 patients with advanced HCC who progressed on/after or were intolerant to sorafenib were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive brivanib 800 mg orally once per day plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate based on modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) and safety. RESULTS: Median OS was 9.4 months for brivanib and 8.2 months for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95.8% CI, 0.69 to 1.15; P = .3307). Adjusting treatment effect for baseline prognostic factors yielded an OS HR of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.04; P = .1044). Exploratory analyses showed a median time to progression of 4.2 months for brivanib and 2.7 months for placebo (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.76; P < .001), and an mRECIST ORR of 10% for brivanib and 2% for placebo (odds ratio, 5.72). Study discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 61 brivanib patients (23%) and nine placebo patients (7%). The most frequent treatment-related grade 3 to 4 AEs for brivanib included hypertension (17%), fatigue (13%), hyponatremia (11%), and decreased appetite (10%). CONCLUSION: In patients with HCC who had been treated with sorafenib, brivanib did not significantly improve OS. The observed benefit in the secondary outcomes of TTP and ORR warrants further investigation.

The diffusion-weighted imaging perfusion fraction f is a potential marker of sorafenib treatment in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the total Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC), the pure Diffusion coefficient (D) and the perfusion fraction (f) in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) under sorafenib treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two target tumors were prospectively analyzed in 12 patients at baseline, 2-weeks and 2-months treatment using b values of 0, 200, 400, 800 s/mm. Repeatability error was estimated on a healthy volunteer. RESULTS: Lesion sizes, ADC and D values did not significantly change during treatment (overall mean values, respectively, 47.8 ± 31.0 mm, 1.34 ± 0.14 × 10⁻³ mm² s and 1.18 ± 0.22 × 10⁻³ mm²/s). However, f values significantly increased in seven responder patients (+38.39% at 2-weeks, +50.94% at 2-months, P = 0.005) while they decreased in five non responder patients (-41.93% at 2-weeks, P = 0.006). Furthermore, f was inversely correlated with αFP levels (P = 0.032) and responder patients had a higher mean overall survival (OS) than non responder patients (12.29 ± 4.46 vs. 7.80 ± 4.9 months). The % variation of f relative to baseline at 2-months was correlated with OS (P = 0.038) and symptomatic time to progression (P = 0.022). CONCLUSION: Contrary to ADC and D, the perfusion fraction f is a valuable marker of sorafenib treatment in advanced HCC.

The Lille model: a new tool for therapeutic strategy in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis treated with steroids.

UNLABELLED: Early identification of patients with severe (discriminant function > or = 32) alcoholic hepatitis (AH) not responding to corticosteroids is crucial. We generated a specific prognostic model (Lille model) to identify candidates early on for alternative therapies. Three hundred twenty patients with AH prospectively treated by corticosteroids were included in the development cohort and 118 in its validation. Baseline data and a change in bilirubin at day 7 were tested. The model was generated by logistic regression. The model combining six reproducible variables (age, renal insufficiency, albumin, prothrombin time, bilirubin, and evolution of bilirubin at day 7) was highly predictive of death at 6 months (P < 0.000001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of the Lille model was 0.89 +/- 0.02, higher than the Child-Pugh (0.62 +/- 0.04, P < 0.00001) or Maddrey scores (0.66 +/- 0.04, P < 0.00001). In the validation cohort, its AUROC was 0.85 +/- 0.04, still higher than the other models, including MELD (0.72 +/- 0.05, P = 0.01) and Glasgow scores (0.67 +/- 0.05, P = 0.0008). Patients above the ideal cutoff of 0.45 showed a marked decrease in 6-month survival as compared with others: 25% +/- 3.8% versus 85% +/- 2.5%, P < 0.0001. This cutoff was able to identify approximately 75% of the observed deaths. CONCLUSION: In the largest cohort to date of patients with severe AH, we demonstrate that the term "nonresponder" can now be extended to patients with a Lille score above 0.45, which corresponds to 40% of cases. Early identification of subjects with substantial risk of death according to the Lille model will improve management of patients suffering from severe AH and will aid in the design of future studies for alternative therapies.