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.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: An inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis.

PURPOSE: Data from common clinical practice were used to generate balanced cohorts of patients receiving either sorafenib or lenvatinib, for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, with the final aim to investigate their declared equivalence. METHODS: Clinical features of lenvatinib and sorafenib patients were balanced through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methodology, which weights patients' characteristics and measured outcomes of each patient in both treatment arms. Overall survival was the primary endpoint and occurrence of adverse events was the secondary. RESULTS: The analysis included 385 patients who received lenvatinib, and 555 patients who received sorafenib. In the unadjusted cohort, lenvatinib did not show a survival advantage over sorafenib (HR: 0.85, 95% CI 0.70-1.02). After IPTW adjustment, lenvatinib still not returned a survival advantage over sorafenib (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.62-1.07) even in presence of balanced baseline characteristics. Lenvatinib provided longer survival than sorafenib in patients previously submitted to TACE (HR: 0.69), with PS of 0 (HR: 0.73) or without extrahepatic disease (HR: 0.69). CONCLUSION: Present results confirmed randomized controlled trial in the real-life setting, but also suggests that in earlier stages some benefit can be expected.

Cabozantinib in combination with atezolizumab versus sorafenib in treatment-naive advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: COSMIC-312 Phase III study design.

Cabozantinib is an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets VEGFR, MET and the TAM (TYRO3, AXL, MER) family of kinase receptors. In addition to their role in tumor growth and angiogenesis, cabozantinib targets promote an immune-suppressive microenvironment. Cabozantinib is approved as single-agent therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who received prior sorafenib. Owing to its antitumor and immunomodulatory properties, cabozantinib is being developed in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Early studies of these combinations have shown promising antitumor activity and tolerability in patients with solid tumors. Here, we describe the rationale and design of COSMIC-312, a Phase III study evaluating the safety and efficacy of cabozantinib in combination with atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody) versus sorafenib for treatment-naive patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. ClinicalTrial.gov Registration: NCT03755791.

Navigating the new landscape of second-line treatment in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Sorafenib and lenvatinib are approved for first-line treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and the efficacy of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has been demonstrated versus sorafenib. Over time, first-line treatment frequently fails, and regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab (for patients with alpha fetoprotein ≥400 ng/mL), nivolumab, pembrolizumab and ipilimumab plus nivolumab are approved for use after sorafenib (but not lenvatinib) treatment in advanced HCC. Given the considerable complexity in the therapeutic landscape, the objective of this review was to summarize the clinical evidence for second-line agents and provide practical guidance for selecting the best sequential treatment approach. The timing and sequencing of treatment switches are key to optimizing patient outcomes in advanced HCC, and decisions should be informed by reasons for discontinuation of previous therapy and disease progression. It is important not to switch too soon, because sequential treatment benefit may then be lost, nor should switching be delayed too long. Effectiveness, safety and tolerability, patient quality of life, route of administration, dosing regimen, drug class, molecular target and individual patients' characteristics, including comorbidities, inform the selection of second-line systemic treatment, independently of the aetiology of HCC, tumour stage and the response to previous treatment. Biomarkers predictive of treatment effectiveness are of great value, but currently biomarker-driven patient selection is possible only in the case of ramucirumab. The approval of new combination therapies for advanced HCC in the first-line setting will further increase the complexity of decision-making. However, the important factors will remain the individual patient's characteristics and preferences.

Metabolic Switch in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with Sorafenib: a Proof-of-Concept Trial.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor used to treat advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Recently, a preclinical trial has shown that response to sorafenib is associated with a metabolic shift towards aerobic glycolysis. To test this observation in humans, we decided to conduct a proof-of-concept trial investigating the role of metabolic shift detected on [18F]FDG PET/CT in predicting survival and tumor response in HCC patients treated with sorafenib. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled advanced HCC patients candidate to sorafenib and undergoing [18F]FDG PET/CT at baseline, at 24 h, and at day 7 following treatment start. Response evaluation was obtained after 8 weeks according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). All clinical variables and metabolic parameters (i.e., SUVmax; metabolic tumor volume, MTV; total lesion glycolysis, TLG; and their variations, Δ) were compared with those of treatment response and correlated to progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: For this proof-of-concept trial, between August 2016 and August 2018, 13 patients (10 male, 3 female, median age 69) were enrolled. Considering the entire cohort, we demonstrated a significant negative correlation between ΔSUVmax at 24 h and 1 week (rho = - 0.733, p = 0.016). The metabolic shift, as expected, demonstrated median SUVmax, MTV, and TLG after 1 week lower in patients with a stable disease than a progressive disease (p = 0.019). Metabolic parameters and ECOG performance status (PS) resulted significantly correlated to PFS and OS at univariate analysis. On multivariate analysis, only median MTV at 1 week resulted as an independent prognostic factor for PFS (p = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: As hypothesized, [18F]FDG PET/CT resulted in able to evaluate metabolic shift at 24 h and early treatment response already 1 week after treatment start. Moreover, metabolic parameters and ECOG PS resulted in predictive and prognostic factors to PFS and OS, with MTV at 1 week appearing as an independent predictive factor for PFS.

Assessment of Duration and Effects of 3 vs 6 Months of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in High-Risk Stage II Colorectal Cancer: A Subgroup Analysis of the TOSCA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The addition of oxaliplatin to the standard 6-month fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colorectal cancer has been reported to reduce the risk of relapse although it does not increase survival. The Three or Six Colon Adjuvant (TOSCA) trial compared 3 months with 6 months of adjuvant fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with stage III colon cancer. The utility remains unknown. Objective: To assess the noninferiority and toxic effects of 3 vs 6 months of FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) adjunct chemotherapy among patients with high-risk stage II resected colorectal cancer enrolled in the TOSCA trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: The TOSCA study was a noninferiority phase 3 randomized clinical trial conducted from June 2007 to March 2013 in 130 Italian centers. Included patients had resected colorectal cancer located 12 cm from the anal verge by endoscopy or above the peritoneal reflection at surgery. In this preplanned study assessing the per-protocol population, 5-year relapse-free survival was evaluated in 1254 patients with high-risk stage II resected colorectal cancer who had received adjuvant FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin). Interventions: Patients were originally randomized (1:1) in the TOSCA trial to receive 3 months (experimental group) or 6 months (control) of standard doses of FOLFOX or CAPOX at the discretion of the treating physician. Main Outcome and Measures: A hazard ratio of at least 1.2 between the 3-month and 6-month chemotherapy groups was set to reject the null hypothesis of noninferiority. Results: Overall, 1254 patients (mean [SD] age, 62.4 [9.8] years; 565 women [45.1%]) with clinical high-risk stage II resected colorectal cancer were analyzed at a median follow-up of 62 months (interquartile range, 53-71) months. Of them, 301 patients (24.0%) had pT4N0M0 tumors, and the remaining 953 patients (76.0%) had high-risk pT3N0M0 tumors; 776 patients (61.9%) received FOLFOX and 478 (38.1%) received CAPOX. The 5-year relapse-free survival was 82.2% for the 3-month arm and 88.2% for the 6-month arm, with an estimated hazard ratio of 1.41 (95% CI, 1.05-1.89; P = .86 for noninferiority). For CAPOX, the 5-year relapse-free survival was similar in the 2 arms (difference, 0.76% favoring the 6-month arm; 95% CI, -6.28% to 7.80%), whereas for FOLFOX, the difference was pronounced: 8.56% in favor of the longer-duration arm (95% CI, 3.45%-13.67%). Nevertheless, the test for an interaction between duration and regimen was not statistically significant. Neurotoxicity was approximately 5 times lower in the shorter duration arm than in the longer duration arm. Conclusions and Relevance: In the 3-month arm, the treatment was significantly less toxic than in the 6-month arm. Noninferiority was not shown for 5-year relapse-free survival. However, a possible regimen effect was observed, suggesting that either 3 months of CAPOX or 6 months of FOLFOX therapy can be used whenever an oxaliplatin doublet is indicated for treatment of patients with stage II colorectal cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0064660.

Molecular therapies for HCC: Looking outside the box.

Over the past decade, sorafenib has been the only systemic agent with proven clinical efficacy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Recently, lenvatinib was shown to be non-inferior to sorafenib, while regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab were shown to be superior to placebo in patients failing sorafenib. In addition, trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors reported encouraging efficacy signals. However, apart from alpha-fetoprotein, which is used to select patients for ramucirumab, no biomarkers are available to identify patients that may respond to a specific treatment. Different synergisms have been postulated based on the potential interplay between antiangiogenic drugs and immunotherapy, with several clinical trials currently testing this hypothesis. Indeed, encouraging preliminary results of phase I studies of bevacizumab plus atezolizumab and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab have led to the design of ongoing phase III trials, including both antiangiogenics and immune checkpoint inhibitors in the front-line setting. Other important phase II studies have tested molecular therapies directed against different novel targets, such as transforming growth factor-beta, MET (hepatocyte growth factor receptor), and fibroblast growth factor receptor 4. These studies integrated translational research with the aim of better defining the biological tumour profile and identifying tumour and blood biomarkers that select patients who may really benefit from a specific molecular therapy. Importantly, good safety profiles make these drugs suitable for future combinations. In this review, we discuss the most recent data on novel combination strategies and targets, as well as looking ahead to the future role of molecular therapies in the treatment of patients with advanced HCC.

Predictive Impact of Mucinous Tumors on the Clinical Outcome in Patients with Poorly Differentiated, Stage II Colon Cancer: A TOSCA Subgroup Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines have identified the negative prognostic factors that clinicians have to consider when treating their patients with stage II colon cancer (CC), the role of histological subtype is controversial. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: The randomized, multicenter, phase III TOSCA trial compared 3 versus 6 months of fluoropyrimidine-oxaliplatin adjuvant chemotherapy in 3,759 patients with high-risk stage II or stage III CC. The objective of this substudy was to evaluate the influence of histological subtypes on the impact of the treatment duration of adjuvant chemotherapy in terms of relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in 85 mucinous adenocarcinoma (MUC) and 389 nonmucinous adenocarcinoma (NMUC) patients with high-risk stage II, grade 3 CC. RESULTS: A significant interaction between treatment duration and histology was observed in both RFS (p = .027) and OS (p = .017). In the subgroup of patients with MUC, worse RFS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-15.17; p = .045) and OS (HR, 9.56; 95% CI, 1.14-79.98; p = .037) were detected for patients treated in the 3-month arm. No statistically significant differences were found in the subgroup of patients with NMUC. CONCLUSION: Patients with MUC, grade 3, stage II CC require special attention and may need 6 months of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Larger studies are required to assess the combined use of histology and other prognostic/predictive factors to define the administration of chemotherapy in patients with stage II CC and to improve their prognosis. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Although ASCO and ESMO guidelines define the prognostic factors for patients with stage II colon cancer to establish the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, the influence of histological subtypes is controversial in this population. This study underscores that patients with grade 3 mucinous adenocarcinomas may need adjuvant chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidines for a duration of 6 months rather than 3 months.

Maintenance Therapy With Panitumumab Alone vs Panitumumab Plus Fluorouracil-Leucovorin in Patients With RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Few studies are available on the role of maintenance strategies after induction treatment regimens based on anti-epidermal growth factor receptors, and the optimal regimen for an anti-epidermal growth factor receptors-based maintenance treatment in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer is still to be defined. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether maintenance therapy with single-agent panitumumab was noninferior to panitumumab plus fluorouracil and leucovorin after a 4-month induction treatment regimen. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This open-label, randomized phase 2 noninferiority trial was conducted from July 7, 2015, through October 27, 2017, at multiple Italian centers. Patients with RAS wild-type, unresectable metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma who had not received previous treatment for metastatic disease were eligible. Induction therapy consisted of panitumumab plus FOLFOX-4 (panitumumab, 6 mg/kg, oxaliplatin, 85 mg/m2 at day 1, leucovorin calcium, 200 mg/m2, and fluorouracil, 400-mg/m2 bolus, followed by 600-mg/m2 continuous 24-hour infusion at days 1 and 2, every 2 weeks). Cutoff date for analyses was July 30, 2018. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (1:1) to first-line panitumumab plus FOLFOX-4 for 8 cycles followed by maintenance therapy with panitumumab plus fluorouracil-leucovorin (arm A) or panitumumab (arm B) until progressive disease, unacceptable toxic effects, or consent withdrawal. The minimization method was used to stratify randomization by previous adjuvant treatment and number of metastatic sites. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The prespecified primary end point was 10-month progression-free survival (PFS) analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis with a noninferiority margin of 1.515 for the upper limit of the 1-sided 90% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) of arm B vs A. RESULTS: Overall, 229 patients (153 male [66.8%]; median age, 64 years [interquartile range (IQR), 56-70 years]) were randomly assigned to arm A (n = 117) or arm B (n = 112). At a median follow-up of 18.0 months (IQR, 13.1-23.3 months]), a total of 169 disease progression or death events occurred. Arm B was inferior (upper limit of 1-sided 90% CI of the HR, 1.857). Ten-month PFS was 59.9% (95% CI, 51.5%-69.8%) in arm A vs 49.0% (95% CI, 40.5%-59.4%) in arm B (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.11-2.07; P = .01). During maintenance, arm A had a higher incidence of grade 3 or greater treatment-related adverse events (36 [42.4%] vs 16 [20.3%]) and panitumumab-related adverse events (27 [31.8%] vs 13 [16.4%]), compared with arm B. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, maintenance therapy with single-agent panitumumab was inferior in terms of PFS compared with panitumumab plus fluorouracil-leucovorin, which slightly increased the treatment toxic effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02476045.

Cabozantinib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma failing previous treatment with sorafenib.

Over the past 10 years, sorafenib has been the only systemic agent approved for the treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Recently, lenvatinib was demonstrated noninferior to sorafenib, and regorafenib and ramucirumab were demonstrated superior to placebo in patients progressing on sorafenib and in patients with elevated α-fetoprotein-failing sorafenib, respectively. Phase I-II trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors reported promising efficacy signals. Recently, the randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase III CELESTIAL trial demonstrated statistically and clinically significant increase in overall survival from 8 months with placebo to 10.2 months with cabozantinib in patients failing sorafenib. Furthermore, the study showed a significant improvement in all the efficacy end points. Main adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, hypertension, increased aspartate aminotransferase, fatigue and diarrhea.

Second-line treatment efficacy and toxicity in older vs. non-older patients with advanced gastric cancer: A multicentre real-world study.

OBJECTIVES: Although gastric cancer (GC) incidence rises with age, older patients are poorly represented in clinical trials, whose results are therefore difficult to translate into standard management of older patients. Purpose of this study was to compare clinico-pathological features and survival outcomes between older and non-older patients with advanced GC treated with at least two chemotherapy lines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinico-pathological characteristics, basal values, and treatment data of older (≥70 years at second-line start) and non-older patients were compared using chi-square test or 2-tailed Fisher exact test. The Kaplan-Meier estimation was used to calculate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), which were examined by log-rank test. RESULTS: Older patients represented 31.8% of the population (N = 868). Intestinal type was more frequent in older patients (P = .02). Poorly differentiated tumours were more often observed in non-older patients (P = .009). At stage IV diagnosis, the rate of liver metastases was higher in older patients (P = .02), while peritoneal spread was more represented in non-older patients (P = .002). Although older patients were more often treated with monotherapy (P = .001), they had similar PFS (HR 0.86, 95%CI 0.71-1.03, P = .102) and OS (HR 0.82, 95%CI 0.65-1.02, P = .08) compared to the non-older counterpart. No statistical differences were observed in treatment-related adverse events, hospital admissions, or further treatment lines between age groups. CONCLUSION: In our large cohort study, despite some differences in tumour characteristics and treatment intensity, no survival difference was found between older and non-older patients with advanced GC treated with at least two chemotherapy lines. Incidence of adverse events was similar between age groups.

Effect of Comorbidities in Stage II/III Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated With Surgery and Neoadjuvant/Adjuvant Chemotherapy: A Single-Center, Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Comorbidity has a detrimental effect on cancer survival, however, it is difficult to disentangle its direct effect from its influence on treatment choice. In this study we assessed the effect of comorbidity on survival in patients who received standard treatment for resected stage II and III colorectal cancer (CRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 230 CRC patients, 68 rectal (29.6%) and 162 colon cancer (70.4%) treated with surgical resection and neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy from December 2002 to December 2009 at Humanitas Cancer Center were retrospectively reviewed. The key independent variable was the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score, measured as a continuous variable. The differences between groups for categorical data were tested using the χ2 test. Actuarial survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 113 (range, 8.2-145.0) months. Median age was 63 (range, 37-78) years. In univariate analysis CCI score was significantly associated with poorer disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.52-1.80; P < .001), and overall survival (OS; HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.41-1.71; P < .001). Factors associated with poorer outcome also included (stage III vs. stage II, P < .029) and age (age >70 vs. ≤70 years, P < .001). After adjusting for these factors, a significant negative prognostic role of CCI score was still observed (adjusted HR for OS, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.43-1.76; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Among CRC patients who underwent surgical resection and chemotherapy, a higher CCI score was associated with poorer outcome and might predict long-term survival.

FOLFOX or CAPOX in Stage II to III Colon Cancer: Efficacy Results of the Italian Three or Six Colon Adjuvant Trial.

Purpose Given the cumulative neurotoxicity associated with oxaliplatin, a shorter duration of adjuvant therapy, if equally efficacious, would be advantageous for patients and health-care systems. Methods The Three or Six Colon Adjuvant trial is an open-label, phase III, multicenter, noninferiority trial randomizing patients with high-risk stage II or stage III colon cancer to receive 3 months or 6 months of FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin). Primary end-point is relapse-free survival. Results 3,759 patients were accrued from 130 Italian sites, 64% receiving FOLFOX and 36% CAPOX. Two-thirds were stage III. The median time of follow up was 62 months and 772 relapses or deaths have been observed. The hazard ratio (HR) of the 3 months versus 6 months for relapse/death was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.32; P [for noninferiority] = .514) and the CI crossed the noninferiority limit of 1.20. However, the absolute difference in 3-year RFS was 1.9% (95% CI, -0.7% to 4.4%). Counter-intuitively, while the RFS curves were similar for stage III (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.26) and for CAPOX treated patients (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.26), they were not for stage II and for FOLFOX treated patients, with HR of 1.41 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.89) and 1.23 (95% CI, 1.03 to 1.46), respectively, favoring the 6 months of treatment. Conclusion The Three or Six Colon Adjuvant trial failed to formally show noninferiority of 3 versus 6 months of treatment to the predefined margin of 20% relative increase. The results depended on the adjuvant regimen and risk. For CAPOX, 3 months were as good as 6 months; for FOLFOX, 6 months added extra benefit. Counter-intuitively, the low-risk patients benefitted more than the high-risk population from the 6-month duration. The choice of regimen and duration should depend on patient characteristics and be balanced against the extra toxicity of longer therapy.

Regorafenib for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Sorafenib is the standard of care for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and well preserved liver function. However, until recent approval of regorafenib by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), no effective therapeutic options were available for patients resistant to sorafenib. Areas covered: The present article reviews the preclinical and clinical data of regorafenib, putting them into the context of current and future landscape of treatment options for patients with HCC. Recently, the randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase III RESORCE trial, demonstrated a statistically and clinically significant increase in overall survival from 7.8 months with placebo to 10.6 months with regorafenib in patients progressing on sorafenib. Furthermore, the study showed a significant improvement in all the other efficacy endpoints. Main adverse events were hypertension, hand-foot skin reaction, fatigue and diarrhea, with no negative impact on quality of life. Expert commentary: Regorafenib is a recently approved treatment option for HCC patients who have been previously treated with sorafenib. The RESORCE trial demonstrates the beneficial effect of a sequential approach involving two multikinase inhibitors, namely sorafenib and regorafenib, whose antitumor activity extends beyond their antiangiogenic functions.

Tivantinib, a new option for second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma? The experience of Italian centers.

In the last decades the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has undergone significant changes following the introduction of novel therapies such as sorafenib, which have improved patient survival. Nevertheless, HCC is still the third most common cause of cancer-related death worldwide. The evidence-based therapy for advanced HCC that is unsuitable for locoregional treatment is limited to sorafenib, with no second-line option available. This article focuses on the development of the MET inhibitor tivantinib in HCC as a promising treatment option for patients who failed sorafenib. A randomized, placebo-controlled phase II study showed activity of tivantinib in patients with high MET expression. Based on these results, the METIV-HCC phase III study in second-line treatment for MET-high patients was initiated to demonstrate the survival advantage of tivantinib compared to placebo.

MicroRNA-425-3p predicts response to sorafenib therapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Sorafenib is the standard of care in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), however no criteria have been established to select patients likely to benefit from this therapy. In this study, we evaluated the predictive role of microRNAs (miRNAs) in this setting of patients. METHODS: We profiled 522 miRNA in a series of 26 HCC patients treated with sorafenib (training set) and validated the results in an independent series of 58 patients (validation set). Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour and cirrhotic liver biopsies were used for RNA extraction and miRNAs profiling with TaqMan Arrays technology. Statistical analyses were used to correlate miRNA levels with clinical outcome, including time to progression (TTP), progression free (PFS), and overall survival. Cell viability and cell motility of HuH-7 or HepG2 HCC cells were tested in vitro after transfection with specific miRNA precursor, inhibitor or controls and sorafenib treatment. RESULTS: Six miRNAs were significantly associated with clinical variables in the training set and only miR-425-3p could be further validated. Higher levels of miR-425-3p were associated with longer TTP and PFS (P = 0.0008; HR = 0.4; 95% CI = 0.2-0.7 and P = 0.007; HR = 0.5; 95% CI = 0.3-0.9 respectively). Multivariate analysis confirmed the predictive significance of miR-425-3p. Furthermore, an association between increased miR-425-3p, cell death and reduced cell motility was defined in vitro in HCC cell lines treated with sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of miR-425-3p levels in liver biopsies could help in stratifying patients with advanced HCC for sorafenib treatment. These promising results need to be confirmed in a large prospective study.

Molecular determinants of outcome in sorafenib-treated patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Preclinical studies show that sorafenib, a multitarget kinase inhibitor, displays anti-proliferative, anti-angiogenic, and pro-apoptotic properties in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the determinants of sorafenib sensitivity in vivo remain largely unknown. METHODS: We assessed the expression of Mcl-1, activated/phosphorylated extracellular signal-regulated kinase (pERK) 1/2, and activated/phosphorylated AKT (pAKT) in pretreatment tumor specimens from 44 patients with advanced HCC who received sorafenib. Furthermore, we assessed MYC and MET gene copy numbers (GCN) by fluorescence in situ hybridization. RESULTS: Poorer overall survival (OS) times were correlated with pERK expression [hazard ratio (HR) 1.013; 95 % CI 1.003-1.035] and Mcl-1 expression (HR 1.016; 95 % CI 1.002-1.030) in pretreatment tumor samples. Expression levels of pERK and Mcl-1, however, were not correlated with time to tumor progression (TTP). Increased pERK expression was positively associated with higher Cancer of Liver Italian Program scores (P = 0.012) and was prognostic in patients with scores 2-6 but not in those with scores 0-1. pERK expression was significantly less frequent in specimens sourced from previous surgical procedures compared to biopsy samples (9.6 vs. 92.3 %, respectively; P < 0.0001). Analysis of pAKT expression, MET and MYC GCN, did not indicate any prognostic nor predictive values for these biomarkers in terms of survival. CONCLUSIONS: Expression levels of Mcl-1 and pERK are associated with reduced OS in HCC patients treated with sorafenib and might be useful markers for risk stratification. However, in contrast to previous findings, pERK expression levels, as well as other biomarkers tested, did not affect TTP.

Tivantinib: a new promising mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor inhibitor in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Tivantinib (ARQ 197) is an orally administered, selective small molecule that inhibits mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (MET) via a novel, ATP-independent binding mechanism. Preclinical studies demonstrated that tivantinib has a broad-spectrum anti-tumor activity, especially in cells expressing high levels of MET. A randomized Phase II study in second-line hepatocellular carcinoma showed statistically significant improvement in time to progression with tivantinib compared to a placebo. Noteworthy, a significant pronounced benefit in time to progression and overall survival was observed in MET-high patients. In addition, MET expression was defined as a negative prognostic factor. The most frequent adverse events were hematologic events. A Phase III study in the MET-high hepatocellular carcinoma is actively recruiting patients. Phase II and III studies in non-small-cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer are ongoing.

Usefulness of alpha-fetoprotein response in patients treated with sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Tumor shrinkage has been considered a fundamental surrogate efficacy measure for new cancer treatments. However, in patients treated with sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), tumor shrinkage rarely accompanies increased survival, thereby questioning the prognostic value of imaging-based Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). We investigated the prognostic usefulness of a decrease in serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and compared it to RECIST. METHODS: In HCC patients treated with sorafenib with baseline AFP >20 ng/ml, AFP response was defined as a >20% decrease in AFP during 8weeks of treatment. Patients were also assessed by RECIST and were categorized as having radiologically proven progressive disease or disease control (consisting of complete or partial responses and stable disease). Comparisons of survival by RECIST and AFP response were corrected for guarantee-time bias by the landmark method. RESULTS: We evaluated 85 patients for AFP response, among them, 82 were also evaluated by RECIST. In the analysis of AFP response, 32 out of 85 patients (37.6%) were responders, whereas 58 out of 82 patients (70.7%) achieved disease control. In landmark analysis, the hazard ratios (HR) for survival according to AFP response and disease control were 0.59 (p=0.040) and 1.03 (p=0.913), respectively. In multivariate analysis, only AFP response (HR=0.52; p=0.009) and Cancer of the Liver Italian Program dichotomized stage (HR=0.42; p=0.002) were prognostic factors of survival. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment of AFP response may be considered as an alternative to RECIST to capture sorafenib activity in HCC.

Optimized management of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: four long-lasting responses to sorafenib.

The therapeutic options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been so far rather inadequate. Sorafenib has shown an overall survival benefit and has become the new standard of care for advanced HCC. Nevertheless, in clinical practice, some patients are discontinuing this drug because of side effects, and misinterpretation of radiographic response may contribute to this. We highlight the importance of prolonged sorafenib administration, even at reduced dose, and of qualitative and careful radiographic evaluation. We observed two partial and two complete responses, one histologically confirmed, with progression-free survival ranging from 12 to 62 mo. Three of the responses were achieved following substantial dose reductions, and a gradual change in lesion density preceded or paralleled tumor shrinkage, as seen by computed tomography. This report supports the feasibility of dose adjustments to allow prolonged administration of sorafenib, and highlights the need for new imaging criteria for a more appropriate characterization of response in HCC.