Liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin versus fluorouracil and leucovorin for metastatic biliary tract cancer after progression on gemcitabine plus cisplatin (NIFTY): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2b study.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis of patients with advanced biliary tract cancer who have progressed on gemcitabine plus cisplatin is dismal. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of second-line liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with metastatic biliary tract cancer that has progressed on gemcitabine plus cisplatin. METHODS: This multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2b (NIFTY) study was done at five academic institutions in South Korea and included patients aged 19 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic biliary tract cancer that had progressed on first-line gemcitabine plus cisplatin and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. By use of an interactive web-based response system integrated with an electronic data capture system, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using permuted blocks (block size 4) to receive either intravenous liposomal irinotecan (70 mg/m2 for 90 min) plus intravenous leucovorin (400 mg/m2 for 30 min) and intravenous fluorouracil (2400 mg/m2 for 46 h) every 2 weeks or leucovorin and fluorouracil only every 2 weeks, and were stratified by primary tumour site, previous surgery with curative intent, and participating centre. Study treatment was continued until the patient had disease progression or unacceptable toxicities, or withdrew consent. The primary endpoint was blinded independent central review (BICR)-assessed progression-free survival. The primary endpoint and safety were assessed in the full analysis set and the safety analysis set, respectively, both of which comprised all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03524508, and enrolment is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 5, 2018, and Feb 18, 2020, 193 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 174 (88 in the liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin group and 86 in the fluorouracil plus leucovorin group) were enrolled and included in the full analysis and safety analysis sets. At a median follow-up of 11·8 months (IQR 7·7-18·7), the median BICR-assessed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin group (7·1 months, 95% CI 3·6-8·8) than in the fluorouracil and leucovorin group (1·4 months, 1·2-1·5; hazard ratio 0·56, 95% CI 0·39-0·81; p=0·0019). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (21 [24%] of 88 in the liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin group vs one [1%] of 86 in the fluorouracil and leucovorin group) and fatigue or asthenia (11 [13%] vs three [3%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 37 (42%) patients receiving liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin and 21 (24%) patients receiving fluorouracil and leucovorin. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Adding liposomal irinotecan to fluorouracil and leucovorin significantly improved BICR-assessed progression-free survival in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. Liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and leucovorin could be considered a standard-of-care second-line therapy for advanced biliary tract cancer. FUNDING: Servier and HK inno. N TRANSLATION: For the Korean translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

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.

Sequential Treatment of Sorafenib-Regorafenib Versus Sorafenib-Physician's Choice: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib has been shown to improve clinical outcomes compared to placebo, becoming a standard second-line therapy for sorafenib-progressed and -tolerated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. OBJECTIVE: We performed a multicentre, retrospective study in Italy and Korea to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment sequence sorafenib-regorafenib compared with sorafenib and physician's choice in a real-life setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A propensity score model was developed to control the results for baseline variable imbalances between the arm treated with sorafenib and regorafenib (S-R) and the arm treated with sorafenib and physician's choice (S-P). Survival analysis was conducted on the matched population. RESULTS: After the application of propensity score matching, we analysed 99 patients in the arm treated with S-R and 99 patients in the arm treated with S-P. For the S-R group, the median overall survival was 22.2 months (95% CI 17.1-27.4), compared to 17.9 months (95% CI 15.1-50.0) for the S-P group. The results of the univariate analysis showed a 31% reduction of death risk for patients treated with S-R (p = 0.0382) compared to patients treated with S-P. Interaction tests highlighted the predictive role of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and extrahepatic spread. CONCLUSION: This study provides additional proof of the superiority of the S-R treatment over the S-P treatment approach in advanced HCC patients from a real-life setting.

Second-line cabozantinib after sorafenib treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a subgroup analysis of the phase 3 CELESTIAL trial.

OBJECTIVE: In the phase 3 CELESTIAL trial, cabozantinib improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo in patients with previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This subgroup analysis evaluated cabozantinib in patients who had received sorafenib as the only prior systemic therapy. METHODS: CELESTIAL randomised (2:1) patients with advanced HCC and Child-Pugh class A liver function to treatment with cabozantinib (60 mg daily) or placebo. Eligibility required prior treatment with sorafenib, and patients could have received ≤2 prior systemic regimens. The primary endpoint was OS. Outcomes in patients who had received sorafenib as the only prior therapy were analysed by duration of prior sorafenib (<3 months, 3 to <6 months and ≥6 months). RESULTS: Of patients who had received only prior sorafenib, 331 were randomised to cabozantinib and 164 to placebo; 136 patients had received sorafenib for <3 months, 141 for 3 to <6 months and 217 for ≥6 months. Cabozantinib improved OS relative to placebo in the overall second-line population who had received only prior sorafenib (median 11.3 vs 7.2 months; HR=0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.88). This improvement was maintained in analyses by prior sorafenib duration with longer duration generally corresponding to longer median OS-median OS 8.9 vs 6.9 months (HR=0.72, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.10) for prior sorafenib <3 months, 11.5 vs 6.5 months (HR=0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.00) for 3 to <6 months and 12.3 vs 9.2 months (HR=0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.16) for ≥6 months. Cabozantinib also improved PFS in all duration subgroups. Safety data were consistent with the overall study population. CONCLUSION: Cabozantinib improved efficacy outcomes versus placebo in the second-line population who had received only prior sorafenib irrespective of duration of prior sorafenib treatment, further supporting the utility of cabozantinib in the evolving treatment landscape of HCC. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT01908426.

Rivaroxaban Versus Low-molecular-weight Heparin for Venous Thromboembolism in Advanced Upper Gastrointestinal Tract and Hepatopancreatobiliary Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with active cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included patients with advanced unresectable/metastatic upper gastrointestinal (GI) or hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) cancers with high risks of VTE and bleeding. RESULTS: No significant differences were noted in potential bleeding factors between the rivaroxaban (n=105) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) (n=69) groups. Rivaroxaban exhibited similar risk of recurrent/aggravated VTE compared with LMWH (p=0.625) but increased risk of major bleeding (17.4% vs. 7.6%; p=0.072), clinically relevant bleeding (31.9% vs. 14.3%; p=0.019), and total bleeding (40.6% vs. 19%; p=0.010). The multivariate analysis regarded rivaroxaban as a significant factor for major bleeding (p=0.043) and clinically relevant bleeding (p=0.043). CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban exhibits comparable efficacy but increases bleeding risks compared with LMWH in patients with active unresectable/metastatic upper GI tract or HPB cancers, requiring extra caution of higher major bleeding risks.

Genome-wide copy number alteration and VEGFA amplification of circulating cell-free DNA as a biomarker in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with Sorafenib.

BACKGROUND: Although sorafenib is the global standard first-line systemic treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), it does not have reliable predictive or prognostic biomarkers. Circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) has shown promise as a biomarker for various cancers. We investigated the use of cfDNA to predict clinical outcomes in HCC patients treated with sorafenib. METHODS: This prospective biomarker study analyzed plasma cfDNA from 151 HCC patients who received first-line sorafenib and 14 healthy controls. The concentration and VEGFA-to-EIF2C1 ratios (the VEGFA ratio) of cfDNA were measured. Low depth whole-genome sequencing of cfDNA was used to identify genome-wide copy number alteration (CNA), and the I-score was developed to express genomic instability. The I-score was defined as the sum of absolute Z-scores of sequenced reads on each chromosome. The primary aim of this study was to develop cfDNA biomarkers predicting treatment outcomes of sorafenib, and the primary study outcome was the association between biomarkers with treatment efficacy including disease control rate (DCR), time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) in these patients. RESULTS: The cfDNA concentrations were significantly higher in HCC patients than in healthy controls (0.71 vs. 0.34 ng/µL; P < 0.0001). Patients who did not achieve disease control with sorafenib had significantly higher cfDNA levels (0.82 vs. 0.63 ng/µL; P = 0.006) and I-scores (3405 vs. 1024; P = 0.0017) than those achieving disease control. The cfDNA-high group had significantly worse TTP (2.2 vs. 4.1 months; HR = 1.71; P = 0.002) and OS (4.1 vs. 14.8 months; HR = 3.50; P < 0.0001) than the cfDNA-low group. The I-score-high group had poorer TTP (2.2 vs. 4.1 months; HR = 2.09; P < 0.0001) and OS (4.6 vs. 14.8 months; HR = 3.35; P < 0.0001). In the multivariable analyses, the cfDNA remained an independent prognostic factor for OS (P < 0.0001), and the I-score for both TTP (P = 0.011) and OS (P = 0.010). The VEGFA ratio was not significantly associated with treatment outcomes. CONCLUSION: Pretreatment cfDNA concentration and genome-wide CNA in cfDNA are potential biomarkers predicting outcomes in advanced HCC patients receiving first-line sorafenib.

Multicenter retrospective analysis of the safety and efficacy of regorafenib after progression on sorafenib in Korean patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Background The pivotal RESORCE trial showed that regorafenib was effective as second-line therapy for patients with advanced HCC who progressed on first-line sorafenib. Real-world data are needed to assess clinical outcomes and adverse events in the setting of daily practice. Methods Between April 2017 and August 2017, the Named Patient Program (NPP) was activated to provide controlled, pre-approval access of regorafenib in Korea. This analysis is a multicenter retrospective study of patients who received regorafenib under the NPP. Results A total of 49 patients entered into this NPP, and 40 patients received regorafenib in five Korean institutions. All but one patient received regorafenib as second-line therapy after progression on sorafenib, and 36 (90%) and 34 (85%) patients were classified as Child-Pugh A and BCLC stage C, respectively. The response rate was 10% (n = 4). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.7 months (95% CI, 2.5-4.9 months), and the median overall survival (OS) was not reached. The 1 year OS rate was 54.6%. The time-to-progression (TTP) on prior sorafenib was significantly associated with PFS and OS. The most common grade 3-4 toxicities were hand-foot skin reaction (n = 3, 8%), hypertension (n = 2, 5%), and increased aspartate aminotransferase (n = 2, 5%). Conclusion Regorafenib was well-tolerated and effective in patients with advanced HCC who progressed on first-line sorafenib, with efficacy and safety outcomes consistent with those of the previous RESORCE trial. TTP on first-line sorafenib may predict the efficacy of subsequent regorafenib.

Phase I/II study of first-line combination therapy with sorafenib plus resminostat, an oral HDAC inhibitor, versus sorafenib monotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in east Asian patients.

PURPOSE: Resminostat is an oral inhibitor of class I, IIB, and IV histone deacetylases. This phase I/II study compared the safety and efficacy of resminostat plus sorafenib versus sorafenib monotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In phase I, resminostat (400 mg or 600 mg/day on days 1 to 5 every 14 days) was administered with sorafenib (800 mg/day for 14 days) to determine the recommended dose for phase II. In phase II, patients were randomized (1:1) to sorafenib monotherapy or resminostat plus sorafenib. The primary endpoint was time-to-progression (TTP). RESULTS: Nine patients (3: 400 mg, 6: 600 mg) were enrolled in phase I, and the recommended dose of resminostat was determined to be 400 mg/day. Then 170 patients were enrolled in phase II. Median TTP/overall survival (OS) were 2.8/14.1 months with monotherapy versus 2.8/11.8 months with combination therapy (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 0.984, p = 0.925/HR: 1.046, p = 0.824). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups (98.8% versus 100.0%). However, thrombocytopenia ≥ Grade 3 was significantly more frequent in the combination therapy group (34.5% versus 2.4%, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed that median TTP/OS was 1.5/6.9 months for monotherapy versus 2.8/13.1 months for combination therapy (HR: 0.795, p = 0.392/HR: 0.567, p = 0.065) among patients with a normal-to-high baseline platelet count (≥ 150 × 103/mm3). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced HCC, first-line therapy with resminostat at the recommended dose plus sorafenib showed no significant efficacy advantage over sorafenib monotherapy.

Antitumor effect of sorafenib and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor in liver transplantation recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence.

Both sorafenib and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor (mTORi) have antitumor effects. This study aimed to evaluate their antitumor effects in liver transplantation (LT) recipients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence. We performed a laboratory study using sorafenib and mTORi and subsequently validated their survival benefit in a clinical LT setting. In the laboratory study, the HepG2.2.15 liver tumor cell line and 5 patient-derived graft HCC cell lines were used for in vitro cytotoxic studies. After treatment with everolimus and sorafenib, cell viability and apoptosis assays revealed noticeable cytotoxic effects with individual agents and augmented effects by combination therapy. An in vivo mouse study also demonstrated similar cytotoxic outcomes. In the clinical study including 232 LT recipients with HCC recurrence, the 3-month medication drop-out rate was 35.6% for sorafenib administration and 23.5% for mTORi administration. Postrecurrence survival rates were not different according to sorafenib administration (P = 0.17) but were significantly improved following mTORi administration (P < 0.001). In mTORi subgroups with and without sorafenib, there was no difference in the overall postrecurrence patient survival period (P = 0.26), indicating an absence of synergistic or additional antitumor effect from sorafenib. The median progression-free and overall survival period was 6.4 and 11.8 months, respectively, after sorafenib administration. Time of tumor recurrence and use of mTORi were independent risk factors. In conclusion, our laboratory study demonstrated synergistic antitumor effects of sorafenib and mTORi, but this was not reproduced in our clinical LT study. Our clinical result of mTORi administration showed improved postrecurrence survival, thus administering mTORi in LT recipients with HCC recurrence appears worthwhile. However, the antitumor effect of sorafenib on posttransplant recurrence was not determined in this retrospective study, thus requiring further studies with early start of sorafenib administration. Liver Transplantation 24 932-945 2018. © 2018 AASLD.

Ramucirumab as second-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma following first-line therapy with sorafenib: Patient-focused outcome results from the randomised phase III REACH study.

PURPOSE: To report patient-focused outcomes as measured by quality of life (QoL) and performance status (PS) in REACH, a phase III placebo-controlled randomised study, assessing ramucirumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who received prior sorafenib. METHODS: Eligible patients had advanced HCC, Child-Pugh A, PS 0 or 1 and prior sorafenib. Patients received ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) or placebo (1:1) on day 1 of a 2-week cycle. QoL was assessed by FACT Hepatobiliary Symptom Index (FHSI)-8 and EuroQoL (EQ-5D) at baseline; cycles 4, 10, and 16; and end of treatment. PS was assessed at baseline, each cycle, and end of treatment. Deterioration in FHSI-8 was defined as a ≥3-point decrease from baseline and PS deterioration was defined as a change of ≥2. Both intention-to-treat and pre-specified subgroup of patients with baseline serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥400 ng/mL were assessed. RESULTS: There were 565 patients randomised to ramucirumab and placebo. Compliance with FHSI and EQ-5D was high and similar between groups. In the ITT population, deterioration in FHSI-8, EQ-5D, and PS was similar between ramucirumab and placebo. In patients with baseline AFP ≥400 ng/mL, ramucirumab significantly reduced deterioration in FHSI-8 at the end of treatment compared with placebo (P = 0.0381), and there was a trend towards a delay in the deterioration of symptoms in FHSI-8 (HR 0.690; P = 0.054) and PS (HR 0.642; P = 0.057) in favour of ramucirumab. CONCLUSIONS: We report one of the most comprehensive data sets of QoL and symptom burden in patients undergoing systemic therapy for advanced HCC. Ramucirumab was associated with no worsening of QoL. In patients with baseline AFP ≥400 ng/mL, the significant survival benefit observed in patients treated with ramucirumab was coupled with a trend in patient-focused outcome benefits. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01140347.

Prognostic Scoring Models for Patients Undergoing Sorafenib Treatment for Advanced Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Real-Life Practice.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to build prognostic models capable of estimating the outcomes of individual sorafenib-treated advanced stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients based on specific patient and tumor factors. METHODS: A parametric model for time-to-event data was used to construct scoring systems based on the intent-to-treat data set from 480 sorafenib-treated patients with advanced stage HCC: 356 for derivation and 124 for validation. Clinical parameters included in the models were based on importance variable scores generated by a random forest approach and bootstrap resampling. The model's accuracy was internally and externally assessed using the time-dependent C-index of discrimination and a Hosmer-Lemeshow type test for calibration. RESULTS: The models generated for time-to-progression and overall survival based on Child-Pugh score, serum α-fetoprotein, tumor morphology, and vascular invasion and/or extrahepatic involvement had good calibration and discrimination abilities, with C-indexes of 0.669 (3 mo progression) and 0.809 (6 mo survival), respectively. External validation results also showed that these models performed well in terms of goodness-of-fit and discrimination (C-index: 0.746 for 3 mo progression and 0.875 for 6 mo survival). Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis in the validation patients indicated that these models have better predictive power than Child-Pugh scores (C-index: 0.686 for 3 mo progression and 0.777 for 6 mo survival). CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic tools developed to quantify the potential outcomes for progression and survival expected from sorafenib treatment can serve as useful clinical aids in personalized decision making regarding treatment in advanced stage HCC patients.

Real-Life Experience of Sorafenib Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Korea: From GIDEON Data.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to report real life experiences of sorafenib therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Korea, using a subset of data from GIDEON (Global Investigation of Therapeutic Decisions in HCC and of Its Treatment with Sorafenib; a large, prospective, observational study). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2009 and April 2012, a total of 497 patients were enrolled from 11 sites in Korea. Of these, 482 patients were evaluable for safety analyses. Case report forms of paper or electronic version were used to record safety and efficacy data from all patients. RESULTS: More patients of Child-Pugh A received sorafenib for > 8 weeks than did patients of Child-Pugh B (55.5% vs. 34.3%). Child-Pugh score did not appear to influence the starting dose of sorafenib, and approximately 70% of patients both in Child-Pugh A and B groups received the recommended initial daily dose of 800 mg (69.0% and 69.5%, respectively). The median overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP) were 8.5 months and 2.5 months. In Child-Pugh A patients, the median OS and TTP were 10.2 months and 2.5 months. The most frequent treatment-emergent drug-related adverse event was hand-foot skin reaction (31.7%), followed by diarrhea (18.0%). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was similar in both Child-Pugh A (85.4%) and Child-Pugh B (84.8%) patients. CONCLUSION: Sorafenib was well tolerated by Korean HCC patients in clinical settings, and the safety profile did not appear to differ by Child-Pugh status. Survival benefit in Korean patients was in line with that of a previous pivotal phase III trial (SHARP).

Safety and efficacy of tigatuzumab plus sorafenib as first-line therapy in subjects with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A phase 2 randomized study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Tigatuzumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that acts as a death receptor-5 agonist and exerts tumour necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand-like activity. In this phase II study, safety and tolerability of the combination of tigatuzumab and sorafenib was evaluated in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: Adults with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, measurable disease, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score⩽1 were enrolled. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to tigatuzumab (6 mg/kg loading, 2 mg/kg/week maintenance) plus sorafenib 400 mg twice daily; tigatuzumab (6 mg/kg loading, 6 mg/kg/week maintenance) plus sorafenib 400 mg twice daily; or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. The primary end point was time to progression. Secondary end points included overall survival and safety. RESULTS: 163 subjects were randomized to treatment. Median time to progression was 3.0 months in the tigatuzumab 6/2 mg/kg combination group (p=0.988 vs. sorafenib), 3.9 months in the tigatuzumab 6/6 mg/kg combination group (p=0.586 vs. sorafenib), and 2.8 months in the sorafenib alone group. Median overall survival was 12.2 months in the tigatuzumab 6/6 mg/kg combination group (p=0.659 vs. sorafenib), vs. 8.2 months in both other treatment groups (p=0.303, tigatuzumab 6/2 mg/kg combination vs. sorafenib). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, diarrhea, and decreased appetite. CONCLUSIONS: Tigatuzumab combined with sorafenib vs. sorafenib alone in adults with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma did not meet its primary efficacy end point, although tigatuzumab plus sorafenib is well tolerated in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Ramucirumab versus placebo as second-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma following first-line therapy with sorafenib (REACH): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: VEGF and VEGF receptor-2-mediated angiogenesis contribute to hepatocellular carcinoma pathogenesis. Ramucirumab is a recombinant IgG1 monoclonal antibody and VEGF receptor-2 antagonist. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ramucirumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma following first-line therapy with sorafenib. METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial (REACH), patients were enrolled from 154 centres in 27 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had hepatocellular carcinoma with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C disease or stage B disease that was refractory or not amenable to locoregional therapy, had Child-Pugh A liver disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had previously received sorafenib (stopped because of progression or intolerance), and had adequate haematological and biochemical parameters. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) or placebo every 2 weeks, plus best supportive care, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. Randomisation was stratified by geographic region and cause of liver disease with a stratified permuted block method. Patients, medical staff, investigators, and the funder were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01140347. FINDINGS: Between Nov 4, 2010, and April 18, 2013, 565 patients were enrolled, of whom 283 were assigned to ramucirumab and 282 were assigned to placebo. Median overall survival for the ramucirumab group was 9·2 months (95% CI 8·0-10·6) versus 7·6 months (6·0-9·3) for the placebo group (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·72-1·05]; p=0·14). Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurring in 5% or more of patients in either treatment group were ascites (13 [5%] of 277 patients treated with ramucirumab vs 11 [4%] of 276 patients treated with placebo), hypertension (34 [12%] vs ten [4%]), asthenia (14 [5%] vs five [2%]), malignant neoplasm progression (18 [6%] vs 11 [4%]), increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (15 [5%] vs 23 [8%]), thrombocytopenia (13 [5%] vs one [<1%]), hyperbilirubinaemia (three [1%] vs 13 [5%]), and increased blood bilirubin (five [2%] vs 14 [5%]). The most frequently reported (≥1%) treatment-emergent serious adverse event of any grade or grade 3 or more was malignant neoplasm progression. INTERPRETATION: Second-line treatment with ramucirumab did not significantly improve survival over placebo in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. No new safety signals were noted in eligible patients and the safety profile is manageable. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Co.

Comparison of chemoembolization with and without radiation therapy and sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis: a propensity score analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare efficacy of transarterial chemoembolization with and without radiation therapy (RT) versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single-center retrospective study involved 557 patients with HCC with PVTT who initially received chemoembolization (1997-2002; n = 295), chemoembolization and RT (2003-2008; n = 196), or sorafenib (2009-2012; n = 66) according to eligibility criteria among an initial population of 617. The three groups were divided into three pairs (chemoembolization vs chemoembolization/RT, chemoembolization vs sorafenib, and chemoembolization/RT vs sorafenib), and time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were compared by propensity-score analyses. RESULTS: The chemoembolization/RT group had longer median TTP and OS than the chemoembolization-alone and sorafenib groups (P < .001). Multivariate Cox analysis revealed that chemoembolization/RT treatment was an independent predictor of favorable TTP and OS. In the matched cohort, median TTP and OS were significantly longer in the chemoembolization/RT group than the chemoembolization-alone group (102 pairs; TTP, 8.7 mo vs 3.6 mo [P < .001]; OS, 11.4 mo vs 7.4 mo [P = .023]) or the sorafenib group (30 pairs; TTP, 5.1 mo vs 1.6 mo [P < .001]; OS, 8.2 mo vs 3.2 mo [P < .001]), in agreement with the inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) outcomes. In matching analyses, the chemoembolization-alone group had longer median TTP and OS than the sorafenib group (46 pairs; TTP, 3.4 mo vs 1.8 mo [P < .001]; OS, 5.9 mo vs 4.4 mo [P = .003]). There was no significant difference in terms of OS with the IPTW approach (P = .108), but there was one in terms of TTP (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitation of a retrospective study, the present data indicate that transarterial chemoembolization combined with RT could be considered as an alternative to the standard sorafenib in the treatment of patients with advanced-stage HCC with PVTT.

Sorafenib alone versus sorafenib combined with transarterial chemoembolization for advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: results of propensity score analyses.

PURPOSE: To compare the time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who are undergoing sorafenib treatment combined with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) versus sorafenib monotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The retrospective analysis of the data was approved by the institutional review board, and the requirement to obtain informed consent was waived. Of 355 patients with advanced-stage HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C) who were undergoing sorafenib therapy for at least 5 weeks between April 2007 and July 2011, 164 (46.2%) underwent repeat TACE (or chemolipiodolization if indicated) along with sorafenib therapy (combined group); the remaining 191 patients (53.8%) received sorafenib alone (monotherapy group). The median patient age was 53 years (range, 22-84 years). The median age was 53 years (range, 26-84 years) for men and 56 years (range, 22-75 years) for women. Propensity score-based methods were used to minimize bias when evaluating TTP on the basis of modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and OS. Statistical analysis was performed with the Kaplan-Meier method by using the log-rank test and Cox regression models. RESULTS: In the combined and monotherapy groups, respectively, 64.6% and 49.2% of patients had vascular invasion, 87.8% and 91.1% had extrahepatic metastasis, and 54.3% and 47.1% had both. During follow-up (median duration, 5.5 months), the median TTP and OS in the combined group were longer than those in the monotherapy group (TTP: 2.5 months vs 2.1 months, respectively, P = .008; OS: 8.9 months vs 5.9 months, P = .009). At univariate and subsequent multivariate analyses, additional TACE was an independent predictor of favorable TTP and OS (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.74 and 0.57, respectively; P < .05 for both), consistent with the outcomes of inverse probability of treatment weighting. In the propensity score-matched cohort (96 pairs), the median TTP in the combined group was significantly longer than that in the monotherapy group (2.7 months vs 2.1 months, respectively; P = .011), but median OS was not (9.1 months vs 6.7 months, P = .21). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study, TACE plus sorafenib was superior to sorafenib alone with respect to TTP in patients with advanced-stage HCC, although it may or may not improve OS. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.13130150/-/DC1.

Sorafenib dose escalation in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Although sorafenib has shown survival benefits in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), many patients require discontinuation or dose reduction due to adverse events (AEs). We applied a dose escalation scheme to increase patient compliance and avoid AEs. METHODS: Of 267 HCC patients treated with first-line sorafenib, 25 at increased risk of AEs, including those with advanced liver cirrhosis, a history of liver transplantation, or cytopenia, received the dose escalation scheme. They started on a reduced dose of sorafenib which increased to the standard dosage according to tolerance in each patient. We analyzed the efficacy and safety of the dose escalation scheme. RESULTS: Patients with risk factors showed a lower disease control rate, shorter survival, and more frequently grade 3/4 AEs. Among patients presenting risk factors, the dose scheme did not affect the efficacy of sorafenib or survival, but reduced the incidence of grade 3/4 AEs. Rates of sorafenib discontinuation and dose reduction related to AEs were also lower in the dose escalation group. Dose escalation to the standard dose of sorafenib was achieved in 16 of the 25 patients in the dose escalation group (64.0%). After 2 weeks, the dose intensity of sorafenib did not differ between the two dose schemes. CONCLUSIONS: The sorafenib dose escalation scheme may increase patient compliance and tolerance to prolonged treatment, thus enhancing the efficacy of sorafenib in patients at high risk of AEs or with poor tolerance. Further prospective analyses are needed to determine the usefulness of the dose escalation scheme.

Sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma according to Child-Pugh class of liver function.

PURPOSE: We compared the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with Child-Pugh (CP) class B and CP class A. METHODS: Clinical data from 267 patients with HCC who had been treated with sorafenib were reviewed. Patients were grouped according to CP score (5-6, 7, and 8-9), and their tumor response, tolerance, and survival were assessed. RESULTS: Median patient age was 55 years, and 87.6% were men. Gender, HCC etiology, and extrahepatic metastasis did not differ according to CP score. Of the 225 evaluable patients, 4 achieved partial response and 121 achieved stable disease, making the disease control rate 46.8%. DCR was higher in patients with CP A than CP B score, but did not differ between those with CP scores of 7 and 8-9. The incidence rates of grade 3/4 toxicities did not differ according to CP score. Many patients with CP score 8-9 (26.3%) had to stop sorafenib due to cirrhosis-related complications. At a median follow-up of 15.6 months, the median time to progression and overall survival of all patients were 2.6 and 7.9 months, respectively. OS was greater in patients with CP score 5-6 than in patients with CP scores of 7 or 8-9. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib efficacy and survival outcomes were worse in patients with CP B function. Patients with a CP score of 7 had the same incidence of adverse events and cirrhosis-related complications as those with CP A liver function, suggesting that the former can be included in clinical trials of new agents.

Sorafenib for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: Sorafenib is the only drug that has shown a survival benefit in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in randomized Phase 3 trials. The efficacy and safety of sorafenib in the treatment of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation, however, has not been determined. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 13 patients who were treated with sorafenib for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation. RESULTS: The median time to recurrence from liver transplantation was 12.3 months (95% confidence interval: 8.5-16.1 months). Six of 10 evaluable patients showed stable disease, which was the best response and the median duration of stabilization was 3.9 months (95% confidence interval: 1.6-6.2 months). At a median follow-up duration of 3.7 months (range: 0.3-10.9 months) in surviving patients, the median time to progression and the median overall survival from commencement of sorafenib were 2.9 months (95% confidence interval: 0.0-6.8 months) and 5.4 months (95% confidence interval: 3.7-7.0 months), respectively. Grade 3 neutropenia was observed in one patient, which was the only high-grade hematologic toxicity observed. Grade 3 hand-foot skin reactions were observed in three patients. Adverse events could be managed with dose adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that sorafenib may be a feasible treatment option regarding its efficacy and safety for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation.