Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (CARES-310): a randomised, open-label, international phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with an anti-angiogenic tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) has been shown to improve overall survival versus anti-angiogenic therapy alone in advanced solid tumours, but not in hepatocellular carcinoma. Therefore, a clinical study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of the anti-PD-1 antibody camrelizumab plus the VEGFR2-targeted TKI rivoceranib (also known as apatinib) versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, international phase 3 trial (CARES-310) was done at 95 study sites across 13 countries and regions worldwide. Patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma who had not previously received any systemic treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either camrelizumab 200 mg intravenously every 2 weeks plus rivoceranib 250 mg orally once daily or sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily. Randomisation was done via a centralised interactive response system. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival, as assessed by the blinded independent review committee per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1, and overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of the study drugs. We report the findings from the prespecified primary analysis for progression-free survival and interim analysis for overall survival. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03764293). FINDINGS: Between June 28, 2019, and March 24, 2021, 543 patients were randomly assigned to the camrelizumab-rivoceranib (n=272) or sorafenib (n=271) group. At the primary analysis for progression-free survival (May 10, 2021), median follow-up was 7·8 months (IQR 4·1-10·6). Median progression-free survival was significantly improved with camrelizumab-rivoceranib versus sorafenib (5·6 months [95% CI 5·5-6·3] vs 3·7 months [2·8-3·7]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·52 [95% CI 0·41-0·65]; one-sided p<0·0001). At the interim analysis for overall survival (Feb 8, 2022), median follow-up was 14·5 months (IQR 9·1-18·7). Median overall survival was significantly extended with camrelizumab-rivoceranib versus sorafenib (22·1 months [95% CI 19·1-27·2] vs 15·2 months [13·0-18·5]; HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·49-0·80]; one-sided p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (102 [38%] of 272 patients in the camrelizumab-rivoceranib group vs 40 [15%] of 269 patients in the sorafenib group), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (33 [12%] vs 41 [15%]), increased aspartate aminotransferase (45 [17%] vs 14 [5%]), and increased alanine aminotransferase (35 [13%] vs eight [3%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in 66 (24%) patients in the camrelizumab-rivoceranib group and 16 (6%) in the sorafenib group. Treatment-related death occurred in two patients: one patient in the camrelizumab-rivoceranib group (ie, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome) and one patient in the sorafenib group (ie, respiratory failure and circulatory collapse). INTERPRETATION: Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib showed a statistically significant and clinically meaningful benefit in progression-free survival and overall survival compared with sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, presenting as a new and effective first-line treatment option for this population. FUNDING: Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals and Elevar Therapeutics.

Expanding Sorafenib Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Beyond Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage C Patients: A National Study.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The reimbursement criteria of sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were expanded in 2016 by Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI) to include patients without macrovascular invasion or extrahepatic spread. This study explored sorafenib treatment outcomes before and after this expansion. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The NHI database was searched for patients who initiated sorafenib treatment between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017. Clinical variables were retrieved from the Taiwan Cancer Registry database. Overall survival (OS) and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) were calculated as the times from the first sorafenib prescription date until death and the final prescription date, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 13,862 patients were included. The median age was 64 years, 78.1% of patients were male. Approximately a quarter of patients (25.1%) received sorafenib after the criteria expansion and exhibited significantly longer OS (median 7.9 vs. 6.6 months, p<0.001) and TTD (median 3.0 vs. 2.6 months, p=0.003) compared with patients who started before. These results were verified in patients with available data regarding clinical prognostic factors (n=9,378, 67.7% of the entire study population). In the multivariate analysis, sorafenib prescription after criteria expansion remained an independent predictor of longer OS [hazard ratio (HR)=0.87, p<0.001] and TTD (HR=0.93, p=0.004). In the subgroup analysis, these trends were consistently observed across different patient subgroups. CONCLUSION: Patients with HCC who received sorafenib treatment after the reimbursement criteria expansion exhibited longer OS and TTD.

Prognosis and treatment pattern of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after failure of first-line atezolizumab and bevacizumab treatment.

BACKGROUND: The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (Atezo-Bev) has become the standard first-line therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the prognosis and treatment pattern after its treatment failure are unclear. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of patients who failed first-line Atezo-Bev treatment for advanced HCC from January 2018 to May 2021 in four Taiwan medical centers. Post-first-line survival (PFLS) was defined as the date from the failure of Atezo-Bev treatment to the date of death or last follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients were included in the study. All patients had Child-Pugh A liver reserve before the initiation of Atezo-Bev treatment, but the liver reserve of 6 (15%) and 7 (17%) patients deteriorated to Child-Pugh B and C, respectively, after treatment failure. The median PFLS was 5.9 months. PFLS significantly differed among patients with various liver reserves after the failure of Atezo-Bev treatment (median 9.6 vs 3.8 vs 1.2 months, for Child-Pugh A, B, and C; p < 0.001). In total, 30 (73%) patients received second-line systemic therapy, and they exhibited significantly longer PFLS (median 8.0 vs 1.8 months, p = 0.033) than patients who did not. Deteriorated liver function and not receiving second-line therapy remained associated with inferior PFLS in multivariate analysis. The most common second-line therapies were sorafenib (n = 19, 63%) and lenvatinib (n = 9, 30%), with no significant differences in efficacies. CONCLUSION: Receiving second-line therapy and good liver reserve were associated with favorable PFLS after the failure of first-line Atezo-Bev treatment.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors for hepatocellular carcinoma - A game changer in treatment landscape.

Rapidly expanding armamentarium of systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) occurred in the recent few years. Multikinase inhibitors (MKI) or targeted therapy with antiangiogenic properties have been the focus of clinical studies in advanced HCC in the past decade. The remarkable efficacy of single agent immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), including nivolumab and pembrolizumab, in early phase studies led to accelerated approvals as second-line treatment for advanced HCC. The excellent toxicity profile of single agent ICI also lends support to be developed as combination therapy with other targeted therapies. The success of combining atezolizumab and bevacizumab over sorafenib as the first-line treatment in advanced HCC marked the newest paradigm shift in advanced HCC. The combination exhibited unprecedented objective response rate of 30% and a median survival of 19.2 months. Many other similar ICI-based combinations are expected to be approved in the foreseeable future. In this narrative review, the development of ICI alone and in combination in advanced HCC were described and the potential impact in all stages of HCC, safety issues of ICI-based combinations, and future perspectives were discussed.

Nivolumab versus sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (CheckMate 459): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Single-agent nivolumab showed durable responses, manageable safety, and promising survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the phase 1-2 CheckMate 040 study. We aimed to investigate nivolumab monotherapy compared with sorafenib monotherapy in the first-line setting for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at medical centres across 22 countries and territories in Asia, Australasia, Europe, and North America, patients at least 18 years old with histologically confirmed advanced hepatocellular carcinoma not eligible for, or whose disease had progressed after, surgery or locoregional treatment; with no previous systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma, with Child-Pugh class A and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and regardless of viral hepatitis status were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system to receive nivolumab (240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02576509. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2016, and May 24, 2017, 743 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (nivolumab, n=371; sorafenib, n=372). At the primary analysis, the median follow-up for overall survival was 15·2 months (IQR 5·7-28·0) for the nivolumab group and 13·4 months (5·7-25·9) in the sorafenib group. Median overall survival was 16·4 months (95% CI 13·9-18·4) with nivolumab and 14·7 months (11·9-17·2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·72-1·02]; p=0·075; minimum follow-up 22·8 months); the protocol-defined significance level of p=0·0419 was not reached. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (1 [<1%] of 367 patients in the nivolumab group vs 52 [14%] of patients in the sorafenib group), aspartate aminotransferase increase (22 [6%] vs 13 [4%]), and hypertension (0 vs 26 [7%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. Four deaths in the nivolumab group and one death in the sorafenib group were assessed as treatment related. INTERPRETATION: First-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve overall survival compared with sorafenib, but clinical activity and a favourable safety profile were observed in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Thus, nivolumab might be considered a therapeutic option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs are contraindicated or have substantial risks. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb in collaboration with Ono Pharmaceutical.

Pharmacodynamic Biomarkers Predictive of Survival Benefit with Lenvatinib in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From the Phase III REFLECT Study.

PURPOSE: In REFLECT, lenvatinib demonstrated an effect on overall survival (OS) by confirmation of noninferiority to sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. This analysis assessed correlations between serum or tissue biomarkers and efficacy outcomes from REFLECT. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Serum biomarkers (VEGF, ANG2, FGF19, FGF21, and FGF23) were measured by ELISA. Gene expression in tumor tissues was measured by the nCounter PanCancer Pathways Panel. Pharmacodynamic changes in serum biomarker levels from baseline, and associations of clinical outcomes with baseline biomarker levels, were evaluated. RESULTS: Four hundred and seven patients were included in the serum analysis set (lenvatinib n = 279, sorafenib n = 128); 58 patients were included in the gene-expression analysis set (lenvatinib n = 34, sorafenib n = 24). Both treatments were associated with increases in VEGF; only lenvatinib was associated with increases in FGF19 and FGF23 at all time points. Lenvatinib-treated responders had greater increases in FGF19 and FGF23 versus nonresponders at cycle 4, day 1 (FGF19: 55.2% vs. 18.3%, P = 0.014; FGF23: 48.4% vs. 16.4%, P = 0.0022, respectively). Higher baseline VEGF, ANG2, and FGF21 correlated with shorter OS in both treatment groups. OS was longer for lenvatinib than sorafenib [median, 10.9 vs. 6.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.85; P-interaction = 0.0397] with higher baseline FGF21. In tumor tissue biomarker analysis, VEGF/FGF-enriched groups showed improved OS with lenvatinib versus the intermediate VEGF/FGF group (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.16-0.91; P = 0.0253). CONCLUSIONS: Higher baseline levels of VEGF, FGF21, and ANG2 may be prognostic for shorter OS. Higher baseline FGF21 may be predictive for longer OS with lenvatinib compared with sorafenib, but this needs confirmation.

Patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (IMbrave150): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patients' experience of cancer treatment is important. We aimed to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the IMbrave150 trial, which has already shown significant overall survival and progression-free survival benefits with this combination therapy. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial in 111 hospitals and cancer centres across 17 countries or regions. We included patients aged 18 years or older with systemic, treatment-naive, histologically, cytologically, or clinically confirmed unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, with disease that was not amenable to curative surgical or locoregional therapies, or progressive disease after surgical or locoregional therapies. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1; using permuted block randomisation [blocks of six], stratified by geographical region; macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; baseline alpha-fetoprotein concentration; and ECOG performance status) to receive 1200 mg atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg bevacizumab intravenously once every 3 weeks or 400 mg sorafenib orally twice a day, until loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. The independent review facility for tumour assessment was masked to the treatment allocation. Previously reported coprimary endpoints were overall survival and independently assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Prespecified secondary and exploratory analyses descriptively evaluated treatment effects on patient-reported quality of life, functioning, and disease symptoms per the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality-of-life questionnaire for cancer (QLQ-C30) and quality-of-life questionnaire for hepatocellular carcinoma (QLQ-HCC18). Time to confirmed deterioration of PROs was analysed in the intention-to-treat population; all other analyses were done in the PRO-evaluable population (patients who had a baseline PRO assessment and at least one assessment after baseline). The trial is ongoing; enrolment is closed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03434379. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2018, and Jan 30, 2019, 725 patients were screened and 501 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n=336) or sorafenib (n=165). 309 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 145 patients in the sorafenib group were included in the PRO-evaluable population. At data cutoff (Aug 29, 2019) the median follow-up was 8·6 months (IQR 6·2-10·8). EORTC QLQ-C30 completion rates were 90% or greater for 23 of 24 treatment cycles in both groups (range 88-100% in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 80-100% in the sorafenib group). EORTC QLQ-HCC18 completion rates were 90% or greater for 20 of 24 cycles in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group (range 88-100%) and 21 of 24 cycles in the sorafenib group (range 89-100%). Compared with sorafenib, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab reduced the risk of deterioration on all EORTC QLQ-C30 generic cancer symptom scales that were prespecified for analysis (appetite loss [hazard ratio (HR) 0·57, 95% CI 0·40-0·81], diarrhoea [0·23, 0·16-0·34], fatigue [0·61, 0·46-0·81], pain [0·46, 0·34-0·62]), and two of three EORTC QLQ-HCC18 disease-specific symptom scales that were prespecified for analysis (fatigue [0·60, 0·45-0·80] and pain [0·65, 0·46-0·92], but not jaundice [0·76, 0·55-1·07]). At day 1 of treatment cycle five (after which attrition in the sorafenib group was more than 50%), the mean EORTC QLQ-C30 score changes from baseline in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib groups were: -3·29 (SD 17·56) versus -5·83 (20·63) for quality of life, -4·02 (19·42) versus -9·76 (21·33) for role functioning, and -3·77 (12·82) versus -7·60 (15·54) for physical functioning. INTERPRETATION: Prespecified analyses of PRO data showed clinically meaningful benefits in terms of patient-reported quality of life, functioning, and disease symptoms with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sorafenib, strengthening the combination therapy's positive benefit-risk profile versus that of sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

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.

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.

Urine protein:creatinine ratio vs 24-hour urine protein for proteinuria management: analysis from the phase 3 REFLECT study of lenvatinib vs sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Proteinuria monitoring is required in patients receiving lenvatinib, however, current methodology involves burdensome overnight urine collection. METHODS: To determine whether the simpler urine protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) calculated from spot urine samples could be accurately used for proteinuria monitoring in patients receiving lenvatinib, we evaluated the correlation between UPCR and 24-hour urine protein results from the phase 3 REFLECT study. Paired data (323 tests, 154 patients) were analysed. RESULTS: Regression analysis showed a statistically significant correlation between UPCR and 24-hour urine protein (R2: 0.75; P < 2 × 10-16). A UPCR cut-off value of 2.4 had 96.9% sensitivity, 82.5% specificity for delineating between grade 2 and 3 proteinuria. Using this UPCR cut-off value to determine the need for further testing could reduce the need for 24-hour urine collection in ~74% of patients. CONCLUSION: Incorporation of UPCR into the current algorithm for proteinuria management can enable optimisation of lenvatinib treatment, while minimising patient inconvenience. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01761266.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 2 trial, lenvatinib, an inhibitor of VEGF receptors 1-3, FGF receptors 1-4, PDGF receptor α, RET, and KIT, showed activity in hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to compare overall survival in patients treated with lenvatinib versus sorafenib as a first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: This was an open-label, phase 3, multicentre, non-inferiority trial that recruited patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, who had not received treatment for advanced disease, at 154 sites in 20 countries throughout the Asia-Pacific, European, and North American regions. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system-with region; macroscopic portal vein invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; and bodyweight as stratification factors-to receive oral lenvatinib (12 mg/day for bodyweight ≥60 kg or 8 mg/day for bodyweight <60 kg) or sorafenib 400 mg twice-daily in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival, measured from the date of randomisation until the date of death from any cause. The efficacy analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle, and only patients who received treatment were included in the safety analysis. The non-inferiority margin was set at 1·08. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01761266. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2013 and July 30, 2015, 1492 patients were recruited. 954 eligible patients were randomly assigned to lenvatinib (n=478) or sorafenib (n=476). Median survival time for lenvatinib of 13·6 months (95% CI 12·1-14·9) was non-inferior to sorafenib (12·3 months, 10·4-13·9; hazard ratio 0·92, 95% CI 0·79-1·06), meeting criteria for non-inferiority. The most common any-grade adverse events were hypertension (201 [42%]), diarrhoea (184 [39%]), decreased appetite (162 [34%]), and decreased weight (147 [31%]) for lenvatinib, and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (249 [52%]), diarrhoea (220 [46%]), hypertension (144 [30%]), and decreased appetite (127 [27%]) for sorafenib. INTERPRETATION: Lenvatinib was non-inferior to sorafenib in overall survival in untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The safety and tolerability profiles of lenvatinib were consistent with those previously observed. FUNDING: Eisai Inc.

High plasma interleukin-6 levels associated with poor prognosis of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Antiangiogenic therapy is crucial for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment. Interleukin (IL)-6 is an inflammatory response mediator that can promote angiogenesis. We explored its prognostic role in patients with advanced HCC. METHODS: We had two patient cohorts, both comprising patients who received sorafenib-containing therapy as the first-line treatment for advanced HCC. We explored the best cut point for pretreatment plasma IL-6 levels in the exploration cohort and then confirmed it in the validation cohort. RESULTS: In total, 55 and 73 patients constituted the exploration and validation cohorts, respectively. In the exploration cohort, a cut point of 4.28 pg/ml was the best for defining high and low IL-6 levels because it could most effectively differentiate overall survival (OS). On application of this cut point to the validation cohort, patients with high plasma IL-6 levels, compared with patients with low IL-6 levels, exhibited significantly poorer OS (median, 8.0 vs 13.9 months, P = 0.031) but similar progression-free survival or treatment response. After adjusting for patient demographics and tumor characteristics, a high plasma IL-6 level remained an independent predictor of poor OS (hazard ratio 2.594, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: High pretreatment plasma IL-6 levels were associated with poor prognosis of patients with advanced HCC.

Phase Ib study of codrituzumab in combination with sorafenib in patients with non-curable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

PURPOSE: Codrituzumab, a humanized antibody against glypican-3, is highly expressed in HCC. A phase I study evaluated the combination with sorafenib in HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a 3 + 3 design, codrituzumab was given intravenously in various doses with sorafenib 400 mg twice daily to patients with advanced HCC, age ≥18, ECOG 0-1, Child-Pugh A and B7, adequate organ functions, and no prior systemic therapy, with tumor assessment by RECIST 1.0 and safety by CTCAE 3.0. PK and pre, during, and post-therapy 124I radiolabeled codrituzumab PET scan imaging were performed. RESULTS: 41 patients were enrolled: 2.5 mg/kg weekly (qw) (12), 5 mg/kg qw (12), 10 mg/kg qw (3), 1600 mg every 2 weeks (q2w) (6), and 1600 mg qw (7). Two drug limiting toxicities occurred: grade 3 hyponatremia at 5 mg/kg and grade 3 hyponatremia and hyperglycemia at 1600 mg q2w. Adverse events occurred in 80% of patients, including at least one ≥grade 3: ten (25%) increased AST, three (7.5%) increased ALT, and ten (25%) increased lipase. There were no responses and nine (25.7%) had stable disease. PK C max and AUCt of codrituzumab and sorafenib were comparable to single-agent data. Thirteen out of 14 patients showed 124I radiolabeled codrituzumab uptake in tumor. In all three patients who underwent a post-progression PET, glypican-3 remained expressed. CONCLUSION: Codrituzumab plus sorafenib were tolerated at 1600 mg q2w and 400 mg bid, respectively, with no responses. Codrituzumab exerts selective distribution to HCC cells, and GPC3 does not show any down-regulation post-progression (NCT00976170).

mRECIST to predict survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Analysis of two randomised phase II trials comparing nintedanib vs sorafenib.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) has been shown to be a poor surrogate for survival benefit with targeted therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: We investigated whether response evaluated using modified RECIST (mRECIST) predicted overall survival (OS) using data from two Phase II clinical trials. Analyses were conducted on pooled data from 188 patients with advanced HCC treated with nintedanib or sorafenib, of whom 180 were evaluable for response. Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to explore differences in OS between the responders and non-responders according to RECIST 1.0 and mRECIST criteria. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models, including factors known to influence survival, were used to compare survival according to RECIST and mRECIST response. RESULTS: Discordance between RECIST and mRECIST evaluation was most common for assessment of partial response (12.2%) and stable disease (13.3%). OS was significantly longer in patients with response compared to patients without response-RECIST: hazard ratio (HR) 0.325 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.130-0.815), P=.0122; mRECIST: HR 0.544 (95% CI 0.335-0.881), P=.0122. HRs from the multivariate models used to evaluate response by RECIST or by mRECIST as predictors of OS approached significance for RECIST (0.40 [95% CI 0.16-1.01]; P=.053) and for mRECIST (0.62 [95% CI 0.38-1.01]; P=.053). CONCLUSIONS: Response according to RECIST or mRECIST is associated with improved survival and should be considered as a valid endpoint for use in HCC clinical trials.

Regorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment (RESORCE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There are no systemic treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) whose disease progresses during sorafenib treatment. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in patients with HCC who have progressed during sorafenib treatment. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial done at 152 sites in 21 countries, adults with HCC who tolerated sorafenib (≥400 mg/day for ≥20 of last 28 days of treatment), progressed on sorafenib, and had Child-Pugh A liver function were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) by a computer-generated randomisation list and interactive voice response system and stratified by geographical region, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic disease, and α-fetoprotein level to best supportive care plus oral regorafenib 160 mg or placebo once daily during weeks 1-3 of each 4-week cycle. Investigators, patients, and the funder were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (defined as time from randomisation to death due to any cause) and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01774344. FINDINGS: Between May 14, 2013, and Dec 31, 2015, 843 patients were screened, of whom 573 were enrolled and randomised (379 to regorafenib and 194 to placebo; population for efficacy analyses), and 567 initiated treatment (374 received regorafenib and 193 received placebo; population for safety analyses). Regorafenib improved overall survival with a hazard ratio of 0·63 (95% CI 0·50-0·79; one-sided p<0·0001); median survival was 10·6 months (95% CI 9·1-12·1) for regorafenib versus 7·8 months (6·3-8·8) for placebo. Adverse events were reported in all regorafenib recipients (374 [100%] of 374) and 179 (93%) of 193 placebo recipients. The most common clinically relevant grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent events were hypertension (57 patients [15%] in the regorafenib group vs nine patients [5%] in the placebo group), hand-foot skin reaction (47 patients [13%] vs one [1%]), fatigue (34 patients [9%] vs nine patients [5%]), and diarrhoea (12 patients [3%] vs no patients). Of the 88 deaths (grade 5 adverse events) reported during the study (50 patients [13%] assigned to regorafenib and 38 [20%] assigned to placebo), seven (2%) were considered by the investigator to be related to study drug in the regorafenib group and two (1%) in the placebo group, including two patients (1%) with hepatic failure in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Regorafenib is the only systemic treatment shown to provide survival benefit in HCC patients progressing on sorafenib treatment. Future trials should explore combinations of regorafenib with other systemic agents and third-line treatments for patients who fail or who do not tolerate the sequence of sorafenib and regorafenib. FUNDING: Bayer.

Randomized, open-label phase 2 study comparing frontline dovitinib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

UNLABELLED: Angiogenesis inhibition by the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) inhibitor sorafenib provides survival benefit in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, angiogenic escape from sorafenib may occur due to angiogenesis-associated fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) pathway activation. In addition to VEGFR and PDGFR, dovitinib inhibits FGFR. Frontline oral dovitinib (500 mg/day, 5 days on, 2 days off; n = 82) versus sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; n = 83) was evaluated in an open-label, randomized phase 2 study of Asian-Pacific patients with advanced HCC. The primary and key secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and time to tumor progression (TTP) as determined by a local investigator, respectively. Patients included in the study were ineligible for surgical and/or locoregional therapies or had disease progression after receiving these therapies. The median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 8.0 (6.6-9.1) months for dovitinib and 8.4 (5.4-11.3) months for sorafenib. The median TTP (95% CI) per investigator assessment was 4.1 (2.8-4.2) months and 4.1 (2.8-4.3) months for dovitinib and sorafenib, respectively. Common any-cause adverse events included diarrhea (62%), decreased appetite (43%), nausea (41%), vomiting (41%), fatigue (35%), rash (34%), and pyrexia (30%) for dovitinib and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (66%) and decreased appetite (31%) for sorafenib. Subgroup analysis revealed a significantly higher median OS for patients in the dovitinib arm who had baseline plasma soluble VEGFR1 (sVEGFR1) and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) below median levels versus at or above the median levels (median OS [95% CI]: sVEGFR1, 11.2 [9.0-13.8] and 5.7 [4.3-7.0] months, respectively [P = .0002]; HGF, 11.2 [8.9-13.8] and 5.9 [5.0-7.6] months, respectively [P = 0.0002]). CONCLUSION: Dovitinib was well tolerated, but activity was not greater than sorafenib as a frontline systemic therapy for HCC. Based on these data, no subsequent phase 3 study has been planned. (Hepatology 2016;64:774-784).

Predictive biomarkers of sorafenib efficacy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Are we getting there?

Sorafenib is the current standard treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but its efficacy is modest with low response rates and short response duration. Predictive biomarkers for sorafenib efficacy are necessary. However, efforts to determine biomarkers for sorafenib have led only to potential candidates rather than clinically useful predictors. Studies based on patient cohorts identified the potential of blood levels of angiopoietin-2, hepatocyte growth factor, insulin-like growth factor-1, and transforming growth factor-ß1 for predicting sorafenib efficacy. Alpha-fetoprotein response, dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging, and treatment-related side effects may serve as early surrogate markers. Novel approaches based on super-responders or experimental mouse models may provide new directions in biomarker research. These studies identified tumor amplification of FGF3/FGF4 or VEGFA and tumor expression of phospho-Mapk14 and phospho-Atf2 as possible predictive markers that await validation. A group effort that considers various prognostic factors and proper collection of tumor tissues before treatment is imperative for the success of future biomarker research in advanced HCC.

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.

Treatment efficacy differences of sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a heterogeneous disease. We explored whether any specific subgroups of patients may gain more survival benefits from sorafenib as the first-line therapy for advanced HCC. METHODS: PubMed and the Cochrane library were searched for phase III clinical trials that compared sorafenib with other treatments as first-line therapy for advanced HCC. We retrieved data from the published articles and then calculated synthesized hazard ratios (HRs) of overall mortality for patients of different subgroups, using patients who received other treatments as the reference. RESULTS: Four phase III clinical trials comparing sorafenib with other treatments were included in this study. The HRs were not significantly different between patients from various geographic regions (p = 0.183), patients with different Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance statuses (p = 0.699), or patients with different tumor involvement (p = 0.221). By contrast, the synthesized HR for hepatitis C virus (HCV)+ patients was 0.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.80], which was significantly lower than that for HCV- patients (0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.96, p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: As the first-line therapy for advanced HCC, sorafenib might provide more survival benefits to HCV+ patients than to HCV- patients.

Recent advances in the prevention of hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most lethal malignancies worldwide. Early-stage HCC can be curatively treated, but the recurrence rate remains high. To date, adjuvant treatments have not proven effective in preventing HCC recurrence after curative treatment. Although early studies explored the potential of vitamin K2, retinoid, chemotherapy, and recently, sorafenib, none of the studies reported successful outcomes. Several new lines of evidence have emerged to support the use of novel antiviral agents for preventing the recurrence of virus-related HCC after curative treatment. In this review, the authors provide a thorough overview of the various adjuvant treatments that have been attempted or are being considered for trial.