Transarterial Chemoembolization within First 3 Months of Sorafenib Initiation Improves Overall Survival in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Retrospective, Multi-Institutional Study with Propensity Matching.

PURPOSE: The impact of transarterial chemoembolization after initiation of sorafenib (SOR) has not been prospectively compared with SOR alone in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The objective of this study was to assess whether SOR + transarterial chemoembolization provides benefit over SOR alone in this setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study with propensity matching using data from patients prescribed SOR for HCC at Veterans Health Administration hospitals from 2007 to 2015. The primary outcome was overall survival from the time of SOR prescription and stratified by receipt of transarterial chemoembolization within 90 days of SOR initiation. RESULTS: A total of 4,896 patients received SOR for HCC, of whom 232 (4.7%) underwent transarterial chemoembolization within 90 days. Patients receiving transarterial chemoembolization + SOR were highly selected, being younger and with less significant hepatic dysfunction, earlier Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage (P < .0001), and fewer tumors with lower rates of macrovascular invasion (MVI) and metastases (all P < .0001) than SOR-alone patients. In unadjusted analysis, SOR + transarterial chemoembolization was associated with reduced mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.71; P < .0001). After propensity matching, SOR + transarterial chemoembolization continued to show significant associations with reduced mortality with HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.62-0.92; P = .0005). Subgroup analysis suggests that the addition of transarterial chemoembolization to SOR improves outcomes in most patients, particularly those with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score <15, platelets >50,000/µL, and >3 tumors with or without macrovascular invasion, without local invasion or metastases. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with unresectable HCC started on systemic therapy with SOR appear to benefit from adjuvant transarterial chemoembolization. Optimal application of multimodal therapy in this setting should be prospectively investigated.

Sorafenib prescribed by gastroenterologists and hepatologists for hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective, multi-institutional cohort study.

Sorafenib is the only Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved first-line therapy shown to have survival benefit for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Patients with advanced HCC are often but not exclusively transferred from non-oncologists to oncologists to initiate systemic therapy. The objective of this study was to assess whether sorafenib prescribing by non-oncologists has any impact on utilization, adverse effects, cost or outcome.This was a retrospective cohort study utilizing data from patients prescribed sorafenib for HCC within Veterans Health Administration hospitals with 100% chart abstraction to confirm HCC diagnosis, identify prescribing provider specialty (oncology versus gastroenterology/hepatology), and obtain data required for cancer staging by the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) system. The primary outcome was overall survival from the time of sorafenib prescription.A total of 4903 patients who prescribed sorafenib for HCC were identified, for whom 340 patients (6.9%) were prescribed drug by a non-oncologist (Onc). BCLC Stage, age, Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, and comorbidity indices were similar between patients prescribed sorafenib by oncologists and non-oncologists. Oncologists more often discontinued sorafenib due to progression, whereas non-oncologists were more likely to continue sorafenib until death resulting in greater pill utilization and cost. Overall survival in both unadjusted and multivariable models showed no significant impact of prescriber type on survival (222 vs 217 days, P = .96), confirmed with propensity-matched subcohorts.Similar survival outcomes were observed for patients with HCC prescribed sorafenib by non-oncologists and oncologists, suggesting that non-oncologists with expertise in the management of HCC can safely and effectively administer sorafenib.

Healthcare Costs Related to Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Among Veterans With Cirrhosis in the United States.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is important to quantify medical costs associated with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the incidence of which is rapidly increasing in the United States, for development of rational healthcare policies related to liver cancer surveillance and treatment of chronic liver disease. We aimed to comprehensively quantify healthcare costs for HCC among patients with cirrhosis in an integrated health system and develop a model for predicting costs that is based on clinically relevant variables. METHODS: Three years subsequent to liver cancer diagnosis, costs accrued by patients included in the Veteran's Outcome and Cost Associated with Liver disease cohort were compiled by using the Department of Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse. The cohort includes all patients with HCC diagnosed in 2008-2010 within the VA with 100% chart confirmation as well as chart abstraction of tumor and clinical characteristics. Cancer cases were matched 1:4 with non-cancer cirrhosis controls on the basis of severity of liver disease, age, and comorbidities to estimate background cirrhosis-related costs. Univariable and multivariable generalized linear models were developed and used to predict cancer-related overall cost. RESULTS: Our analysis included 3188 cases of HCC and 12,722 controls. The mean 3-year total cost of care in HCC patients was $154,688 (standard error, $150,953-$158,422) compared with $69,010 (standard error, $67,344-$70,675) in matched cirrhotic controls, yielding an incremental cost of $85,679; 64.9% of this value reflected increased inpatient costs. In univariable analyses, receipt of transplantation, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage, liver disease etiology, hospital academic affiliation, use of multidisciplinary tumor board, and identification through surveillance were associated with cancer-related costs. Multivariable generalized linear models incorporating transplantation status, BCLC stage, and multidisciplinary tumor board presentation accurately predicted liver cancer-related costs (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit; P value ≅ 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: In a model developed to comprehensively quantify healthcare costs for HCC among patients with cirrhosis in an integrated health system, we associated receipt of liver transplantation, BCLC stage, and multidisciplinary tumor board with higher costs. Models that predict total costs on the basis of receipt of liver transplantation were constructed and can be used to model cost-effectiveness of therapies focused on HCC prevention.

Starting Dose of Sorafenib for the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Retrospective, Multi-Institutional Study.

Purpose Sorafenib is currently the only Food and Drug Administration-approved first-line therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. There are few data examining how sorafenib starting dose may influence patient outcomes and costs. Patients and Methods We retrospectively evaluated 4,903 patients from 128 Veterans Health Administration hospitals who were prescribed sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2006 and April 2015. After 1:1 propensity score matching to account for potential treatment bias, hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox regression and were tested against a noninferiority margin of HR = 1.1. A matched multivariate logistic regression was performed to adjust for potential confounders. The primary end point was overall survival (OS) of patients who were prescribed standard starting dosage sorafenib (800 mg/d per os) versus that of patients who were prescribed reduced starting dose sorafenib (< 800 mg/d per os). Results There were 3,094 standard dose sorafenib patients (63%) and 1,809 reduced starting dose sorafenib patients (37%). Reduced starting dose sorafenib patients had more Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage D ( P < .001), higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Sodium scores ( P < .001), higher Child-Turcotte-Pugh scores ( P < .001), and higher Cirrhosis Comorbidity Index scores ( P = .01). Consequently, reduced starting dose sorafenib patients had lower OS (median, 200 v 233 days, HR = 1.10). After propensity score matching and adjusting for potential confounders, there was no longer a significant OS difference (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.01), and this fell significantly below the noninferiority margin ( P < .001). Reduced starting dose sorafenib patients experienced significantly lower total cumulative sorafenib cost and were less likely to discontinue sorafenib because of gastrointestinal adverse effects (8.7% v 10.8%; P = .047). Conclusion The initiation of sorafenib therapy at reduced dosages was associated with reduced pill burden, reduced treatment costs, and a trend toward a decreased rate of discontinuing sorafenib because of adverse events. Reduced dosing was not associated with inferior OS relative to standard dosing.

Association of Provider Specialty and Multidisciplinary Care With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Mortality.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Little is known about provider and health system factors that affect receipt of active therapy and outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We investigated patient, provider, and health system factors associated with receipt of active HCC therapy and overall survival. METHODS: We performed a national, retrospective cohort study of all patients diagnosed with HCC from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010 (n = 3988) and followed through December 31 2014 who received care through the Veterans Administration (128 centers). Outcomes were receipt of active HCC therapy (liver transplantation, resection, local ablation, transarterial therapy, or sorafenib) and overall survival. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, receiving care at an academically affiliated Veterans Administration hospital (odds ratio [OR], 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60-2.41) or a multi-specialist evaluation (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.15-2.21), but not review by a multidisciplinary tumor board (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.98-1.46), was associated with a higher likelihood of receiving active HCC therapy. In time-varying Cox proportional hazards models, liver transplantation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.22; 95% CI, 0.16-0.31), liver resection (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.28-0.52), ablative therapy (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.52-0.76), and transarterial therapy (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.92) were associated with reduced mortality. Subspecialist care by hepatologists (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.63-0.78), medical oncologists (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.91), or surgeons (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71-0.89) within 30 days of HCC diagnosis, and review by a multidisciplinary tumor board (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.90), were associated with reduced mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective cohort study of almost 4000 patients with HCC cared for at VA centers, geographic, provider, and system differences in receipt of active HCC therapy are associated with patient survival. Multidisciplinary methods of care delivery for HCC should be prospectively evaluated and standardized to improve access to HCC therapy and optimize outcomes.