Tislelizumab vs Sorafenib as First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, and additional first-line treatments are needed. The programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitor tislelizumab demonstrated efficacy and a tolerable safety profile as second-line HCC treatment. Objective: To investigate efficacy and safety of tislelizumab vs sorafenib tosylate for first-line treatment of unresectable HCC. Design, Setting, and Participants: The open-label, global, multiregional phase 3 RATIONALE-301 randomized clinical trial enrolled systemic therapy-naive adults with histologically confirmed HCC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C disease, disease progression following (or patient was not amenable to) locoregional therapy, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, and Child-Pugh class A, between December 27, 2017, and October 2, 2019. Data cutoff was July 11, 2022. Intervention: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive tislelizumab, 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks, or sorafenib tosylate, 400 mg orally twice daily. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included objective response rate, progression-free survival, duration of response, and safety. Results: A total of 674 patients were included in the analysis (570 men [84.6%]; median age, 61 years [range, 23-86 years]). As of July 11, 2022, minimum study follow-up was 33 months. The primary end point of OS noninferiority of tislelizumab vs sorafenib was met in the intention-to-treat population (n = 674); median overall survival was 15.9 (95% CI, 13.2-19.7) months vs 14.1 (95% CI, 12.6-17.4) months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 [95.003% CI, 0.71-1.02]), and superiority of tislelizumab vs sorafenib was not met. The objective response rate was 14.3% (n = 49) for tislelizumab vs 5.4% (n = 18) for sorafenib, and median duration of response was 36.1 (95% CI, 16.8 to not evaluable) months vs 11.0 (95% CI, 6.2-14.7) months, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 2.1 (95% CI, 2.1-3.5) months vs 3.4 (95% CI, 2.2-4.1) months with tislelizumab vs sorafenib (HR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.92-1.33]). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was 96.2% (325 of 338 patients) for tislelizumab and 100% (n = 324) for sorafenib. Grade 3 or greater treatment-related AEs were reported in 75 patients (22.2%) receiving tislelizumab and 173 (53.4%) receiving sorafenib. There was a lower incidence of treatment-related AEs leading to drug discontinuation (21 [6.2%] vs 33 [10.2%]) and drug modification (68 [20.1%] vs 187 [57.7%]) with tislelizumab vs sorafenib. Conclusions and Relevance: In RATIONALE-301, tislelizumab demonstrated OS benefit that was noninferior vs sorafenib, with a higher objective response rate and more durable responses, while median progression-free survival was longer with sorafenib. Tislelizumab demonstrated a favorable safety profile vs sorafenib. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03412773.

Impact of Smad4 and p53 mutations on the prognosis of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma undergoing chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: This prospective cohort study evaluated the feasibility of using endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) samples for comprehensive mutational analysis of cancer-related genes using microtissues. METHODS: Fifty patients with suspected pancreatic cancer presenting consecutively at the Kindai University Hospital between January 2018 and January 2019 were enrolled. Cancerous tissues from EUS-FNB were obtained from each tumor and subjected to histological examination and mutational analysis. The primary endpoint was the collection rate of EUS-FNB specimens suitable for comprehensive cancer panels using deep sequencing. Clinical history and genetic variations between the disease control and progressive disease groups of patients on chemotherapy were evaluated as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: The collection rate of EUS-FNB specimens suitable for comprehensive cancer panels using deep sequencing was 93.6%. The cancer panel was sequenced for 25 patients with pancreatic cancer treated initially with systemic chemotherapy. Mutation in p53 and Smad4 were positively and negatively associated, respectively, with disease control at the initial evaluation. The median time to progression in 15 patients with p53 and without Smad4 mutations was 182.0 days; whereas, it was 92.5 days in other 10 patients; this difference was significant (p = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: Tissue samples from EUS-FNB were suitable for mutational analysis. Pancreatic cancers with p53 and without Smad4 mutations responded better to chemotherapy and had a better prognosis than those others.

Sequential therapies after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib first-line treatments in hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this retrospective proof-of-concept study was to compare different second-line treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and progressive disease (PD) after first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1381 patients had PD at first-line therapy. 917 patients received lenvatinib as first-line treatment, and 464 patients atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line. RESULTS: 49.6% of PD patients received a second-line therapy without any statistical difference in overall survival (OS) between lenvatinib (20.6months) and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line (15.7months; p = 0.12; hazard ratio [HR]= 0.80). After lenvatinib first-line, there wasn't any statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p = 0.27; sorafenib HR: 1; immunotherapy HR: 0.69; other therapies HR: 0.85). Patients who underwent trans-arterial chemo-embolization (TACE) had a significative longer OS than patients who received sorafenib (24.7 versus 15.8months, p < 0.01; HR=0.64). After atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line, there was a statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p < 0.01; sorafenib HR: 1; lenvatinib HR: 0.50; cabozantinib HR: 1.29; other therapies HR: 0.54). Patients who received lenvatinib (17.0months) and those who underwent TACE (15.9months) had a significative longer OS than patients treated with sorafenib (14.2months; respectively, p = 0.01; HR=0.45, and p < 0.05; HR=0.46). CONCLUSION: Approximately half of patients receiving first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab access second-line treatment. Our data suggest that in patients progressed to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is lenvatinib, while in patients progressed to lenvatinib, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is immunotherapy.

New treatment paradigm with systemic therapy in intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

Since the approval of sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in 2007 (in 2009 in Japan), five more regimens have been approved: lenvatinib, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for first-line treatment, and regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab for second-line treatment, which are currently available for clinical use. The positive results of durvalumab, a programmed cell death ligand 1 antibody, plus tremelimumab, an anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 antibody, were also presented at the 2022 American Society Clinical Oncology Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium as superior to sorafenib in prolonging the overall survival; this combination is expected to be approved by the end of 2022. These systemic therapies are changing the treatment paradigm not only for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma but also for intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. This review focuses on the role of systemic therapy in intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

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.

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

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

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.

Sorafenib treatment by Child-Pugh score in Latin American patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Aim: To evaluate sorafenib treatment in Latin American patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in the real-world GIDEON study. Patients & methods: Sorafenib administration, safety and efficacy were analyzed by Child-Pugh status. Results: Of 90 evaluable patients (37% Child-Pugh A, 46% Child-Pugh B and 3% Child-Pugh C at study entry), 97% started sorafenib at 800 mg/day. Patients with Child-Pugh B7 had the longest median treatment duration of sorafenib (33.1 weeks). Sorafenib-related adverse events occurred in 58% of patients with Child-Pugh A (21% grade 3/4) and 46% with Child-Pugh B (7% grade 3/4). Conclusion: Sorafenib had a similar safety profile across patients with Child-Pugh A and B and is a treatment option for both groups.

Nutritional Index as Prognostic Indicator in Patients Receiving Lenvatinib Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Few studies have examined the details of nutritional status in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC) undergoing systemic chemotherapy with lenvatinib. We evaluated the prognostic/predictive value of nutritional status using Onodera's prognostic nutritional index (O-PNI) for overall survival among patients with u-HCC treated with lenvatinib. METHODS: Three-hundred and seventy-five u-HCC patients treated with lenvatinib were enrolled (median age 72 years; Child-Pugh class A/B/C: n = 312/60/3; BCLC stage A/B/C/D: n = 2/159/212/2). We examined median survival time (MST) and time to progression (TTP) in all patients (n = 375), prognosis according to the O-PNI (high/low: >40/≤40) in 298 patients with lymphocyte findings, and the prognostic/predictive values of Child-Pugh stage, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI)/modified ALBI (mALBI) grade, and O-PNI for Chemotherapy grade (OPNIC grade 1/2/3: O-PNI >40/≤40 to >36/≤36). RESULTS: The MST and TTP were 16.6 and 8.0 months, respectively. The MST and TTP according to the O-PNI (>40/≤40) were "not reached" (NR)/12.4 months (p < 0.001) and 10.0/6.1 months (p = 0.012), respectively. There was a good correlation noted between ALBI score and O-PNI (r = -0.939, p < 0.001). The predictive value of the O-PNI for mALBI grade 2a was 36.0 (specificity/sensitivity = 0.894/0.942; area under the curve [AUC] = 0.978), while that for mALBI grade 1 was 39 (specificity/sensitivity = 0.920/0.929; AUC = 0.972), which was very similar to a high O-PNI. The MST analyzed with the OPNIC in the 298 patients was NR/16.2/10.4 months for OPNIC grade 1/2/3 (p < 0.001), respectively, and the c-index was 0.632, the same as that for mALBI grade (0.632), while that for Child-Pugh class was 0.571. CONCLUSIONS: OPNIC grading might have a potential for easy substitution of mALBI grading. A good nutritional status (OPNIC grade 1) or mALBI grade 1 is the best indication for lenvatinib use, while with an OPNIC grade 3, lenvatinib might be not suitable.

REFLECT-a phase 3 trial comparing efficacy and safety of lenvatinib to sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: an analysis of Japanese subset.

BACKGROUND: A phase 3, multinational, randomized, non-inferiority trial (REFLECT) compared the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib (LEN) and sorafenib (SOR) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). LEN had an effect on overall survival (OS) compared to SOR, statistically confirmed by non-inferiority [OS: median = 13.6 months vs. 12.3 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.06], and demonstrated statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and the objective response rate (ORR) in the overall population. The results of a subset analysis that evaluated the efficacy and safety of LEN and SOR in the Japanese population are reported. METHODS: The intent-to-treat population enrolled in Japan was analyzed. RESULTS: Of 954 patients in the overall population, 168 Japanese patients were assigned to the LEN arm (N = 81) or the SOR arm (N = 87). Median OS was 17.6 months for LEN vs. 17.8 months for SOR (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.62-1.29). LEN showed statistically significant improvements over SOR in PFS (7.2 months vs. 4.6 months) and ORR (29.6% vs. 6.9%). The relative dose intensity of LEN and SOR in the Japanese population was lower than in the overall population. Frequently observed, related adverse events included palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (PPES), hypertension, decreased appetite, and proteinuria in the LEN arm, and PPES, hypertension, diarrhea, and alopecia in the SOR arm. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy and safety of LEN in the Japanese population were similar to those in the overall population of REFLECT. With manageable adverse events, LEN is a new treatment option for Japanese patients with uHCC. TRIAL REGISTRATION ID: ClinicalTrials.gov. No. NCT01761266.

Randomised, multicentre prospective trial of transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) plus sorafenib as compared with TACE alone in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: TACTICS trial.

OBJECTIVE: This trial compared the efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) plus sorafenib with TACE alone using a newly established TACE-specific endpoint and pre-treatment of sorafenib before initial TACE. DESIGN: Patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were randomised to TACE plus sorafenib (n=80) or TACE alone (n=76). Patients in the combination group received sorafenib 400 mg once daily for 2-3 weeks before TACE, followed by 800 mg once daily during on-demand conventional TACE sessions until time to untreatable (unTACEable) progression (TTUP), defined as untreatable tumour progression, transient deterioration to Child-Pugh C or appearance of vascular invasion/extrahepatic spread. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), which is not a conventional one but defined as TTUP, or time to any cause of death plus overall survival (OS). Multiplicity was adjusted by gatekeeping hierarchical testing. RESULTS: Median PFS was significantly longer in the TACE plus sorafenib than in the TACE alone group (25.2 vs 13.5 months; p=0.006). OS was not analysed because only 73.6% of OS events were reached. Median TTUP (26.7 vs 20.6 months; p=0.02) was also significantly longer in the TACE plus sorafenib group. OS at 1 year and 2 years in TACE plus sorafenib group and TACE alone group were 96.2% and 82.7% and 77.2% and 64.6%, respectively. There were no unexpected toxicities. CONCLUSION: TACE plus sorafenib significantly improved PFS over TACE alone in patients with unresectable HCC. Adverse events were consistent with those of previous TACE combination trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01217034.

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.

Nivolumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Sorafenib-experienced Asian cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Nivolumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, is approved in several countries to treat sorafenib-experienced patients with HCC, based on results from the CheckMate 040 study (NCT01658878). Marked differences exist in HCC clinical presentation, aetiology, treatment patterns and outcomes across regions. This analysis assessed the safety and efficacy of nivolumab in the Asian cohort of CheckMate 040. METHODS: CheckMate 040 is an international, multicentre, open-label, phase I/II study of nivolumab in adults with advanced HCC, regardless of aetiology, not amenable to curative resection or local treatment and with/without previous sorafenib treatment. This analysis included all sorafenib-experienced patients in the intent-to-treat (ITT) overall population and Asian cohort. The analysis cut-off date was March 2018. RESULTS: There were 182 and 85 patients in the ITT population and Asian cohort, respectively. In both populations, most patients were older than 60 years, had BCLC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer) Stage C disease, and had received previous systemic therapy. A higher percentage of Asian patients had HBV infections, extrahepatic metastases and prior therapies. Median follow-up was 31.6 and 31.3 months for the ITT and Asian patients, respectively. Objective response rates were 14% and 15% in the ITT population and Asian cohort, respectively. In the Asian cohort, patients with HBV, HCV or those who were uninfected had objective response rates of 13%, 14% and 21%, respectively. The median duration of response was longer in the ITT (19.4 months) vs. Asian patients (9.7 months). Median overall survival was similar between the ITT (15.1 months) and Asian patients (14.9 months), and unaffected by aetiology in Asian patients. The nivolumab safety profile was similar and manageable across both populations. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab safety and efficacy are comparable between sorafenib-experienced ITT and Asian patients. LAY SUMMARY: The CheckMate 040 study evaluated the safety and efficacy of nivolumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who were refractory to previous sorafenib treatment or chemotherapy. This subanalysis of the data showed that treatment responses and safety in patients in Asia were similar to those of the overall treatment population, providing support for nivolumab as a treatment option for these patients. Clinical trial number: NCT01658878.

RATIONALE 301 study: tislelizumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Advanced, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has a poor prognosis with median life expectancy of approximately 1 year. Overexpression of PD-L1 in tumor cells and PD-1 on tumor-infiltrating T cells has been associated with poorer prognosis, more advanced disease and higher recurrence rates in HCC. Monoclonal antibodies against PD-1 have demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with solid tumors, including HCC. Tislelizumab, an investigational, humanized IgG4 monoclonal antibody with high affinity and binding specificity for PD-1, has demonstrated preliminary antitumor activity in HCC. Here we describe a head-to-head Phase III study comparing the efficacy, safety and tolerability of tislelizumab with sorafenib as first-line treatment in unresectable HCC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of lenvatinib treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) compared with sorafenib in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib demonstrated a treatment effect on overall survival by the statistical confirmation of non-inferiority to sorafenib for the first-line treatment of uHCC. The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib for patients with uHCC in Japan. METHODS: A partitioned-survival model was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib versus sorafenib when treating uHCC patients over a lifetime horizon and considering total public healthcare expenditure. Efficacy and safety data were extracted from the REFLECT trial. Utility values were derived from the European Quality-of-Life 5-Dimension Questionnaire, conducted with patients enrolled in the REFLECT trial. Direct medical costs, such as primary drug therapy, outpatient visits, diagnostic tests, hospitalization, post-progression therapy, and adverse-event treatments, were included. Cost parameters unavailable in the clinical trial or publications were obtained based on the consolidated clinical standards from a Delphi panel of four Japanese medical experts. RESULTS: For lenvatinib versus sorafenib, the incremental cost was - 406,307 Japanese Yen (JPY), and the incremental life years and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were 0.27 and 0.23, respectively. Thus, lenvatinib dominated sorafenib, due to the mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio falling in the fourth quadrant, conferring more benefit at lower costs compared with sorafenib. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that 81.3% of the simulations were favorable to lenvatinib compared with sorafenib, with a payer's willingness-to-pay-per-QALY of 5 million JPY. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib was cost-effective compared with sorafenib for the first-line treatment of uHCC in Japan.

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.

Development of pre and post-operative models to predict early recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after surgical resection.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Resection is the most widely used potentially curative treatment for patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, recurrence within 2 years occurs in 30-50% of patients, being the major cause of mortality. Herein, we describe 2 models, both based on widely available clinical data, which permit risk of early recurrence to be assessed before and after resection. METHODS: A total of 3,903 patients undergoing surgical resection with curative intent were recruited from 6 different centres. We built 2 models for early recurrence, 1 using preoperative and 1 using pre and post-operative data, which were internally validated in the Hong Kong cohort. The models were then externally validated in European, Chinese and US cohorts. We developed 2 online calculators to permit easy clinical application. RESULTS: Multivariable analysis identified male gender, large tumour size, multinodular tumour, high albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade and high serum alpha-fetoprotein as the key parameters related to early recurrence. Using these variables, a preoperative model (ERASL-pre) gave 3 risk strata for recurrence-free survival (RFS) in the entire cohort - low risk: 2-year RFS 64.8%, intermediate risk: 2-year RFS 42.5% and high risk: 2-year RFS 20.7%. Median survival in each stratum was similar between centres and the discrimination between the 3 strata was enhanced in the post-operative model (ERASL-post) which included 'microvascular invasion'. CONCLUSIONS: Statistical models that can predict the risk of early HCC recurrence after resection have been developed, extensively validated and shown to be applicable in the international setting. Such models will be valuable in guiding surveillance follow-up and in the design of post-resection adjuvant therapy trials. LAY SUMMARY: The most effective treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma is surgical removal of the tumour but there is often recurrence. In this large international study, we develop a statistical method that allows clinicians to estimate the risk of recurrence in an individual patient. This facility enhances communication with the patient about the likely success of the treatment and will help in designing clinical trials that aim to find drugs that decrease the risk of recurrence.

Systemic therapy for intermediate and advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Sorafenib and beyond.

The hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment landscape changed a decade ago, with sorafenib demonstrating survival benefit in the first-line setting and becoming the first systemic therapy to be approved for HCC. More recently, regorafenib and nivolumab have received approval in the second-line setting after sorafenib, with further positive phase 3 studies emerging in the first line (lenvatinib non-inferior to sorafenib) and second line versus placebo (cabozantinib and ramucirumab). A key recommendation in the management of patients receiving sorafenib is to promote close communication between the patient and the physician so that adverse events (AEs) are detected early and severe AEs can be prevented. Sorafenib-related AEs have been identified as clinical biomarkers for sorafenib efficacy. Healthcare professionals have become more efficient in managing AEs, identifying patients who are likely to benefit from treatment, and assessing response to treatment, resulting in a trend towards increased overall survival in the sorafenib arms of clinical studies. The rapidly changing treatment landscape due to the emergence of new treatment options (sorafenib and lenvatinib equally effective in first line; regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab showing OS benefit in second line with nivolumab approved by the FDA based on response rate) underscores the importance of re-assessing the role of the first approved systemic agent in HCC, sorafenib.

Sorafenib plus low-dose cisplatin and fluorouracil hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy versus sorafenib alone in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (SILIUS): a randomised, open label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy plus sorafenib in phase 2 trials has shown favourable tumour control and a manageable safety profile in patients with advanced, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. However, no randomised phase 3 trial has tested the combination of sorafenib with continuous arterial infusion chemotherapy. We aimed to compare continuous hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy plus sorafenib with sorafenib alone in patients with advanced, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (SILIUS) at 31 sites in Japan. Eligible patients were aged 20 years or older, with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma not suitable for resection, local ablation, or transarterial chemoembolisation; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1; Child-Pugh score 7 or lower; and adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive web response system with a computer-generated sequence to receive 400 mg sorafenib orally twice daily or 400 mg sorafenib orally twice daily plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (cisplatin 20 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and fluorouracil 330 mg/m2 continuously on days 1-5 and 8-12 of every 28-day cycle via an implanted catheter system). The primary endpoint was overall survival. The primary efficacy analysis comprised all randomised patients (the intention-to-treat population), and the safety analysis comprised all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01214343. FINDINGS: Between Nov 4, 2010, and June 10, 2014, 206 patients were randomly assigned (103 to the sorafenib group, 103 to the sorafenib plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy group). One patient in the sorafenib plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy group withdrew after randomisation. Median overall survival was similar in the sorafenib plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (n=102) and sorafenib monotherapy (n=103) groups (11·8 months [95% CI 9·1-14·5] vs 11·5 months [8·2-14·8]; hazard ratio 1·009 [95% CI 0·743-1·371]; p=0·955). Grade 3-4 adverse events that were more frequent in the sorafenib plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy group than in the sorafenib monotherapy group included anaemia (15 [17%] of 88 vs six [6%] of 102), neutropenia (15 [17%] vs one [1%]), thrombocytopenia (30 [34%] vs 12 [12%]), and anorexia (12 [14%] vs six [6%]). INTERPRETATION: Addition of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy to sorafenib did not significantly improve overall survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. FUNDING: Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.