Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Chinese Consensus-Based Interdisciplinary Expert Statements.

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common type of liver cancer and causes many cancer-related deaths worldwide; in China, it is the second most prevalent cause of cancer deaths. Most patients are diagnosed clinically with advanced stage disease. Summary: For more than a decade, sorafenib, a small-molecular-weight tyrosine kinase inhibitor (SMW-TKI) was the only molecular targeted drug available with a survival benefit for the treatment of advanced HCC. With the development of novel TKIs and immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced HCC, the management of patients has been greatly improved. However, though angiogenic-based targeted therapy remains the backbone for the systemic treatment of HCC, to date, no Chinese guidelines for novel molecular targeted therapies to treat advanced HCC have been established. Our interdisciplinary panel on the treatment of advanced HCC comprising hepatologists, hepatobiliary surgeons, oncologists, radiologists, pathologists, orthopedic surgeons, traditional Chinese medicine physicians, and interventional radiologists has reviewed the literature in order to develop updated treatment regimens. Key Messages: Panel consensus statements for the appropriate use of new molecular -targeted drugs including doses, combination therapies, adverse reaction management as well as efficacy evaluation, and predictions for treatment of advanced HCC with evidence levels based on published data are presented, thereby providing an overview of molecular targeted therapies for healthcare professionals.

Donafenib Versus Sorafenib in First-Line Treatment of Unresectable or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel-Controlled Phase II-III Trial.

PURPOSE: Donafenib, a novel multikinase inhibitor and a deuterated sorafenib derivative, has shown efficacy in phase Ia and Ib hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) studies. This study compared the efficacy and safety of donafenib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy for advanced HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This open-label, randomized, parallel-controlled, multicenter phase II-III trial enrolled patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC, a Child-Pugh score ≤ 7, and no prior systemic therapy from 37 sites across China. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral donafenib (0.2 g) or sorafenib (0.4 g) twice daily until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), tested for noninferiority and superiority. Efficacy was primarily assessed in the full analysis set (FAS), and safety was assessed in all treated patients. RESULTS: Between March 21, 2016, and April 16, 2018, 668 patients (intention-to-treat) were randomly assigned to donafenib and sorafenib treatment arms; the FAS included 328 and 331 patients, respectively. Median OS was significantly longer with donafenib than sorafenib treatment (FAS; 12.1 v 10.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.831; 95% CI, 0.699 to 0.988; P = .0245); donafenib also exhibited superior OS outcomes versus sorafenib in the intention-to-treat population. The median progression-free survival was 3.7 v 3.6 months (P = .0570). The objective response rate was 4.6% v 2.7% (P = .2448), and the disease control rate was 30.8% v 28.7% (FAS; P = .5532). Drug-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in significantly fewer patients receiving donafenib than sorafenib (125 [38%] v 165 [50%]; P = .0018). CONCLUSION: Donafenib showed superiority over sorafenib in improving OS and has favorable safety and tolerability in Chinese patients with advanced HCC, showing promise as a potential first-line monotherapy for these patients.

Salvianolic acid B, a novel autophagy inducer, exerts antitumor activity as a single agent in colorectal cancer cells.

Salvianolic Acid B (Sal B), an active compound extracted from the Chinese herb Salvia miltiorrhiza, is attracting more and more attention due to its biological activities, including antioxidant, anticoagulant and antitumor effects. However, autophagy induction in cancer cells by Sal B has never been recognized. In this study, we demonstrated that Sal B induced cell death and triggered autophagy in HCT116 and HT29 cells in a dose-dependent manner. Specific inhibition of autophagy by 3-MA or shRNA targeting Atg5 rescued Sal B-induced cell death in vitro and in vivo, suggesting that Sal B-induced autophagy may play a pro-death role and contribute to the cell death of colorectal cancer cell lines. Furthermore, AKT/mTOR signaling pathway was demonstrated to be a critical mediator in regulating Sal B-induced cell death. Overexpression of AKT by the transfection with AKT plasmid or pretreatment with insulin decreased Sal B-induced autophagy and cell death. Inversely, inhibition of AKT by LY294002 treatment markedly enhanced Sal B-induced autophagy and cell death. Taken together, our results demonstrate, for the first time, that Sal B is a novel autophagy inducer and exerts its antitumor activity as a single agent in colorectal cancer cells through the suppression of AKT/mTOR pathway.

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).

Linifanib versus Sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: results of a randomized phase III trial.

PURPOSE: This open-label phase III trial evaluated efficacy and tolerability of linifanib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) without prior systemic therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to linifanib 17.5 mg once daily or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. Patients were stratified by region (Outside Asia, Japan, and rest of Asia), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score (ECOG PS; 0 or 1), vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread (yes or no), and hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection (yes or no). The primary end point of the study was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were time to progression (TTP) and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. RESULTS: We randomly assigned 1,035 patients (median age, 60 years; Asian, 66.6%; ECOG PS 0, 65.2%; HBV, 49.1%; vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread, 70.1%). Median OS was 9.1 months on the linifanib arm (95% CI, 8.1 to 10.2) and 9.8 months on the sorafenib arm (95% CI, 8.3 to 11.0; hazard ratio [HR], 1.046; 95% CI, 0.896 to 1.221). For prespecified stratification subgroups, OS HRs ranged from 0.793 to 1.119 and the 95% CI contained 1.0. Median TTP was 5.4 months on the linifanib arm (95% CI, 4.2 to 5.6) and 4.0 months on the sorafenib arm (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.2; HR, 0.759; 95% CI, 0.643 to 0.895; P = .001). Best response rate was 13.0% on the linifanib arm versus 6.9% on the sorafenib arm. Grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs); serious AEs; and AEs leading to discontinuation, dose interruption, and reduction were more frequent with linifanib (all P < .001). CONCLUSION: Linifanib and sorafenib had similar OS in advanced HCC. Predefined superiority and noninferiority OS boundaries were not met for linifanib and the study failed to meet the primary end point. TTP and ORR favored linifanib; safety results favored sorafenib.

The impact of nutritional status, nutritional risk, and nutritional treatment on clinical outcome of 2248 hospitalized cancer patients: a multi-center, prospective cohort study in Chinese teaching hospitals.

To better understand the impact of undernutrition, nutritional risk, and nutritional treatment on the clinical outcomes of hospitalized cancer patients in China, the authors conducted a multicenter, cross-sectional study with 2248 cancer patients from 20 hospitals from January to June 2010. The authors defined 19.7% and 26.8% patients as undernourished at baseline and reassessment, respectively. Patients with gastrointestinal malignancies had a higher rate of undernutrition than other patients. The nutritional risk rate was 24.6% and 40.2% at baseline and reassessment, respectively. For patients with nutritional risk, the relative risk (RR) of adverse events (AEs) significantly increased with and without nutritional treatment. In comparison with the nonnutritional treatment subgroup, patients who received enteral nutrition (EN) or total parenteral nutrition (TPN) significantly reduced the RR of AE development. The RR of AEs for EN and TPN were 0.08 (95% CI: 0.01-0.62) and 0.56 (95% CI: 0.33-0.96), respectively. Separated nutrient infusion increased the risk of AEs. The authors concluded that undernutrition and nutritional risk are general problems that impact the outcomes of hospitalized cancer patients in China. Higher NRS2002 scores are related to AE risk but not weight loss. In nutritional treatment, EN and TPN can significantly reduce the risk of AEs.

Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma according to baseline status: subset analyses of the phase III Sorafenib Asia-Pacific trial.

BACKGROUND: The phase III Sorafenib Asia-Pacific (AP) trial-conducted in China, Taiwan and South Korea - confirmed that sorafenib improves overall survival (OS) and is safe for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We performed a series of exploratory subset analyses to determine whether baseline status affected response to sorafenib. METHODS: In the Sorafenib AP trial, 226 patients with well-preserved liver function (>95% Child-Pugh A) were randomised 2:1 to sorafenib 400mg bid or matching placebo. Subanalyses were based on aetiology (hepatitis B virus present/absent); tumour burden (macroscopic vascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread present/absent); presence or absence of either lung or lymph node metastasis at baseline, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0, 1-2); serum concentrations of alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase (normal, mildly elevated, moderately elevated), alpha-fetoprotein (normal/elevated) and total bilirubin (normal/elevated); and whether or not there was a history of hepatectomy or transarterial chemoembolisation/embolisation. Subgroup assessments included OS, time to progression (TTP), disease control rate and safety. FINDINGS: Sorafenib consistently improved both median OS and median TTP, compared with placebo (range of hazard ratios (HR), 0.32-0.87 and 0.31-0.75, respectively). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were hand-foot skin reaction, diarrhoea and fatigue, the incidence of which was similar between subgroups. INTERPRETATION: The efficacy and safety profiles of sorafenib in the subpopulations described were comparable with those in the overall study population. These exploratory analyses suggest that sorafenib is effective for patients from the AP region with advanced HCC, irrespective of baseline status.

Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most cases of hepatocellular carcinoma occur in the Asia-Pacific region, where chronic hepatitis B infection is an important aetiological factor. Assessing the efficacy and safety of new therapeutic options in an Asia-Pacific population is thus important. We did a multinational phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients from the Asia-Pacific region with advanced (unresectable or metastatic) hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: Between Sept 20, 2005, and Jan 31, 2007, patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who had not received previous systemic therapy and had Child-Pugh liver function class A, were randomly assigned to receive either oral sorafenib (400 mg) or placebo twice daily in 6-week cycles, with efficacy measured at the end of each 6-week period. Eligible patients were stratified by the presence or absence of macroscopic vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread (or both), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and geographical region. Randomisation was done centrally and in a 2:1 ratio by means of an interactive voice-response system. There was no predefined primary endpoint; overall survival, time to progression (TTP), time to symptomatic progression (TTSP), disease control rate (DCR), and safety were assessed. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00492752. FINDINGS: 271 patients from 23 centres in China, South Korea, and Taiwan were enrolled in the study. Of these, 226 patients were randomly assigned to the experimental group (n=150) or to the placebo group (n=76). Median overall survival was 6.5 months (95% CI 5.56-7.56) in patients treated with sorafenib, compared with 4.2 months (3.75-5.46) in those who received placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68 [95% CI 0.50-0.93]; p=0.014). Median TTP was 2.8 months (2.63-3.58) in the sorafenib group compared with 1.4 months (1.35-1.55) in the placebo group (HR 0.57 [0.42-0.79]; p=0.0005). The most frequently reported grade 3/4 drug-related adverse events in the 149 assessable patients treated with sorafenib were hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR; 16 patients [10.7%]), diarrhoea (nine patients [6.0%]), and fatigue (five patients [3.4%]). The most common adverse events resulting in dose reductions were HFSR (17 patients [11.4%]) and diarrhoea (11 patients [7.4%]); these adverse events rarely led to discontinuation. INTERPRETATION: Sorafenib is effective for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in patients from the Asia-Pacific region, and is well tolerated. Taken together with data from the Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma Assessment Randomised Protocol (SHARP) trial, sorafenib seems to be an appropriate option for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

[Clinical study on treatment of primary liver cancer by Aidi injection combined with cool-tip radiofrequency ablation].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the therapeutic efficacy and adverse reactions of Aidi Injection (AI) combined with percutaneous cool-tip radiofrequency ablation (CRFA) in treatment of primary liver cancer and to explore its effect on immune function. METHODS: Eighty-nine patients with primary liver cancer at middle-late stage were assigned to the control group with CRFA alone and the treatment group treated with CRFA and intravenous dripping of AI 50 mL once every day for succesive 20 days. RESULTS: Compared with those before treatment, the alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and albumin (ALB) levels showed no marked change, and CD4 subgroup of T lymphocyte and CD4/CD8 ratio elevated in the treatment group (P<0.01), while the ALT level elevated (P<0.05), ALB level decreased (P < 0.01), CD4 and CD4/CD8 ratio showed no change in the control group. The relapse rate was 20.0% (3/15) in patients with tumor more than 3 cm in diameter of the treatment group, which was obvious lower than that in the control group (55.0%, 11/20, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: AI treatment could relieve the impairment of CRFA on hepatic function, improve immune function and reduce relapse rate in patients with primary liver cancer.

[Pharmacokinetic study of intraperitoneal chemotherapy with HCPT].

OBJECTIVE: To study the pharmacokinetic of 10-Hydroxycamptothecin HCPT by intraperitoneal administration. METHOD: Six dogs were given HCPT by intraperitoneal perfusion: HCPT 2 mg x kg(-1), dissolved in 300 mL NS. During the course of experiments, peritoneal fluids and blood were sampled using a standardized protocol. The concentration of HCPT in all samples was determined by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). RESULT: The area under the curve (AUC) of peritoneal fluids was significantly highly as compared to the AUC of femoral vein and portal vein (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: These experiments demonstrate that intraperitoneal chemotherapy has significant effect on the pharmacokinetics of IP route of HCPT administration. This method should be a more reasonable chemotherapy for the prevention of recurrence and liver metastasis of gastric cancer, colon cancer and ovary cancer after radical resection.