Initiative on Superselective Conventional Transarterial Chemoembolization Results (INSPIRE).

Several publications show that superselective conventional TransArterial ChemoEmbolization (cTACE), meaning cTACE performed selectively with a microcatheter positioned as close as possible to the tumor, improves outcomes, maximizing the anti-tumoral effect and minimizing the collateral damages of the surrounding liver parenchyma. Recent recommendations coming from the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) highlighted that TACE must be used in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) "selectively targetable" and "accessible to supraselective catheterization." The goal of the manuscript is to better define such population and to standardize superselective cTACE (ss-cTACE) technique. An expert panel with extensive clinical-procedural experience in TACE, have come together in a virtual meeting to generate recommendations and express their consensus. Experts recommend that anytime cTACE is proposed, it should be ss-cTACE, preferably with a 1.5-2.0 Fr microcatheter. Ideally, ss-cTACE should be proposed to patients with less than five lesions and a maximum number of two segments involved, with largest tumor smaller than 5 cm. Angio Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) should be used to detect enhancing tumors, tumor feeders and guide tumor targeting. Whole tumor volume should be covered to obtain the best response. Adding peritumoral margins is encouraged but not mandatory. The treatment should involve a water-in-oil emulsion, whose quality is assessable with the "drop test." Additional particulate embolization should be systematically performed, as per definition of cTACE procedure. Non-contrast CBCT or Multi-Detector Computed Tomography (MDCT) combined with angiography has been considered the gold standard for imaging during TACE, and should be used to assess tumor coverage during the procedure. Experts convene that superselectivity decreases incidence of adverse effects and improves tolerance. Experts recommend contrast-enhanced Computed Tomography (CT) as initial imaging on first follow-up after ss-cTACE, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) if remaining tumor viability cannot be confidently assessed on CT. If no response is obtained after two ss-cTACE sessions within six months, patient must be considered unsuitable for TACE and proposed for alternative therapy. Patients are best served by multidisciplinary decision-making, and Interventional Radiologists should take an active role in patient selection, treatment allocation, and post-procedural care.

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.

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.

Does Risk-Adapted Proton Beam Therapy Have a Role as a Complementary or Alternative Therapeutic Option for Hepatocellular Carcinoma?

To evaluate the role of risk-adapted proton beam therapy (PBT) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, a total of 243 HCC patients receiving risk-adapted PBT with three dose-fractionation regimens (regimen A [n = 40], B [n = 60], and C [n = 143]) according to the proximity of their gastrointestinal organs (<1 cm, 1⁻1.9 cm, and ≥2 cm, respectively) were reviewed: The prescribed doses to planning target volume 1 (PTV1) were 50 gray equivalents (GyE) (EQD2 [equivalent dose in 2 Gy fractions], 62.5 GyE10), 60 GyE (EQD2, 80 GyE10), and 66 GyE (EQD2, 91.3 GyE10) in 10 fractions, respectively, and those of PTV2 were 30 GyE (EQD2, 32.5 GyE10) in 10 fractions. In all patients, the five-year local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 87.5% and 48.1%, respectively, with grade ≥3 toxicity of 0.4%. In regimens A, B, and C, the five-year LRFS and OS rates were 54.6%, 94.7%, and 92.4% (p < 0.001), and 16.7%, 39.2%, and 67.9% (p < 0.001), respectively. The five-year OS rates of the patients with the Modified Union for International Cancer Control (mUICC) stages I, II, III, and IVA and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stages A, B, and C were 69.2%, 65.4%, 43.8%, and 26.6% (p < 0.001), respectively, and 65.1%, 40%, and 32.2% (p < 0.001), respectively. PBT could achieve promising long-term tumor control and have a potential role as a complementary or alternative therapeutic option across all stages of HCC.

Stem Cell Markers Predict the Response to Sorafenib in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Background/Aims: Sorafenib remains the only approved molecular targeted agent for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, reliable biomarkers that predict its efficacy are still lacking. The aim of this study was to explore whether cancer stem cell (CSC) markers have a predictive role with regard to the sorafenib response in HCC patients. Methods: We enrolled 47 patients with HCC for whom tumor samples obtained before starting sorafenib treatment were available. RNA was extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples, and real-time polymerase chain reaction was used to quantify mRNA expression of the CSC genes EpCAM, CD13, CK8, CD24, CD44, CD90, CD133, SALL4, ALDH1A1, ALB, and AFP . Results: Of 47 patients, 14.9% and 74.5% had vascular invasion and extrahepatic spread, respectively. Patients with low CD133 expression tended to have longer progression-free survival (PFS) than those with high CD133 expression (5.5 months vs 4.0 months), although without statistical significance. The expression levels of other markers were not associated with PFS. When examining markers in combination, patients with high CD133 and CD90 expression had shorter PFS rates than those with low expression (2.7 months vs 5.5 months; p=0.04). Patients with low CD133 and EpCAM expression demonstrated better PFS than those with high expression (7.0 months vs 4.2 months; p=0.04). Multivariable analysis indicated that an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 1 and high CD133/CD90 expression were significantly associated with shorter PFS. Conclusions: Overexpression of the CSC markers CD133 and CD90 in HCC was associated with poorer response to sorafenib. These two genes may serve as predictive biomarkers for sorafenib therapy.

Sorafenib with or without concurrent transarterial chemoembolization in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: The phase III STAH trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Sorafenib is first-line standard of care for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), yet it confers limited survival benefit. Therefore, we aimed to compare clinical outcomes of sorafenib combined with concurrent conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) vs. sorafenib alone in patients with advanced HCC. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, multicenter, phase III trial, patients were randomized to receive sorafenib alone (Arm S, n = 169) or in combination with cTACE on demand (Arm C, n = 170). Sorafenib was started within 3 days and cTACE within 7-21 days of randomization. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: For Arms C and S, the median OS was 12.8 vs. 10.8 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.91; 90% CI 0.69-1.21; p = 0.290); median time to progression, 5.3 vs. 3.5 months (HR 0.67; 90% CI 0.53-0.85; p = 0.003); median progression-free survival, 5.2 vs. 3.6 months (HR 0.73; 90% CI 0.59-0.91; p = 0.01); and tumor response rate, 60.6% vs. 47.3% (p = 0.005). For Arms C and S, serious (grade ≥3) adverse events occurred in 33.3% vs. 19.8% (p = 0.006) of patients and included increased alanine aminotransferase levels (20.3% vs. 3.6%), hyperbilirubinemia (11.8% vs. 3.0%), ascites (11.8% vs. 4.2%), thrombocytopenia (7.2% vs. 1.2%), anorexia (7.2% vs. 1.2%), and hand-foot skin reaction (10.5% vs. 11.4%). A post hoc subgroup analysis compared OS in Arm C patients (46.4%) receiving ≥2 cTACE sessions to Arm S patients (18.6 vs. 10.8 months; HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.40-0.82; p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Compared with sorafenib alone, sorafenib combined with cTACE did not improve OS in patients with advanced HCC. However, sorafenib combined with cTACE significantly improved time to progression, progression-free survival, and tumor response rate. Sorafenib alone remains the first-line standard of care for patients with advanced HCC. LAY SUMMARY: For patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma requiring sorafenib therapy, co-administration with conventional transarterial chemoembolization did not improve overall survival compared to sorafenib alone. Therefore, sorafenib alone remains the first-line standard of care for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Clinical Trial Number: NCT01829035.

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

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

Molecular predictors of prevention of recurrence in HCC with sorafenib as adjuvant treatment and prognostic factors in the phase 3 STORM trial.

OBJECTIVE: Sorafenib is the standard systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Survival benefits of resection/local ablation for early HCC are compromised by 70% 5-year recurrence rates. The phase 3 STORM trial comparing sorafenib with placebo as adjuvant treatment did not achieve its primary endpoint of improving recurrence-free survival (RFS). The biomarker companion study BIOSTORM aims to define (A) predictors of recurrence prevention with sorafenib and (B) prognostic factors with B level of evidence. DESIGN: Tumour tissue from 188 patients randomised to receive sorafenib (83) or placebo (105) in the STORM trial was collected. Analyses included gene expression profiling, targeted exome sequencing (19 known oncodrivers), immunohistochemistry (pERK, pVEGFR2, Ki67), fluorescence in situ hybridisation (VEGFA) and immunome. A gene signature capturing improved RFS in sorafenib-treated patients was generated. All 70 RFS events were recurrences, thus time to recurrence equalled RFS. Predictive and prognostic value was assessed using Cox regression models and interaction test. RESULTS: BIOSTORM recapitulates clinicopathological characteristics of STORM. None of the biomarkers tested (related to angiogenesis and proliferation) or previously proposed gene signatures, or mutations predicted sorafenib benefit or recurrence. A newly generated 146-gene signature identifying 30% of patients captured benefit to sorafenib in terms of RFS (p of interaction=0.04). These sorafenib RFS responders were significantly enriched in CD4+ T, B and cytolytic natural killer cells, and lacked activated adaptive immune components. Hepatocytic pERK (HR=2.41; p=0.012) and microvascular invasion (HR=2.09; p=0.017) were independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: In BIOSTORM, only hepatocytic pERK and microvascular invasion predicted poor RFS. No mutation, gene amplification or previously proposed gene signatures predicted sorafenib benefit. A newly generated multigene signature associated with improved RFS on sorafenib warrants further validation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00692770.

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.

SLC15A2 genomic variation is associated with the extraordinary response of sorafenib treatment: whole-genome analysis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Reliable biomarkers are required to predict the response to sorafenib. We investigated genomic variations associated with responsiveness to sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Blood samples from 2 extreme, 2 strong and 3 poor responders to sorafenib were subjected to whole-genome analysis. Then, we validated candidate genomic variations with another 174 HCC patients, and performed in vitro functional analysis and in silico analyses. Genomic data of >96 gigabases/sample was generated at average of ~34X sequencing depth. In total, 1813 genomic variations were matched to sorafenib responses in clinical data; 708 were located within regions for sorafenib-target genes or drug absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME)-related genes. From them, 36 variants were within the coding regions and 6 identified as non-synonymous single-nucleotide variants from 4 ADME-related genes (ABCB1, FMO3, MUSK, and SLC15A2). Validation genotyping confirmed sequencing results and revealed patients genotype for rs2257212 in SLC15A2 showed longer progression-free survival (HR = 2.18). In vitro study displayed different response to sorafenib depending on the genotype of SLC15A2. Structural prediction analysis revealed changes of the phosphorylation levels in protein, potentially affecting sorafenib-associated enzymatic activity. Our finding using extreme responder seems to generate robust biomarker to predict the response of sorafenib treatment for HCC.

A phase II study of the efficacy and safety of the combination therapy of the MEK inhibitor refametinib (BAY 86-9766) plus sorafenib for Asian patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

PURPOSE: There is an unmet need for treatment options in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Sorafenib is currently the only approved systemic treatment for HCC. Refametinib, an oral, allosteric MEK inhibitor, has demonstrated antitumor activity in combination with sorafenib in vitro and in vivo. A phase II study evaluated efficacy and safety of refametinib plus sorafenib in Asian patients with HCC (NCT01204177). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Eligible patients received twice-daily refametinib 50 mg plus twice-daily sorafenib 200 mg (morning)/400 mg (evening), with dose escalation to sorafenib 400 mg twice daily from cycle 2 if no grade ≥ 2 hand-foot skin reaction, fatigue, or gastrointestinal toxicity occurred. Primary efficacy endpoint: disease control rate. Secondary endpoints: time to progression, overall survival, pharmacokinetic assessment, biomarker analysis, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: Of 95 enrolled patients, 70 received study treatment. Most patients had liver cirrhosis (82.9%) and hepatitis B viral infection (75.7%). Disease control rate was 44.8% (primary efficacy analysis; n = 58). Median time to progression was 122 days, median overall survival was 290 days (n = 70). Best clinical responders had RAS mutations; majority of poor responders had wild-type RAS. Most frequent drug-related adverse events were diarrhea, rash, aspartate aminotransferase elevation, vomiting, and nausea. Dose modifications due to adverse events were necessary in almost all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Refametinib plus sorafenib showed antitumor activity in patients with HCC and was tolerated at reduced doses by most patients. Frequent dose modifications due to grade 3 adverse events may have contributed to limited treatment effect. Patients with RAS mutations appear to benefit from refametinib/sorafenib combination.

Sunitinib versus sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular cancer: results of a randomized phase III trial.

PURPOSE: Open-label, phase III trial evaluating whether sunitinib was superior or equivalent to sorafenib in hepatocellular cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were stratified and randomly assigned to receive sunitinib 37.5 mg once per day or sorafenib 400 mg twice per day. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Early trial termination occurred for futility and safety reasons. A total of 1,074 patients were randomly assigned to the study (sunitinib arm, n = 530; sorafenib arm, n = 544). For sunitinib and sorafenib, respectively, median OS was 7.9 versus 10.2 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; one-sided P = .9990; two-sided P = .0014); median progression-free survival (PFS; 3.6 v 3.0 months; HR, 1.13; one-sided P = .8785; two-sided P = .2286) and time to progression (TTP; 4.1 v 3.8 months; HR, 1.13; one-sided P = .8312; two-sided P = .3082) were comparable. Median OS was similar among Asian (7.7 v 8.8 months; HR, 1.21; one-sided P = .9829) and hepatitis B-infected patients (7.6 v 8.0 months; HR, 1.10; one-sided P = .8286), but was shorter with sunitinib in hepatitis C-infected patients (9.2 v 17.6 months; HR, 1.52; one-sided P = .9835). Sunitinib was associated with more frequent and severe adverse events (AEs) than sorafenib. Common grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (29.7%) and neutropenia (25.7%) for sunitinib; hand-foot syndrome (21.2%) for sorafenib. Discontinuations owing to AEs were similar (sunitinib, 13.3%; sorafenib, 12.7%). CONCLUSION: OS with sunitinib was not superior or equivalent but was significantly inferior to sorafenib. OS was comparable in Asian and hepatitis B-infected patients. OS was superior in hepatitis C-infected patients who received sorafenib. Sunitinib-treated patients reported more frequent and severe toxicity.

Brivanib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: results from the randomized phase III BRISK-FL study.

PURPOSE: Brivanib is a dual inhibitor of vascular-endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor receptors that are implicated in the pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Our multinational, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial compared brivanib with sorafenib as first-line treatment for HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Advanced HCC patients who had no prior systemic therapy were randomly assigned (ratio, 1:1) to receive sorafenib 400 mg twice daily orally (n = 578) or brivanib 800 mg once daily orally (n = 577). Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) based on modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST), and safety. RESULTS: The primary end point of OS noninferiority for brivanib versus sorafenib in the per-protocol population (n = 1,150) was not met (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95.8% CI, 0.93 to 1.22), based on the prespecified margin (upper CI limit for HR ≤ 1.08). Median OS was 9.9 months for sorafenib and 9.5 months for brivanib. TTP, ORR, and DCR were similar between the study arms. Most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events for sorafenib and brivanib were hyponatremia (9% and 23%, respectively), AST elevation (17% and 14%), fatigue (7% and 15%), hand-foot-skin reaction (15% and 2%), and hypertension (5% and 13%). Discontinuation as a result of adverse events was 33% for sorafenib and 43% for brivanib; rates for dose reduction were 50% and 49%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study did not meet its primary end point of OS noninferiority for brivanib versus sorafenib. However, both agents had similar antitumor activity, based on secondary efficacy end points. Brivanib had an acceptable safety profile, but was less well-tolerated than sorafenib.

Brivanib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who were intolerant to sorafenib or for whom sorafenib failed: results from the randomized phase III BRISK-PS study.

PURPOSE: Brivanib is a selective dual inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor receptors implicated in tumorigenesis and angiogenesis in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). An unmet medical need persists for patients with HCC whose tumors do not respond to sorafenib or who cannot tolerate it. This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial assessed brivanib in patients with HCC who had been treated with sorafenib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 395 patients with advanced HCC who progressed on/after or were intolerant to sorafenib were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive brivanib 800 mg orally once per day plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate based on modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) and safety. RESULTS: Median OS was 9.4 months for brivanib and 8.2 months for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95.8% CI, 0.69 to 1.15; P = .3307). Adjusting treatment effect for baseline prognostic factors yielded an OS HR of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.04; P = .1044). Exploratory analyses showed a median time to progression of 4.2 months for brivanib and 2.7 months for placebo (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.76; P < .001), and an mRECIST ORR of 10% for brivanib and 2% for placebo (odds ratio, 5.72). Study discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 61 brivanib patients (23%) and nine placebo patients (7%). The most frequent treatment-related grade 3 to 4 AEs for brivanib included hypertension (17%), fatigue (13%), hyponatremia (11%), and decreased appetite (10%). CONCLUSION: In patients with HCC who had been treated with sorafenib, brivanib did not significantly improve OS. The observed benefit in the secondary outcomes of TTP and ORR warrants further investigation.

Worse outcome of sorafenib therapy associated with ascites and Child-Pugh score in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The outcomes of sorafenib therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and impaired liver function remain unresolved. Although Child-Pugh (CP) classification is widely used for patient categorization, heterogeneity within a given CP class makes outcomes less predictable. The aim was to investigate the prognostic significance of CP score elements on the outcome of sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC and impaired liver function. METHODS: Of 1385 consecutive patients with advanced HCC in our center between January 2007 and December 2010, we reviewed the medical records of 325 patients who received sorafenib monotherapy. RESULTS: Median duration of sorafenib was 2.0 months (range 0.4-24.2) and median follow-up was 4.9 months (range 0.5-43.4). Disease control rates were significantly higher in CP class A (CPA) than in CP class B (CPB) patients. Median overall survival (OS) was 5.8 months. Subgroups with different CP scores showed significantly different OS (months): CPA5, 8.4; CPA6, 5.1; CPB7, 3.5; CPB8-9, 2.6 (P < 0.001). The presence of ascites was a significant prognostic factor in CPB7 patients (hazard ratio 2.262; P = 0.016). OS of CPB7 patients without ascites was similar to that of CPA6 patients (4.6 months) and was significantly longer than that of CPB7 patients with ascites (2.5 months; P = 0.027). OS of CPB7 patients with ascites was similar to that of CPB8-9 patients. CONCLUSIONS: CP score was more important than CP class in predicting the outcome of sorafenib therapy in patients with advanced HCC. Among the CP score components, presence of ascites was a significant prognostic factor, especially in CPB7 patients.

Consensus recommendations and review by an International Expert Panel on Interventions in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (EPOIHCC).

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) presents with a high burden of disease in East Asian countries. Intermediate-stage HCC as defined by the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system poses a clinical challenge as it includes a heterogeneous population of patients that can vary widely in terms of tumour burden, liver function and disease aetiology. Intermediate HCC patients often have unsatisfactory clinical outcomes with repeated transarterial chemoembolization (TACE, due to non-response of the target tumour or the development of further metastasis indicating progressive disease. In September 2011, an Expert Panel Opinion on Interventions in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (EPOIHCC) was convened in HK in an attempt to provide a consensus on the practice of TACE. To that end, current clinical practice throughout Asia was reviewed in detail including safety and efficacy data on TACE alone as well as in combination with targeted systemic therapies. This review summarises the evidence discussed at the meeting and provides expert recommendation regarding the available therapeutic options for unresectable intermediate stage HCC. A key consensus of the Expert Panel was that in order to improve patient outcomes and long-term survival, the possibility of using TACE in combination with targeted agents given systemically should be explored. While the currently available clinical data is promising, the expected completion of several pivotal phase II and III RCTs will provide further evidence in support of the rationale for combination therapy regimens.

Phase II study of concurrent transarterial chemoembolization and sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is an important palliative treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but TACE-induced ischemic injury can upregulate angiogenic factors and is associated with poor prognosis. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of concurrent conventional TACE and sorafenib in patients with unresectable HCC. METHODS: The primary objectives of this prospective, single-arm, phase II study were to evaluate safety and time to progression (TTP). Sorafenib was given 3 days after TACE and was administered for up to 24 weeks. Repeated TACE was performed on demand. Tumor response was assessed every 8 weeks. RESULTS: Fifty patients were treated and followed from July 2009 to May 2011. All patients were in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B (82%) or C (18%). The median time of follow-up was 14.9 months and a median of 1 TACE session was given (range, 1-4). The median dose intensity of sorafenib was 68.7% (range, 37.3-100) of 800 mg daily. The most common reasons for dose reduction were hand-foot syndrome and thrombocytopenia. Thirty patients completed the study and 17 patients discontinued sorafenib due to disease progression. The overall median TTP was 7.1 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.8-7.5 months): 7.3 months in BCLC stage B; 5.0 months in BCLC stage C. The 6-month progression-free survival rate was 52% (95% CI, 37.3-66.1). CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent treatment of unresectable HCC with conventional TACE and sorafenib demonstrates a manageable safety profile and a possibility of promising efficacy.

Molecularly targeted therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma: sorafenib as a stepping stone.

Since sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor targeting angiogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), demonstrated survival benefits in recent clinical trials, it has changed the treatment paradigm and become the standard first-line treatment for patients with advanced HCC. However, disease stabilization with sorafenib lasts a few months, possibly due to the development of resistance, and thus the survival advantage was modest, even in patients with preserved liver function. Furthermore, there is currently no biomarker for monitoring the response or resistance to sorafenib. Currently, various kinds of molecularly targeted agents have been developed and are being evaluated in clinical trials. There are several steps required to improve the outcome from sorafenib therapy. First, a reliable predictive and prognostic biomarker is urgently needed. Second, a compelling indication of sorafenib treatment for HCC needs more clinical studies and consensus. Third, the actual benefits of sorafenib to patients with advanced liver dysfunction should be clarified and a more effective strategy for targeted therapy needs to be developed, for example, using a combination of targeted agents acting on different pathways or different levels of a key pathway. Finally, sorafenib could be used with other treatment modalities, such as local ablation or transarterial chemoembolization, to synergize efficacy. Based on the successful introduction of sorafenib, future studies should focus on plans to further improve the outcome of HCC patients by overcoming resistance and maximizing the efficacy of molecularly targeted therapy.

Noncontrast chest computed tomography immediately after transarterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: clinical benefits and effect of radiation reduction on image quality in low-dose scanning.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical benefits of noncontrast chest computed tomography (CT) immediately after transarterial chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and to assess the effect of radiation reduction on image quality in low-dose scanning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From June to October 2010, we performed standard-dose, noncontrast chest CTs immediately after transarterial chemoembolization in 160 patients and low-dose CTs in 88 patients. We reviewed the entire noncontrast chest CTs and follow-up CTs to reveal the clinical benefits of CT evaluation immediately after transarterial chemoembolization. Using two independent readers, we also retrospectively evaluated the radiation dose and image quality in terms of the image noise, contrast between the liver parenchyma and iodized oil and diagnostic acceptability for the evaluation of treatment response after transarterial chemoembolization. RESULTS: In 5.2% of the patients, additional treatment was performed immediately after the interpretation of the noncontrast chest CT, and additional pulmonary lesions were found in 8.5% of the patients. The measured mean dose-length product for the low-dose scanning was 18.4% of that of the standard-dose scanning. The image noise was significantly higher with the low-dose scanning (p<0.001). However, all of the low-dose CT scans were diagnostically acceptable, and the mean scores for the subjective assessments of the contrast and diagnostic acceptability showed no significant differences for either reader. CONCLUSION: A noncontrast chest CT immediately after transarterial chemoembolization has some clinical benefits for immediate decision making and detecting pulmonary lesions. Low-dose, noncontrast chest CTs immediately after transarterial chemoembolization consistently provide diagnostically acceptable images and information on treatment response in patients who have undergone transarterial chemoembolization.