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.

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

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

Ramucirumab for Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Elevated Alpha Fetoprotein Following Non-Sorafenib Systemic Therapy: An Expansion Cohort of REACH-2.

BACKGROUND: Ramucirumab is indicated for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and α-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥400 ng/mL following sorafenib. Here, we prospectively studied ramucirumab following non-sorafenib systemic therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This open-label, non-comparative cohort of REACH-2 enrolled patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class-A liver disease, and AFP ≥400 ng/mL who had received 1-2 lines of therapy, excluding sorafenib or chemotherapy. Ramucirumab was administered 8 mg/kg intravenously Q2W. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response rate (RECIST v1.1), time to progression, pharmacokinetics, and patient-reported outcomes. Final analysis occurred after all enrolled patients completed ≥3 treatment cycles or discontinued treatment. RESULTS: Between April 27, 2018, and March 29, 2021, 47 patients were treated at 21 investigative sites in Asia, Europe, and USA. The most frequently reported grade ≥3 adverse events, regardless of causality, were hypertension (11%), proteinuria (6%), hyponatremia (6%), and AST increased (6%). Two patients died from adverse events (myocardial infarction and upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage), deemed related to treatment. Median progression-free survival, time to progression, and overall survival were 1.7 months, 2.8 months, and 8.7 months, respectively. The objective response rate was 10.6% with a median duration response of 8.3 months. Median time to deterioration in FHSI-8 total score was 4.4 months. CONCLUSION: Ramucirumab demonstrated consistent and meaningful clinical activity with no new safety signals following non-sorafenib therapies in patients with advanced HCC and AFP ≥400 ng/mL. This represents one of the first sequencing studies for patients with advanced HCC not treated with sorafenib.

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.

Polysaccharides Produced by the Mushroom Trametes robiniophila Murr Boosts the Sensitivity of Hepatoma Cells to Oxaliplatin via the miR-224-5p/ABCB1/P-gp Axis.

AIM: To investigate the mechanisms employed by PS-T (polysaccharides of Trametes, PS-T), the main active ingredient of Huaier granules, to improve the susceptibility of hepatoma cells to oxaliplatin (OXA). METHODS: Cell proliferation in response to PS-T was determined both in vitro and in vivo. The effects of PS-T on miRNAs were analyzed with the use of a microarray. MiRNAs were screened under specific conditions (P < .05, logFoldChange > ABS [1.5]) and further silenced or overexpressed by liposome transfection. Levels of ABCB1 mRNA and P-gp were detected by qRT-PCR and western blot analysis, respectively. A dual fluorescence assay was performed to determine whether miRNA directly targets ABCB1. RESULTS: PS-T enhanced the inhibitory effect of OXA in human hepatoma cells and xenografts. Among 5 up-regulated miRNAs, overexpression of only miR-224-5p inhibited the expression of ABCB1 mRNA and P-gp, while silencing of miR-224-5p had an opposite effect. Moreover, miR-224-5p can directly target the 3'-UTR of ABCB1. CONCLUSION: PS-T increases the sensitivity of human hepatoma cells to OXA via the miR-224-5p/ABCB1/P-gp axis.

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.

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.

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.

Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of primary liver cancer with integrative traditional Chinese and Western medicine.

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is an important part of the treatment of primary liver cancer (PLC) in China; however, the current instructions for the integrative use of traditional Chinese and Western medicine for PLC are mostly based on expert opinion. There is no evidence-based guideline for clinical practice in this field. Therefore, the Shanghai Association of Chinese Integrative Medicine has established a multidisciplinary working group to develop this guideline, which focuses on the most important questions about the use of TCM during PLC treatment. This guideline was developed following the methodological process recommended by the World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development. Two rounds of questionnaire survey were performed to identify clinical questions; published evidence was searched; the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to evaluate the body of evidence; and recommendations were formulated by combining the quality of evidence, patient preferences and values, and other risk factors. The guideline was written based on the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare tool. This guideline contains 10 recommendations related to 8 questions, including recommendations for early treatment by TCM after surgery, TCM combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for advanced PLC, TCM drugs for external use, and acupuncture and moxibustion therapy.

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.

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

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

SEARCH: a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of sorafenib plus erlotinib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of sorafenib plus either erlotinib or placebo in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in a multicenter, multinational, randomized, phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced HCC and underlying Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis, who were naive to systemic treatment (N = 720), were randomly assigned to sorafenib plus either erlotinib (n = 362) or placebo (n = 358). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Median OS was similar in the sorafenib plus erlotinib and sorafenib plus placebo groups (9.5 v 8.5 months, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.929; P = .408), as was median time to progression (3.2 v 4.0 months, respectively; HR, 1.135; P = .18). In the sorafenib/erlotinib arm versus the sorafenib/placebo arm, the overall response rate trended higher (6.6% v 3.9%, respectively; P = .102), whereas the disease control rate was significantly lower (43.9% v 52.5%, respectively; P = .021). The median durations of treatment with sorafenib were 86 days in the sorafenib/erlotinib arm and 123 days in the sorafenib/placebo arm. In the sorafenib/erlotinib and sorafenib/placebo arms, the rates of treatment-emergent serious AEs (58.0% v 54.6%, respectively) and drug-related serious AEs (21.0% v 22.8%, respectively) were similar. AEs matched the known safety profiles of both agents, but rates of rash/desquamation, anorexia, and diarrhea were higher in the sorafenib/erlotinib arm, whereas rates of alopecia and hand-foot skin reaction were higher in the sorafenib/placebo arm. Withdrawal rates for AEs during cycles 1 to 3 were higher in the sorafenib/erlotinib arm. CONCLUSION: Adding erlotinib to sorafenib did not improve survival in patients with advanced HCC.

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.

Elemene injection induced autophagy protects human hepatoma cancer cells from starvation and undergoing apoptosis.

Elemene, a compound found in an herb used in traditional Chinese medicine, has shown promising anticancer effects against a broad spectrum of tumors. In an in vivo experiment, we found that apatinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor that selectively inhibits VEGFR2, combined with elemene injection (Ele) for the treatment of H22 solid tumor in mice resulted in worse effectiveness than apatinib alone. Moreover, Ele could protect HepG2 cells from death induced by serum-free starvation. Further data on the mechanism study revealed that Ele induced protective autophagy and prevented human hepatoma cancer cells from undergoing apoptosis. Proapoptosis effect of Ele was enhanced when proautophagy effect was inhibited by hydroxychloroquine. Above all, Ele has the effect of protecting cancer cells from death either in apatinib induced nutrient deficient environment or in serum-free induced starvation. A combination of elemene injection with autophagy inhibitor might thus be a useful therapeutic option for hepatocellular carcinoma.

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.