Cost-utility analysis of selective internal radiation therapy with Y-90 resin microspheres in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Background: The study assessed the cost-utility of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with Y-90 resin microspheres versus sorafenib in UK patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma ineligible for transarterial chemoembolization. Materials & methods: A lifetime partitioned survival model was developed for patients with low tumor burden (≤25%) and good liver function (albumin-bilirubin grade 1). Efficacy, safety and quality of life data were from a European Phase III randomized controlled trial and published studies. Resource use was from registries and clinical surveys. Results: Discounted quality-adjusted life-years were 1.982 and 1.381, and discounted total costs were £29,143 and 30,927, for SIRT and sorafenib, respectively. Conclusion: SIRT has the potential to be a dominant (more efficacious/less costly) or cost-effective alternative to sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Tumor burden and liver function in HCC patient selection for selective internal radiation therapy: SARAH post-hoc study.

Aim: To determine whether a liver tumor burden ≤25% and well-preserved liver function (albumin-bilirubin grade 1) are appropriate criteria for identifying patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who may benefit from selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) using 90yttrium resin microspheres versus sorafenib. Patients & methods: Post-hoc analysis of patients in the intention-to-treat population of the SARAH trial (SIRT vs sorafenib) with ≤25% tumor burden and albumin-bilirubin grade 1. Primary end point: overall survival. Results: Median overall survival was 21.9 months (95% CI: 15.2-32.5, n = 37) with SIRT and 17.0 months (11.6-20.8, n = 48) with sorafenib (hazard ratios: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.44-1.21; p = 0.22). Conclusion: A combination of good liver function and low tumor burden may be relevant for selection of hepatocellular carcinoma patients for SIRT.

Sorafenib in combination with transarterial chemoembolisation in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (TACE 2): a randomised placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) is the standard of care for patients with intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma, while the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib improves survival in patients with advanced disease. We aimed to determine whether TACE with sorafenib improves progression-free survival versus TACE with placebo. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (TACE 2) in 20 hospitals in the UK for patients with unresectable, liver-confined hepatocellular carcinoma. Patients were eligible if they were at least aged 18 years, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, and had Child-Pugh A liver disease. Patients were randomised 1:1 by computerised minimisation algorithm to continuous oral sorafenib (400 mg twice-daily) or matching placebo combined with TACE using drug-eluting beads (DEB-TACE), which was given via the hepatic artery 2-5 weeks after randomisation and according to radiological response and patient tolerance thereafter. Patients were stratified according to randomising centre and serum α-fetoprotein concentration (<400 ng/mL and ≥400 ng/mL). Only the trial coordinator was unmasked to treatment allocation before patient progression during the study. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival defined as the interval between randomisation and progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) or death due to any cause, and was analysed by intention-to-treat. Safety was analysed by intention-to-treat. The trial has been completed and the final results are reported. The trial is registered at EudraCT, number 2008-005073-36, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN93375053. FINDINGS: Between Nov 4, 2010, and Dec 7, 2015, the trial enrolled 399 patients and was terminated after a planned interim futility analysis. 86 patients failed screening and 313 remaining patients were randomly assigned: 157 to sorafenib and 156 to placebo. The median daily dose was 660 mg (IQR 389·2-800·0) sorafenib versus 800 mg (758·2-800·0) placebo, and median duration of therapy was 120·0 days (IQR 43·0-266·0) for sorafenib versus 162·0 days (70·0-323·5) for placebo. There was no evidence of difference in progression-free survival between the sorafenib group and the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99 [95% CI 0·77-1·27], p=0·94); median progression-free survival was 238·0 days (95% CI 221·0-281·0) in the sorafenib group and 235·0 days (209·0-322·0) in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (29 [18%] of 157 patients in the sorafenib group vs 21 [13%] of 156 patients in the placebo group), abdominal pain (20 [13%] vs 12 [8%]), diarrhoea (16 [10%] vs four [3%]), gastrointestinal disorders (18 [11%] vs 12 [8%]), and hand-foot skin reaction (12 [8%] and none). At least one serious adverse event was reported in 65 (41%) of 157 patients in the sorafenib group and 50 (32%) of 156 in the placebo group, and 181 serious adverse events were reported in total, 95 (52%) in the sorafenib group and 86 (48%) in the placebo group. Three deaths occurred in each group that were attributed to DEB-TACE. Four deaths were attributed to study drug; three in the sorafenib group and one in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of sorafenib to DEB-TACE does not improve progression-free survival in European patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Alternative systemic therapies need to be assessed in combination with TACE to improve patient outcomes. FUNDING: Bayer PLC and BTG PLC.

Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: age is not a problem.

OBJECTIVE: Sorafenib is the standard of care for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but data on its use in the elderly are inconclusive. METHODS: All consecutive HCC patients who were treated in our institution with sorafenib since its licensing were included in the analysis. Patients were divided into two groups: (A) up to 75 and (B) older than 75 years old. Our endpoints were overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) because of disease progression or toxicity. Safety parameters and the prognostic effect of HCC characteristics were also investigated. RESULTS: Data from 190 patients (157 men), median age 66 (26-87) years, were studied (A=151 and B=39). No significant difference in OS and TTF was detected between the two groups [7.1 (5.5-8.7) vs. 10.4 (6.5-14.3) months, P=0.360 and 4.2 (2.3-6.2) vs. 5.6 (3.1-8.1) months, P=0.369, respectively]. Incidence of toxicities at all grades and dose reductions were comparable between groups A and B. In a multivariate setting, patients with Child-Pugh B score at baseline were associated with a higher risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio=2.17, 95% confidence interval:1.24-3.79, P=0.007) and treatment failure (adjusted hazard ratio=4.64, 95% confidence interval: 2.55-8.42, P=0.001) and had shorter OS and TTF compared with patients with a Child-Pugh A (P=0.004 and P<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Elderly patients with advanced HCC, when treated with sorafenib, have an equivalent clinical outcome with similar toxicity rates as their younger counterparts. Age alone should not be a discriminating factor for the management of advanced HCC with sorafenib.

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.

Sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Sorafenib, a small molecule multikinase inhibitor, is the standard of care in the USA and Europe for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. This article reviews its development from the basis of molecular hepatocarcinogenesis to phase III trials and discusses the future for sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Neoadjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin followed by synchronous chemoradiation and total mesorectal excision in magnetic resonance imaging-defined poor-risk rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate neoadjuvant capecitabine/oxaliplatin before chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and total mesorectal excision (TME) in newly diagnosed patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) -defined poor-risk rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MRI criteria for poor-risk rectal cancer were tumors within 1 mm of mesorectal fascia (ie, circumferential resection margin threatened), T3 tumors at or below levators, tumors extending > or = 5 mm into perirectal fat, T4 tumors, and T1-4N2 tumors. Patients received 12 weeks of neoadjuvant capecitabine/oxaliplatin followed by concomitant capecitabine and radiotherapy. TME was planned 6 weeks after CRT. Postoperatively, patients received another 12 weeks of capecitabine. RESULTS: Between November 2001 and August 2004, 77 eligible patients were recruited. After neoadjuvant capecitabine/oxaliplatin, the radiologic response rate was 88%. In addition, 86% of patients had symptomatic responses in a median of 32 days (ie, just over one cycle of capecitabine/oxaliplatin). After CRT, the tumor response rate was increased to 97%. Three patients remained inoperable. Sixty-seven patients proceeded to TME, and all but one patient had R0 resection. Pathologic complete response was observed in 16 patients (24%; 95% CI, 14% to 36%), and in an additional 32 patients (48%), only microscopic tumor foci were found on surgical specimens. Four deaths occurred during neoadjuvant capecitabine/oxaliplatin therapy as a result of pulmonary embolism, ischemic heart disease, sudden death with history of chest pain, and neutropenic colitis. CONCLUSION: Capecitabine/oxaliplatin before synchronous CRT and TME results in substantial tumor regression, rapid symptomatic response, and achievement of R0 resection.

Longitudinal quality of life and quality adjusted survival in a randomised controlled trial comparing six months of bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin vs. twelve weeks of protracted venous infusion fluorouracil as adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer.

Longitudinal quality of life (QOL) assessment is infrequently made in adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer (CRC). This analysis aims to assess QOL and quality adjusted survival (QAS) in patients receiving adjuvant 5-FU for stage II and III CRC. We performed a multicentre study in which 801 patients were randomised to 6 months of bolus 5-FU/leucovorin (LV n = 404) or 12 weeks of protracted venous infusion (PVI) 5-FU (n = 397). There were significant differences in the deterioration of QOL scores at week 2 with bolus 5-FU/LV compared to PVI 5-FU (P < 0.001), coinciding with toxicity peak during the first cycle. Following week 12, global QOL recovered to baseline when PVI 5-FU was stopped but this was delayed with bolus 5-FU/LV until completion at week 24. QOL scores significantly improved in both arms during follow-up (P < 0.001) and reached a plateau by year 1 without incremental improvement between years 2 and 5. There was a trend towards better QAS with PVI 5-FU. Twelve weeks of adjuvant PVI 5-FU was associated with significantly better QOL during treatment and faster time to recovery compared to 6 months of bolus 5-FU/LV.

The value of routine serum carcino-embryonic antigen measurement and computed tomography in the surveillance of patients after adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: This analysis aims to evaluate routine carcino-embryonic antigen (CEA) and computed tomography (CT) of thorax, abdomen, and pelvis as part of protocol-specified follow-up policy for colorectal cancer (CRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resected stage II and III CRC were randomly assigned to bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin or protracted venous infusion fluorouracil. Following completion of chemotherapy, patients were seen in clinic at regular intervals for 5 years. CEA was measured at each clinic visit, and CT of thorax, abdomen, and pelvis was performed at 12 and 24 months after commencement of chemotherapy. RESULTS: Between 1993 and 1999, 530 patients were recruited. The median follow-up was 5.6 years. Disease relapses were observed in 154 patients. Relapses were detected by symptoms (n = 65), CEA (n = 45), CT (n = 49), and others (n = 9). Fourteen patients, whose relapses were detected by CT, had a concomitant elevation of CEA and were included in both groups. The CT-detected group had a better survival compared with the symptomatic group from the time of relapse (P =.0046). Thirty-three patients (21%) proceeded to potentially curative surgery for relapse and enjoyed a better survival than those who did not (P <.00001). For patients who underwent hepatic or pulmonary metastatic resection, 13 (26.5%) were in the CT group, eight (17.8%) in the CEA group, and only two (3.1%) in the symptomatic group (CT v symptomatic, P <.001; CEA v symptomatic, P =.015). CONCLUSION: Surveillance CT and CEA are valuable components of postoperative follow-up in stage II and III colorectal cancer.