Understanding Sorafenib-Induced Cardiovascular Toxicity: Mechanisms and Treatment Implications.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been recognized as crucial agents for treating various tumors, and one of their key targets is the intracellular site of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR). While TKIs have demonstrated their effectiveness in solid tumor patients and increased life expectancy, they can also lead to adverse cardiovascular effects including hypertension, thromboembolism, cardiac ischemia, and left ventricular dysfunction. Among the TKIs, sorafenib was the first approved agent and it exerts anti-tumor effects on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) by inhibiting angiogenesis and tumor cell proliferation through targeting VEGFR and RAF. Unfortunately, the adverse cardiovascular effects caused by sorafenib not only affect solid tumor patients but also limit its application in curing other diseases. This review explores the mechanisms underlying sorafenib-induced cardiovascular adverse effects, including endothelial dysfunction, mitochondrial dysfunction, endoplasmic reticulum stress, dysregulated autophagy, and ferroptosis. It also discusses potential treatment strategies, such as antioxidants and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, and highlights the association between sorafenib-induced hypertension and treatment efficacy in cancer patients. Furthermore, emerging research suggests a link between sorafenib-induced glycolysis, drug resistance, and cardiovascular toxicity, necessitating further investigation. Overall, understanding these mechanisms is crucial for optimizing sorafenib therapy and minimizing cardiovascular risks in cancer patients.

Electrolyte disorders induced by six multikinase inhibitors therapy for renal cell carcinoma: a large-scale pharmacovigilance analysis.

To provide evidence for optimization of multi-kinase inhibitors (MKIs) use in the clinic, we use the public database to describe and evaluate electrolyte disorders (EDs) related to various MKIs treated for renal cell carcinoma. We analyzed spontaneous reports submitted to the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Events Reporting System (FAERS) in an observational and retrospective manner. Selecting electrolyte disorders' adverse events to multikinase inhibitors (axitinib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, pazopanib, sunitinib, and sorafenib). We used Reporting Odds Ratio (ROR), Proportional Reporting Ratio (PRR), Bayesian Confidence Propagation Neural Network (BCPNN), and multi-item gamma Poisson shrinker (MGPS) algorithms to analyze suspected adverse reactions of electrolyte disorders induced by MKIs (which were treated for renal cell carcinoma) between January 2004 and December 2022. As of December 2022, 2772 MKIs (which were treated for renal cell carcinoma) ICSRs were related to electrolyte disorders AEs. In general, there were more AEs cases in males, except lenvatinib and 71.8% of the cases were submitted from North America. ICSRs in this study, the age group most frequently affected by electrolyte disorders AEs was individuals aged 45-64 years for axitinib, cabozantinib, pazopanib, and sunitinib, whereas electrolyte disorders AEs were more common in older patients (65-74 years) for sorafenib and lenvatinib. For all EDs documented in ICSRs (excluding missing data), the most common adverse outcome was hospitalization(1429/2674, 53.4%), and the most serious outcome was death/life-threat(281/2674, 10.5%). The prevalence of mortality was highest for sunitinib-related EDs (145/616, 23.5%), excluding missing data (n = 68), followed by cabozantinib-related EDs (20/237, 8.4%), excluding missing data (n = 1). The distribution of time-to-onset of Each drug-related ICSRs was not all the same, and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.001). With the criteria of ROR, the six MKIs were all significantly associated with electrolyte disorders AEs, the strongest association was the association between cabozantinib and hypermagnesaemia. MKIs have been reported to have significant electrolyte disorders AEs. Patients and physicians need to recognize and monitor these potentially fatal adverse events.

The long-term efficacy and safety of apatinib are inferior to sorafenib in the first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Apatinib, a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor independently developed by China, has been widely used in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in recent years. For more than a decade, sorafenib has been the classic first-line treatment option for patients with advanced HCC. However, the results of clinical studies comparing the efficacy and safety of these 2 drugs are still controversial. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of apatinib versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for advanced HCC. METHODS: Up to August 14, 2023, the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang were searched, and clinical studies of experimental group (apatinib or apatinib plus transarterial chemoembolization [TACE]) versus control group (sorafenib or sorafenib plus TACE) in the first-line treatment of advanced HCC were included. Two researchers evaluated the quality of the included studies and extracted the data. Revman 5.4 software was used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies involving 1150 patients were included. Five studies are apatinib alone versus sorafenib alone, and the other 7 studies are apatinib plus TACE versus sorafenib plus TACE. The results of the meta-analysis showed that compared with sorafenib alone, apatinib could improve (OR = 3.06, 95%CI: 1.76-5.31), had no advantage in improving DCR (OR = 1.52, 95%CI: 0.86-2.68) and prolonging PFS (HR = 1.35, 95%CI: 0.94-1.96), and was significantly worse in prolonging OS (HR = 1.43, 95%CI: 1.08-1.88). Similarly, apatinib plus TACE was inferior to sorafenib plus TACE in prolonging OS (HR = 1.15, 95%CI: 1.03-1.28), although it improved ORR (OR = 1.49, 95%CI: 1.03-2.16). In terms of adverse drug events, the overall incidence of adverse events, and the incidence of drug reduction and discontinuation in the experimental group were significantly higher than those in the control group (P < .05). The incidence of hypertension, proteinuria, and oral mucositis in the experimental group was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < .05). CONCLUSION: In the setting of first-line treatment of advanced HCC, apatinib has improved short-term efficacy (ORR) compared with sorafenib, but the safety and long-term efficacy of apatinib are inferior to sorafenib.

Sorafenib plus triplet therapy with venetoclax, azacitidine and homoharringtonine for refractory/relapsed acute myeloid leukemia with FLT3-ITD: A multicenter phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (R/R AML) and FLT3-internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD) respond infrequently to salvage chemotherapy. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of sorafenib plus triplet therapy with venetoclax, azacitidine, and homoharringtonine (VAH) as a salvage therapy in this population. METHODS: This multicenter, single-arm, phase 2 study was conducted at 12 hospitals across China. Eligible patients had R/R AML with FLT3-ITD (aged 18-65 years) who were treated with VAH. The primary endpoint was composite complete remission (CRc) after two cycles. Secondary outcomes included the overall response rate (ORR), safety, and survival. RESULTS: Between July 9, 2020, and March 19, 2022, 58 patients were assessed for eligibility, 51 of whom were enrolled. The median patient age was 47 years (interquartile range [IQR] 31-57). CRc was 76.5% with ORR of 82.4%. At a median follow-up of 17.7 months (IQR, 8.7-24.7), the median duration of CRc was not reached (NR), overall survival was 18.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.8-NR) and event-free survival was 11.4 months (95% CI, 5.6-NR). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurring in ≥10% of patients included neutropenia in 47 (92.2%), thrombocytopenia in 41 (80.4%), anemia in 35 (68.6%), febrile neutropenia in 29 (56.9%), pneumonia in 13 (25.5%), and sepsis in 6 (11.8%) patients. Treatment-related death occurred in two (3.9%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: The sorafenib plus VAH regimen was well tolerated and highly active against R/R AML with FLT3-ITD. This regimen may be a suitable therapeutic option for this population, but larger population trials are needed to be explored. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Registry: NCT04424147.

Efficacy and safety comparison between Lenvatinib and Sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world study.

OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Lenvatinib compared with Sorafenib for treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients under real-world setting. METHODS: We retrieved relevant literature through the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from 1 January 2000 to 25 June 2022. The differences in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) as well as treatment adverse related events were evaluated between HCC patients treated with Lenvatinib and Sorafenib using fixed or random-effects models. The MINORS evaluation questionnaire was used to assess the quality of the included literature. RESULTS: This meta-analysis included a total of 9 single-arm studies and 6 comparative studies. In the meta-analysis, Lenvatinib showed significantly longer median OS than Sorafenib ( P  < 0.01, MD = 1.20, 95% CI [0.92-1.48]), as well as median PFS ( P  < 0.01, OR = 2.68, 95% CI [1.59-3.76]), and higher ORR( P  < 0.01, OR = 5.36, 95% CI [3.42-8.40]), DCR( P  < 0.01, OR = 2.17, 95% CI [1.64-2.86]). The occurrence of Hypertension was higher in Lenvatinib than in Sorafenib treatment ( P  < 0.01, MD = 5.27, 95% CI [2.38-11.66]), and there was no significant difference in Hand-foot syndrome between Lenvatinib and Sorafenib. CONCLUSION: We found that treatment with Lenvatinib in HCC patients resulted in better OS, PFS, and higher ORR and DCR compared to Sorafenib. However, safety data indicated that Lenvatinib did not exhibit a significant advantage.

Real-world evidence of sorafenib for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: A single-center study.

Context: Hepatocellular carcinoma is the third leading cause of cancer death. Currently, sorafenib is the treatment of choice in advanced hepatocarcinoma. Aims: Assessing the effectiveness and toxicity of sorafenib in real-word clinical practice in patients with hepatocarcinoma. Settings and Design: Single-centered observational retrospective study. Methods and Material: We included patients with hepatocarcinoma who began treatment with sorafenib between 2008 and 2018. We evaluated overall survival, time to progression, and response using RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) criteria. Toxicity was assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5. 2020. Statistical Analysis Used: Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test were used to determine the survival time and estimate factors associated with these events. Data were analyzed with SPSS 19.0 software. Results: We included 36 patients (88.9% male) with an average age of 64 ± 3.4 years. The tumor stage was advanced (C) in 21 patients (61.8%). We obtained a median overall survival of 8.5 months (IQR 3.14-18.9) and a time to progression of 4.5 months (IQR 2.4-8.8). The main degree of response was progression in 19 patients (36.1%), followed by stable disease in 13 (52.8%). The most commonly reported adverse reactions were: constitutional (83.3%), gastrointestinal (55%) and dermatological symptoms (50.0%). The development of grades 3 or 4 toxicity was not associated with increased overall survival (P = 0.719). Conclusions: The findings of the survival analysis obtained in real practice are similar to those obtained in pivotal clinical trials. Adverse reactions were different from those expected.

Efficacy and safety analysis of TACE + Donafenib + Toripalimab versus TACE + Sorafenib in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of TACE combined with Donafenib and Toripalimab versus TACE combined with Sorafenib in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), aiming to guide personalized treatment strategies for HCC and improve patient prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 169 patients with unresectable advanced-stage HCC who underwent treatment at the Interventional Department of Wuhan Union Hospital from January 2020 to December 2022. Based on the patients' treatment strategies, they were divided into two groups: TACE + Donafenib + Toripalimab group (N = 81) and TACE + Sorafenib group (N = 88). The primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) of the two groups' tumors. The secondary endpoint was the occurrence of treatment-related adverse events in the two groups of patients. RESULTS: The TACE + Donafenib + Toripalimab group showed higher ORR and DCR compared to the TACE + Sorafenib group (66.7% vs. 38.6%, 82.6% vs. 68.2%, P < 0.05). The TACE + Donafenib + Toripalimab group also demonstrated longer median progression-free survival (mPFS) (10.9 months vs. 7.0 months, P < 0.001) and median overall survival (mOS) (19.6 months vs. 10.9 months, P < 0.001) compared to the TACE + Sorafenib group. When comparing the two groups, the TACE + Sorafenib group had a higher incidence of grade 3-4 hypertension (14.8% vs. 4.9%, P = 0.041), higher incidence of diarrhea (all grades) (18.2% vs. 7.4%, P = 0.042), and higher incidence of hand-foot syndrome (all grades) (26.1% vs. 12.3%, P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: TACE combined with Donafenib and Toripalimab demonstrates superior efficacy and safety in treating unresectable HCC patients. This combination therapy may serve as a feasible option to improve the prognosis of unresectable HCC patients.

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.

Treatment-related adverse events of first-line immunotherapy versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite all the improvements achieved over the last decade, the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has been associated to a wide range of adverse drug events, which are frequently markedly different from those observed with cytotoxic chemotherapy and targeted therapies, such as sorafenib. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis with the aim to compare grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), grade 5 TRAEs, serious TRAEs, and TRAEs leading to discontinuation in ICIs versus sorafenib across phase III clinical trials of first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). RESULTS: Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Patients treated with ICIs showed higher risk of serious TRAEs (OR 1.48, 95% CI = 1.16-1.9) while sorafenib treatment was associated with higher risk of TRAEs leading to discontinuation (OR 0.65, 95% CI = 0.48-0.89). No differences in grade 3/4 TRAEs and grade 5 TRAEs. CONCLUSIONS: Beyond activity and efficacy, careful consideration should be given to toxicity while choosing the appropriate first-line treatment in HCC.

Sorafenib versus nivolumab after lenvatinib treatment failure in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: An optimal sequential anti-hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) agent that can be used after failed lenvatinib treatment has not been established. Here, we compared the outcomes of sorafenib and nivolumab as second-line agents after failed lenvatinib treatment in patients with advanced HCC. METHODS: Patients with advanced HCC who had received sorafenib or nivolumab as second-line agents after failed lenvatinib treatment were recruited from two Korean tertiary institutions between November 2018 and June 2020. RESULTS: The median age of the 60 participants (52 treated with sorafenib and eight treated with nivolumab) at baseline was 56.8 years. The demographic, laboratory and tumor variables, as well as lenvatinib treatment duration, were similar between the two groups. The median durations of sorafenib and nivolumab treatment were 1.2 and 2.6 months, respectively ( P = 0.164). Twenty-four (40.0%) patients died during the follow-up period (median, 15.8 months). The median overall survival (OS) of the study population was 5.8 months. The median OS of patients treated with sorafenib was significantly longer than the median OS of patients treated with nivolumab (8.7 vs. 3.0 months; P = 0.046). Sorafenib treatment (vs. nivolumab) was independently associated with a lower risk of mortality (hazard ratio = 0.194; 95% confidence interval, 0.053-0.708; P = 0.013). Worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, larger maximal tumor size, lymph node metastases and higher total bilirubin levels were independently associated with increased mortality risk (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib-sorafenib sequential treatment resulted in significantly better survival did than lenvatinib-nivolumab sequential treatment in patients with advanced HCC. Larger studies are needed to validate our results.

Cardiovascular toxicities with pediatric tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy: An analysis of adverse events reported to the Food and Drug Administration.

We sought to examine cardiovascular toxicities associated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in pediatrics. We examined 1624 pediatric adverse events with imatinib, dasatinib, sorafenib, pazopanib, crizotinib, and ruxolitinib reported to the Food and Drug Administration between January 1, 2015, and August 14, 2020. There were 102 cardiovascular event reports. Hypertension was the most commonly reported cardiovascular event and was most frequently associated with sorafenib and pazopanib. The presence of infection increased the reporting odds of cardiovascular events overall and specifically cardiac arrest, heart failure, and hypertension. These data provide early insight into cardiovascular toxicities with tyrosine kinase inhibitor use in pediatrics.

Treatment and Implications of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Inhibitor-Induced Blood Pressure Rise: A Clinical Cohort Study.

Background Anti-cancer vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFI) frequently induce a rise in blood pressure (BP). The most effective treatment of this BP rise is currently unknown, and risk factors and its association with survival remain inconclusive. Methods and Results Baseline characteristics and BP readings were retrospectively collected from oncology patients who received oral VEGFI treatment (sorafenib, sunitinib, pazopanib, regorafenib, lenvatinib, or cabozantinib). Risk factors for a clinically relevant BP rise (increase of ≥20 mm Hg in systolic BP or ≥10 mm Hg in diastolic BP) were investigated via logistic regression (relative), efficacy of antihypertensives via unpaired t-tests, and association of BP rise with survival via Cox regression analysis. In total, 162 (47%) of 343 included patients developed a clinically relevant BP rise ≥7 days after VEGFI treatment initiation. Both calcium channel blockers and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors effectively reduced systolic BP (-24.1 and -18.2 mm Hg, respectively) and diastolic BP (-12.0 and -11.0 mm Hg, respectively). Pazopanib therapy (odds ratio, 2.71 [95% CI, 1.35-5.42; P=0.005], compared with sorafenib) and estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min per 1.73 m2 (OR, 1.75 [95% CI, 0.99-3.18, P=0.054]) were risk factors for a BP rise, whereas a baseline BP ≥140/90 mm Hg associated with a lower risk (OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.25-0.62, P<0.001]). Only for renal cell carcinoma, BP rise was associated with a substantially improved median overall survival compared with no BP rise: 45.4 versus 20.3 months, respectively, P=0.003. Conclusions The type of VEGFI, baseline BP, and baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate determine the VEGFI-induced BP rise. Both calcium channel blockers and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors are effective antihypertensive treatments. Particularly in patients with renal cell carcinoma, a BP rise is associated with improved overall survival.

Neurogenic orthostatic hypotension after treatment with sorafenib.

A man in his 70s with a history of fatigue, abdominal pain, and a palpable abdominal mass was found to have a peritoneal desmoid tumour. One year after diagnosis, he was prescribed sorafenib to limit tumour growth. Two months later, he developed dyspnoea on exertion and lower extremity weakness and was reported to have supine hypertension and orthostatic hypotension. On formal autonomic testing, he was noted to have severely impaired sympathetic responses and marked orthostatic hypotension without appropriate chronotropic response. A decision to hold sorafenib was made, and treatment was started with graduated compression stockings, liberal fluid and sodium intake, and midodrine. The patient had a modest and gradual improvement in his symptoms. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of orthostatic hypotension related to sorafenib or any vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors.

[Metastatic Renal Cancer with Stevens-Johnson Syndrome after Nivolumab Treatment : A Case Report].

A 65-year-old male was admitted to our hospital with an abscess on his buttocks. Computed tomography (CT) on admission incidentally revealed left kidney cancer, and retroperitoneal nephrectomy was performed. Pathological examination confirmed a diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma. One month after surgery, CT showed findings suggesting primary liver cancer or liver metastasis along with retroperitoneal metastasis. Although metastatic kidney cancer was suspected, the possibility of primary liver cancer could not be ruled out. Therefore, we initiated treatment using sorafenib, which is indicated for both types of cancer, as first-line treatment for intermediate-risk based on the International Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Database Consortium (IMDC) risk classification. After three months of sorafenib treatment, the patient showed hyponatremia, anemia, and hand-foot syndrome and was admitted to the hospital. CT showed an enlarged area that appeared to be a metastatic site, after which we suspended sorafenib. Four months after sorafenib treatment, nivolumab was initiated as a second-line treatment. However, on day 28 after the administration of nivolumab eruptions appeared all over the patient's body. The patient was diagnosed with Stevens-Johnson syndrome due to nivolumab. We initiated corticosteroid therapy, and the eruptions gradually improved. Prednisolone was gradually reduced to 5mg/day, after which the patient was discharged. Six months after discharge, the eruptions had generally become epithelialized and no metastatic lesions had grown. The patient remained under observation without proceeding to third-line treatment. It is crucial to carefully monitor the patient's condition, especially in cases involving serious immune-related adverse events.

Clinical efficacy and safety of external radiotherapy combined with sorafenib in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Both external radiotherapy and sorafenib are promising treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Nevertheless, the combined treatment of external radiotherapy and sorafenib has not been widely applied clinically due to potentially adverse effects. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of external radiotherapy combined with sorafenib in the treatment of HCC. METHODS: Pubmed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched. The primary and secondary observation endpoints were the end of survival and incidence of adverse events, respectively. 11 studies involving 664 patients were included in this meta-analysis. RESULTS: The results demonstrated that median overall survival (mOS) and median progression-free survival (mPFS) of the external radiotherapy combined with sorafenib (RS) group were 19.45 months and 8.20 months. The one- and two-year survival rates were 0.65 (95%CI: 0.55-0.76) and 0.40 (95%CI: 0.24-0.56). The incidence of adverse events was 0.34 (95%CI: 0.25-0.44). CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrated that the survival of the RS group was significantly improved and few severe adverse events were observed. Hence, it can be concluded that external radiotherapy combined with sorafenib is a safe, effective, and promising therapeutic option for HCC.

Impact of psoas muscle index assessed by a simple measurement method on tolerability and duration of continued treatment with sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we investigated the impact of simple measurement of psoas muscle index (PMI) on the tolerability of sorafenib treatment of switch from sorafenib to regorafenib. METHOD: This retrospective study enrolled 109 patients with Child-Pugh A hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with sorafenib. Pretreatment PMI was calculated by measuring and multiplying the greatest anterior/posterior and transverse diameters of the psoas muscles on axial computed tomography images at the L3 vertebral level, and normalizing the sum of bilateral psoas muscle areas by the square of the height in meters. We, then, statistically analyzed the association between PMI and adverse events (AEs) to treatment, tolerability of sorafenib, time to treatment failure (TTF), and prognosis in patients stratified according to PMI. RESULT: Patients were divided into high PMI (n = 41) and low PMI (n = 68) groups based on the cutoff PMI values (men: 7.04 cm2/m2; women: 4.40 cm2/m2) determined by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis to determine sorafenib tolerability. Frequencies of all types of severe AEs were higher in the low PMI group (50.0%) than in the high PMI group (29.3%; P = 0.045). The high PMI group (51.2%) had greater tolerance to sorafenib than the low PMI group (25.0%; P = 0.007). Moreover, in multivariable analysis, PMI was associated with sorafenib tolerability (odds ratio 0.26; P = 0.008) and was a prognostic factor affecting TTF (hazard ratio 1.77; P = 0.021). CONCLUSION: PMI might be a predictive marker of tolerance to treatment and TTF in HCC patients receiving sorafenib treatment.

Risk Factors for Hepatic Encephalopathy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Sorafenib or Lenvatinib Treatment: A Real-World Study.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the incidence rate and risk factors for hepatic encephalopathy (HE) among unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) patients with liver cirrhosis who received sorafenib or lenvatinib treatment. Patients and Methods: uHCC patients with cirrhosis who received first-line sorafenib or lenvatinib treatment between September 2014 and February 2021 were continually reviewed in our single-center retrospective study. The Hepatic Encephalopathy Scoring Algorithm was used to evaluate the occurrence and grade of HE during treatment, and logistic regression models were used to further explore the risk factors for HE. Results: A total of 454 eligible patients were enrolled in our study, with 214 and 240 patients in the sorafenib and lenvatinib groups, respectively. At time of data cut-off (2021-12), the incidence of HE in sorafenib group (4.2%, 95% CI:2-7%) was significantly lower than that in lenvatinib group (11.3%,95% CI:7-15%) (p = 0.006), with alcoholic cirrhosis [OR: 5.857 (95% CI: 1.519-22.591)], Child-Pugh >7 [OR: 3.023 (95% CI: 1.135-8.053)], blood ammonia ≥38.65 µmol/L [OR: 4.693 (95% CI: 1.782-12.358)], total bile acid ≥29.5 µmol/L [OR: 11.047 (95% CI: 4.414-27.650)] and duration of treatment ≥5.6 months [OR: 4.350 (95% CI: 1.701-11.126)] to be risk factors for the occurrence of HE during first-line systemic therapy. Conclusion: In our study, for off-label uHCC patients (Child-Pugh >7) with alcoholic cirrhosis, hyperammonemia, hypercholesterolemia, and estimated longer duration of treatment, the application of lenvatinib has to be cautious, which needs to be confirmed in future clinical trials.

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.

The transcatheter arterial chemoembolization combined with targeted nanoparticle delivering sorafenib system for the treatment of microvascular invasion of hepatocellular carcinoma.

to explore the value of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) combined with targeted nanoparticle delivery system for sorafenib (SFB) to treat hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with microvascular invasion. 42 HCC patients with microvascular invasion after liver cancer surgery were selected from our hospital from December 2020 and February 2021. Patients were divided into experimental group and control group based on their willingness. Patients in experimental group (18 cases) were treated with combination therapy of TACE and Ab-SFB-NP system; while patients in control group (24 cases) took TACE and non-nano drug delivery system. There was no obvious difference in liver function and blood test results between two groups of patients before treatment and one month after treatment (P > 0.05). Three months after treatment, differences of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) were statistically significant (P < 0.05); while differences of other test results were not (P > 0.05). The disease control rate (DCR) of patients in experimental group was higher slightly (P > 0.05). The incidence of adverse reactions of patients in experimental group was lower than the control group and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). After three months of TACE, the DCR in the experimental group was significantly higher compared to control group. The toxic reactions of taking SFB with Ab-SFB-NP nano-drug delivery system mainly included hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, and bleeding, the toxic reactions were mainly at level 1 ~ 2. After symptomatic treatment, the toxicity was effectively controlled, so the security was high.

Efficacy and safety of sorafenib combined with TACE in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Sorafenib combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) is one of the common methods in the clinical treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but its efficacy and safety are still controversial. Therefore, we used meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of sorafenib combined with TACE in the treatment of advanced HCC. METHODS: Up to March 14, 2021, the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI and Wanfang were searched, and the randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) of sorafenib combined with TACE in the treatment of primary HCC were included. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data and evaluated the quality according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Revman5.4 software was used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3076 patients were included in 23 studies, including sorafenib combined with TACE group (n=1542) and TACE group (n=1534). The results of meta-analysis showed that sorafenib combined with TACE could increase the objective response rate (ORR) (RR=1.35, 95%CI: 1.24-1.48, p<0.00001), disease control rate (DCR) (RR=1.19, 95%CI: 1.11-1.28, p<0.00001), prolong the time of disease progression (TTP) (HR=0.80, 95%CI: 0.70-0.92, p=0.001), reduce the expression level of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) (SMD=2.01, 95%CI: 1.27-2.75, p<0.00001) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) (SMD=2.62, 95% CI: 1.35-3.90, p<0.0001) in serum. However, the overall survival (OS) was not prolonged (HR=0.86, 95%CI: 0.73-1.02, p=0.09). The incidences of fatigue, diarrhea, elevated bilirubin, skin reaction of hands and feet, rash, hypertension and oral mucosal inflammation in sorafenib combined with TACE group were higher than those in TACE group (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Sorafenib combined with TACE has some clinical benefits compared with TACE alone, but it does not seem to prolong the OS of patients with HCC, and the incidence of adverse reactions is higher, so more high-quality RCTs are needed to further study the efficacy of the combination regimen.