Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectiveThis trial compared the efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) plus sorafenib with TACE alone using a newly established TACE-specific endpoint and pre-treatment of sorafenib before initial TACE.DesignPatients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were randomised to TACE plus sorafenib (n=80) or TACE alone (n=76). Patients in the combination group received sorafenib 400 mg once daily for 2–3 weeks before TACE, followed by 800 mg once daily during on-demand conventional TACE sessions until time to untreatable (unTACEable) progression (TTUP), defined as untreatable tumour progression, transient deterioration to Child-Pugh C or appearance of vascular invasion/extrahepatic spread. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), which is not a conventional one but defined as TTUP, or time to any cause of death plus overall survival (OS). Multiplicity was adjusted by gatekeeping hierarchical testing.ResultsMedian PFS was significantly longer in the TACE plus sorafenib than in the TACE alone group (25.2 vs 13.5 months; p=0.006). OS was not analysed because only 73.6% of OS events were reached. Median TTUP (26.7 vs 20.6 months; p=0.02) was also significantly longer in the TACE plus sorafenib group. OS at 1 year and 2 years in TACE plus sorafenib group and TACE alone group were 96.2% and 82.7% and 77.2% and 64.6%, respectively. There were no unexpected toxicities.ConclusionTACE plus sorafenib significantly improved PFS over TACE alone in patients with unresectable HCC. Adverse events were consistent with those of previous TACE combination trials.Trial registration number NCT01217034.

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. 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. 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. 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. Bristol Myers Squibb in collaboration with Ono Pharmaceutical.

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. 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). 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). 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. Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals and Elevar Therapeutics.

Patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma have a poor prognosis, and treatments with long-term benefits are needed. We report results from the preplanned interim analysis of the CheckMate 9DW trial assessing nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus lenvatinib or sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in the first-line setting. This open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma without previous systemic therapy at 163 hospitals and cancer centres across 25 countries in Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. Patients had at least one measurable untreated lesion per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1, a Child–Pugh score of 5 or 6, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive response technology system to receive nivolumab (1 mg/kg) plus ipilimumab (3 mg/kg) intravenously every 3 weeks for up to four doses, followed by nivolumab 480 mg every 4 weeks or investigator's choice of either oral lenvatinib (8 mg or 12 mg mg daily depending on bodyweight) or oral sorafenib (400 mg twice daily). Randomisation was stratified by aetiology; the presence of macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; and baseline alpha-fetoprotein concentration. The primary endpoint was overall survival, which was assessed in all randomly assigned patients; safety was an exploratory endpoint and was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04039607 (ongoing). Between Jan 6, 2020, and Nov 8, 2021, 668 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus ipilimumab (n=335) or lenvatinib or sorafenib (n=333). Early crossing of the overall survival Kaplan–Meier curves reflected a higher number of deaths during the first 6 months after randomisation with nivolumab plus ipilimumab (hazard ratio 1·65 [95% CI 1·12–2·43]) but was followed by a sustained separation of the curves thereafter in favour of nivolumab plus ipilimumab (0·61 [0·48–0·77]). After a median follow-up of 35·2 months (IQR 31·1–39·9), overall survival was significantly improved with nivolumab plus ipilimumab versus lenvatinib or sorafenib (median 23·7 months [95% CI 18·8–29·4] vs 20·6 months [17·5–22·5]; hazard ratio 0·79 [0·65–0·96]; two-sided stratified log-rank p=0·018); respective overall survival rates were 49% (95% CI 44–55) versus 39% (34–45) at 24 months and 38% (32–43) versus 24% (19–30) at 36 months. Overall, 137 (41%) of 332 patients receiving nivolumab plus ipilimumab and 138 (42%) of 325 patients receiving lenvatinib or sorafenib had grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events. 12 deaths were attributed to treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab and three were attributed to treatment with lenvatinib or sorafenib. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab showed a significant overall survival benefit versus lenvatinib or sorafenib and manageable safety in patients with previously untreated unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. These results support nivolumab plus ipilimumab as a first-line treatment in this setting. Bristol Myers Squibb.

Desmoid tumors are rare and difficult to treat. This trial of daily sorafenib versus placebo documented an objective response rate of 33% with sorafenib and 20% with placebo. The 2-year progression-free survival rate was 81% with sorafenib and 36% with placebo.

BackgroundA phase 3, multinational, randomized, non-inferiority trial (REFLECT) compared the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib (LEN) and sorafenib (SOR) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). LEN had an effect on overall survival (OS) compared to SOR, statistically confirmed by non-inferiority [OS: median = 13.6 months vs. 12.3 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79–1.06], and demonstrated statistically significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) and the objective response rate (ORR) in the overall population. The results of a subset analysis that evaluated the efficacy and safety of LEN and SOR in the Japanese population are reported.MethodsThe intent-to-treat population enrolled in Japan was analyzed.ResultsOf 954 patients in the overall population, 168 Japanese patients were assigned to the LEN arm (N = 81) or the SOR arm (N = 87). Median OS was 17.6 months for LEN vs. 17.8 months for SOR (HR 0.90; 95% CI 0.62–1.29). LEN showed statistically significant improvements over SOR in PFS (7.2 months vs. 4.6 months) and ORR (29.6% vs. 6.9%). The relative dose intensity of LEN and SOR in the Japanese population was lower than in the overall population. Frequently observed, related adverse events included palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (PPES), hypertension, decreased appetite, and proteinuria in the LEN arm, and PPES, hypertension, diarrhea, and alopecia in the SOR arm.ConclusionsThe efficacy and safety of LEN in the Japanese population were similar to those in the overall population of REFLECT. With manageable adverse events, LEN is a new treatment option for Japanese patients with uHCC.Trial registration IDClinicalTrials.gov. No. NCT01761266.

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

Background The efficacy of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains unclear. We conducted a multi-center randomized phase II study comparing a sequential HAIC-sorafenib regimen versus sorafenib alone as an initial therapy for HCC. Methods Patients were randomly assigned (ratio, 1:1) to receive sequential HAIC with cisplatin followed by sorafenib (HAIC group, n  = 35) or sorafenib alone (sorafenib group, n  = 33) as an initial therapy. The primary endpoint was the one-year survival rate. Secondary endpoint included overall survival (OS), the 2-year survival rate, the time-to-progression (TTP), the objective response rate (ORR), the disease control rate (DCR), and safety. Results For the primary endpoint, the one-year survival rates were 46% in the HAIC group and 58% in the sorafenib group. The median OS period was 10.0 months (95% CI, 7.0–18.8) in the HAIC group and 15.2 months (95% CI, 8.2–19.7) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.86, P  = 0.78). The median TTP, ORR and DCR in the HAIC group were 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.7–5.5), 14.3, and 45.7%, respectively, while those in the sorafenib group were 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.3–6.8), 9.1, and 45.5%, respectively. No unexpected adverse events related to HAIC or sorafenib were observed in either group. Conclusions Sequential HAIC with cisplatin and sorafenib does not improve the survival benefit, compared with sorafenib alone, when used as an initial therapy for advanced HCC. However, this study was underpowered in regard to its primary and secondary endpoints, so the results should be interpreted with caution. Trial registration UMIN ID 000006147 , registration data: August 11, 2011.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer related deaths. Patients with advanced HCC are treated with sorafenib. A recent randomized controlled trial demonstrated a survival benefit for regorafenib treatment in patients with advanced HCC who had progressed on sorafenib. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this approach. To evaluate the cost effectiveness of regorafenib, we used a Markov model that incorporates health outcomes, measured by life-years and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Drug costs were based on 2017 discounted prices. Model robustness was validated by probabilistic sensitivity analyses using Monte Carlo simulations. The use of regorafenib results in a gain of 19.76 weeks of life (0.38 Life Years) as compared to placebo. When adjusted for quality of life, using regorafenib produced a gain of 0.25 quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for regorafenib compared with best supportive care was between $201,797 and $268,506 per QALY. The modest incremental benefit at a relatively high incremental cost of regorafenib treatment suggests that it is not cost-effective at commonly accepted willingness to pay thresholds.

Background Sorafenib is the current standard of care for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) and has been shown to improve survival by about 3 months compared to placebo. However, survival varies widely from under three months to over two years. The aim of this study was to build a statistical model that allows personalised survival prediction following sorafenib treatment. Methods We had access to 1130 patients undergoing sorafenib treatment for aHCC as part of the control arm for two phase III randomised clinical trials (RCTs). A multivariable model was built that predicts survival based on baseline clinical features. The statistical approach permits both group-level risk stratification and individual-level survival prediction at any given time point. The model was calibrated, and its discrimination assessed through Harrell’s c-index and Royston-Sauerbrei’s R 2 D . Results The variables influencing overall survival were vascular invasion, age, ECOG score, AFP, albumin, creatinine, AST, extra-hepatic spread and aetiology. The model-predicted survival very similar to that observed. The Harrell’s c-indices for training and validation sets were 0.72 and 0.70, respectively indicating good prediction. Conclusions Our model (‘PROSASH’) predicts patient survival using baseline clinical features. However, it will require further validation in a routine clinical practice setting.