scholarly journals Phase III randomized study of second line ADI-PEG 20 plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 1402-1408 ◽  
Author(s):  
G.K. Abou-Alfa ◽  
S. Qin ◽  
B.-Y. Ryoo ◽  
S.-N. Lu ◽  
C.-J. Yen ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 669-675 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis ◽  
Pedro N. Aguiar ◽  
Mónica L. Cordón ◽  
Yanin Chavarri-Guerra ◽  
Gilberto de Lima Lopes

Background: Treatment options are limited for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that progresses after treatment with sorafenib. Cabozantinib, an oral small molecule inhibitor of multiple tyrosine kinase receptors, recently showed improved overall survival (OS) compared with placebo in sorafenib-pretreated patients with advanced HCC in the CELESTIAL trial. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib for second-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC from a US healthcare system perspective. Patients and Methods: Cost and utility data were extracted from the CELESTIAL trial and used to determine the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib compared with placebo plus best supportive care. The main outcome of this study was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained by using cabozantinib compared with placebo plus best supportive care in sorafenib-pretreated HCC. Results: In the base-case analysis using data from the CELESTIAL trial, the incremental QALY and ICER were 0.067 and $1,040,675 for cabozantinib compared with placebo and best supportive care. OS reported in the CELESTIAL trial (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63–0.92) had the strongest association with the ICER. In one-way sensitivity analyses, there were no scenarios in which cabozantinib was cost-effective. In a cost-threshold analysis, cabozantinib would have to be priced at least $50 per pill to be cost-effective considering a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY. Although the CELESTIAL trial demonstrated that cabozantinib improves OS compared with placebo in patients with HCC that progresses after treatment with sorafenib, our analysis shows that cabozantinib is not a cost-effective therapy in this scenario. Conclusions: At current costs, cabozantinib is not cost-effective for second-line therapy of HCC in the United States.


2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS503-TPS503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Finn ◽  
Stephen L. Chan ◽  
Andrew X. Zhu ◽  
Jennifer J. Knox ◽  
Ann-Lii Cheng ◽  
...  

TPS503 Background: There are no approved therapies for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after disease progression on sorafenib, or for patients with intolerance to sorafenib. HCC often arises in the background of chronic inflammation and is also associated with an immunosuppressed microenvironment, providing a strong rationale to evaluate immunotherapy in HCC. The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 KEYNOTE-240 study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02702401) was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of the anti–PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab + best supportive care (BSC) vs placebo + BSC in patients with previously treated advanced HCC. Methods: Eligibility criteria include age ≥18 years, confirmed diagnosis of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage C disease or BCLC stage B disease not amenable to or refractory to locoregional therapy, disease not amenable to a curative treatment approach (eg, transplantation, surgery, or ablation), documented progression after treatment with sorafenib or intolerance to sorafenib, Child-Pugh liver score A, and ECOG performance status 0-1. ~408 patients will be randomly assigned 2:1 to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg IV every 3 weeks (Q3W) + BSC or placebo Q3W + BSC for up to 35 cycles or until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patient withdrawal of consent, or investigator decision. Randomization will be stratified by geographic region, macrovascular invasion, and α-fetoprotein. BSC will be provided by the investigator per local treatment practices. Response will be assessed every 6 weeks per RECIST v1.1 by central imaging vendor review. Adverse events (AEs) will be assessed throughout treatment and for 30 days thereafter (90 days for serious AEs) and graded per NCI CTCAE v4.0. Primary objectives are comparison of progression-free survival per RECIST v1.1 by central imaging vendor review and overall survival between treatment arms. Secondary objectives are comparison of objective response rate, duration of response, disease control rate, and time to progression per RECIST v1.1 by central imaging vendor review, and evaluation of safety and tolerability. Enrollment in KEYNOTE-240 is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT02702401.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document