Immunotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a focus on special subgroups

Following the success of immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) in different cancer types, a large number of studies are currently investigating ICBs in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), alone or in combination with other treatments. Both nivolumab and pembrolizumab, as well as the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab have been granted accelerated approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration for sorafenib-pretreated patients. While nivolumab and pembrolizumab both failed to meet their primary endpoints in phase III trials, the combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab eventually improved overall and progression-free survival compared with sorafenib in a front-line phase III trial, and thus, will become the new standard of care in this setting. Despite this breakthrough, there are patient populations with certain underlying conditions that may not be ideal candidates for this new treatment either due to safety concerns or potential lack of efficacy. In this review, we discuss the safety of ICBs in patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease, IBD or a history of solid organ transplantation. Moreover, we summarise emerging preclinical and clinical data suggesting that ICBs may be less efficacious in patients with underlying non-alcoholic steatohepatitis or HCCs with activated Wnt/β-catenin signalling.

Download Full-text

Comparing the efficacy and safety of second-line therapies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis of phase III trials

Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology ◽

10.1177/1756284820932483 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 13 ◽

pp. 175628482093248

Author(s):

Dongxu Wang ◽

Xu Yang ◽

Jianzhen Lin ◽

Yi Bai ◽

Junyu Long ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Objective Response ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Comparative Investigation ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Second Line ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Phase Iii Trials

Background: The prospect for targeted therapies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has dramatically changed since several recent clinical trials have yielded promising results. The number of second-line therapies is increasing, though the consequent challenge is to consider differences between these interventions. This is a comparative investigation of presently approved second-line drugs for HCC based on findings from phase III randomized controlled trials. Methods: Data related to treatment efficacy including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) were extracted and compared using a Bayesian approach. Adverse events (AEs) and the rate of discontinuation due to AEs were assessed and compared with provide a more complete understanding. OS and PFS in patients with alpha fetoprotein (AFP) values greater than 400 were compared and ranked as a subgroup. Results: A total of five trials involving 2571 patients were included. The comparison suggests that regorafenib and cabozantinib significantly prolong OS compared with placebo. The rate of AEs and treatment discontinuation did not significantly differ, although the types of AEs varied substantially. Subgroup analysis did not highlight a significant OS difference between regorafenib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50–0.92], cabozantinib (HR 0.71; CI 0.54–0.94) and ramucirumab (HR 0.69; CI 0.57–0.84). Conclusion: Among the four second-line HCC therapies compared, regorafenib and cabozantinib appear to be better choices in terms of OS. Cabozantinib, regorafenib and ramucirumab have similar levels of efficacy for those with AFP >400, although ramucirumab has fewer side effects. No significant difference was observed in AEs, but some AEs related to each of these interventions should be given further consideration.

Download Full-text

Immunotherapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Is There a Light at the End of the Tunnel?

Cancers ◽

10.3390/cancers11081078 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 11 (8) ◽

pp. 1078 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

Amit Mahipal ◽

Sri Harsha Tella ◽

Anuhya Kommalapati ◽

Alexander Lim ◽

Richard Kim

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Immune Checkpoint ◽

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽

Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽

Primary Liver Cancer ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

The United States ◽

Hepatic Reserve ◽

Dismal Prognosis ◽

United States Food

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer with dismal prognosis when diagnosed at advanced stages. Surgical resection of the primary tumor or orthotropic liver transplantation serves as a potential curative option. However, this approach is highly dependent on the hepatic reserve and baseline functional status of the patient. Liver directed therapies such as portal vein embolization (PVE), trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE), and systemic chemotherapy are employed in non-surgical candidates. Sorafenib was the only approved systemic therapeutic agent for almost a decade until the recent approval of lenvatinib by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as an alternate first-line agent. Regorafenib, nivolumab, pembrolizumab and cabozantinib are approved by the FDA as second-line agents in patients who failed or could not tolerate sorafenib. Ramucirumab was recently FDA approved for the subset of patients that have high alfa-fetoprotein levels (>400 ng/mL). A better understanding of tumorigenesis and encouraging clinical trial results that evaluated immune-checkpoint inhibitors opened doors for immunotherapy in HCC. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated a prolonged median overall and progression-free survival in a subset of patients with HCC. On-going translational and clinical research will hopefully provide us with a better understanding of tumor markers, genetic aberrations and other factors that determine the immunotherapy response in HCC. In this review, we sought to summarize the potential role and future directions of immunotherapy in the management of HCC.

Download Full-text

ANGPT2 and NOS3 Polymorphisms and Clinical Outcome in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Receiving Sorafenib

Cancers ◽

10.3390/cancers11071023 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 11 (7) ◽

pp. 1023 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Giorgia Marisi ◽

Elisabetta Petracci ◽

Francesco Raimondi ◽

Luca Faloppi ◽

Francesco Giuseppe Foschi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Direct Sequencing ◽

Univariate Analysis ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Nucleotide Polymorphisms ◽

Number Of Patients ◽

Angiopoietin 2 ◽

Oxide Synthase

Sorafenib represents the standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), even though a large number of patients have reported limited efficacy. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prognostic value of single-nucleotide polymorphisms on angiopoietin-2 (ANGPT2) and endothelial-derived nitric oxide synthase (NOS3) genes in 135 patients with advanced HCC receiving sorafenib. Eight ANGPT2 polymorphisms were analyzed by direct sequencing in relation to overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). In univariate analysis, ANGPT2rs55633437 and NOS3 rs2070744 were associated with OS and PFS. In particular, patients with ANGPT2rs55633437 TT/GT genotypes had significantly lower median OS (4.66 vs. 15.5 months, hazard ratio (HR) 4.86, 95% CI 2.73–8.67, p < 0.001) and PFS (1.58 vs. 6.27 months, HR 4.79, 95% CI 2.73–8.35, p < 0.001) than those homozygous for the G allele. Moreover, patients with NOS3 rs2070744 TC/CC genotypes had significantly higher median OS (15.6 vs. 9.1 months, HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44–0.97; p = 0.036) and PFS (7.03 vs. 3.5 months, HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30–0.63; p < 0.001) than patients homozygous for the T allele. Multivariate analysis confirmed these polymorphisms as independent prognostic factors. Our results suggest that ANGPT2rs55633437 and NOS3 rs2070744 polymorphisms could identify a subset of HCC patients more resistant to sorafenib.

Download Full-text

P14.15 Benefit of Bevacizumab for recurrent glioblastoma. Results of 81 patients from a single institution

Neuro-Oncology ◽

10.1093/neuonc/noz126.250 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 21 (Supplement_3) ◽

pp. iii69-iii69

Author(s):

O Absalyamova ◽

G Kobiakov ◽

G Agabekyan ◽

A Poddubsky ◽

A Belyashova ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Objective Response ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Recurrent Glioblastoma ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Rapid Progression ◽

Concomitant Disease ◽

Free Survival ◽

Phase Iii Trials ◽

Continuous Application

Abstract BACKGROUND No standard of care has been established for patients with progressive glioblastoma (rGBM). Previous studies suggested that bevacizumab (BEV) is safe and produces responses that result in a decreased use of glucocorticoids and increased progression-free survival (PFS) with an unclear effect on overall survival (OS). Crossover to BEV in the control arm is the possible reason why the advantage of BEV has not been proven in Phase III trials. We retrospectively analyzed own results of BEV treatment in rGBM. MATERIAL AND METHODS 81 patients progressed after radiotherapy plus concomitant and maintenance temozolomide (TMZ) and undergo BEV as monotherapy (BevMo, 11 patients) or in combinations (Irinotecan (BevI) - 53, lomustine (BevL)- 11, TMZ (BevT) - 6. Median age 54 years. Among them 33 patients were re-irradiated: 11 - radiosurgery (RS), 20 fractionated irradiation (RT), 2 - RS+RT. 33 patients continued BEV after progression with changing or adding cytostatic. PFS was calculated from the date of verification, PFS1 - from the date of 1-st progression, PFS2 - from the date of 2-nd progression. RESULTS Median PFS was 9.0 ([CI] 7.0–10.9) months. Median PFS1 was 10.5 ([CI] 8.1–12.9) months. In the BevMo, BevI, BevL, BevT group PFS1 was 15.7, 10.1, 10.5, 13.2 months, respectively, p=0.7. Objective response (OR) was reached in 34%, stable disease (SD) in 28%, progression (PD) in 37% patients. 16 patients stopped BEV without progression (4-patient`s decision, 7- doctor`s decision, 2 - adverse event, 3 - concomitant disease). Median time of BEV treatment was 11.6 months. Median BEV-free interval till progression was 3.7 months. 33 patients continued or restarted BEV after progression. Median PFS2 was 8.0 ([CI] 4.9–11.1) months. The median OS from the date of 1-st progression was 23.5 months ([CI] 18.7–27.4). In groups with RT, RS, RS+RT and no re-irradiarion OS was 24.6 ([CI] 17.6–31.5), 35.4 ([CI] 35.0–35.8), 17.8, 20.6 ([CI] 15.2–26.0), respectively, p=0.2. CONCLUSION OS in our group is outrageously high. Maintaining BEV after progression was effective. In our group BEV discontinuation led to rapid progression. The resumption of Bev with progression was effective, which indicates the advisability of its continuous application.

Download Full-text

Pembrolizumab As Second-Line Therapy in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in KEYNOTE-240: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Trial

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.19.01307 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 38 (3) ◽

pp. 193-202 ◽

Cited By ~ 144

Author(s):

Richard S. Finn ◽

Baek-Yeol Ryoo ◽

Philippe Merle ◽

Masatoshi Kudo ◽

Mohamed Bouattour ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Interim Analysis ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Study Drug ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Final Analysis ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Double Blind ◽

Previously Treated

PURPOSE Pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity and safety in the phase II KEYNOTE-224 trial in previously treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). KEYNOTE-240 evaluated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS This randomized, double-blind, phase III study was conducted at 119 medical centers in 27 countries. Eligible patients with advanced HCC, previously treated with sorafenib, were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to receive pembrolizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS; one-sided significance thresholds, P = .0174 [final analysis] and P = .002 [first interim analysis], respectively). Safety was assessed in all patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study drug. RESULTS Between May 31, 2016, and November 23, 2017, 413 patients were randomly assigned. As of January 2, 2019, median follow-up was 13.8 months for pembrolizumab and 10.6 months for placebo. Median OS was 13.9 months (95% CI, 11.6 to 16.0 months) for pembrolizumab versus 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 13.5 months) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.781; 95% CI, 0.611 to 0.998; P = .0238). Median PFS for pembrolizumab was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.1 months) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 4.1 months) for placebo at the first interim analysis (HR, 0.775; 95% CI, 0.609 to 0.987; P = .0186) and 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.1 months) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.6 to 3.0 months) at final analysis (HR, 0.718; 95% CI, 0.570 to 0.904; P = .0022). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 147 (52.7%) and 62 patients (46.3%) for pembrolizumab versus placebo; those that were treatment related occurred in 52 (18.6%) and 10 patients (7.5%), respectively. No hepatitis C or B flares were identified. CONCLUSION In this study, OS and PFS did not reach statistical significance per specified criteria. The results are consistent with those of KEYNOTE-224, supporting a favorable risk-to-benefit ratio for pembrolizumab in this population.

Download Full-text

Real-World Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib in Korean Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis

Liver Cancer ◽

10.1159/000508901 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (5) ◽

pp. 613-624 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Jaekyung Cheon ◽

Hong Jae Chon ◽

Yeonghak Bang ◽

Neung Hwa Park ◽

Jung Woo Shin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Retrospective Analysis ◽

Real World ◽

Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽

Clinical Trial Data ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Efficacy And Safety ◽

First Line

Introduction/Objective: Lenvatinib demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the randomized phase III REFLECT trial. Considering the discrepancies in patients between clinical trial data and daily practice, an account of practical experience is needed. Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis in which 3 tertiary referral centers participated. A total of 92 patients with advanced HCC treated with lenvatinib between September 2018 and January 2020 were analyzed. Results: Lenvatinib was used as the first-line therapy for 67 (72.8%) patients, and for 25 (27.2%) patients previously treated with other systemic therapy including immune checkpoint inhibitors. At the time of initiation of lenvatinib, 74 (80.4%) and 18 (19.6%) patients were classified as Child-Pugh A and B, respectively. Thirty-five patients (38.0%) had extensive disease that would have excluded them from the REFLECT trial. In the Child-Pugh A group, the response rate graded according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 was 21.1%, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.6 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.1–6.1) months, and overall survival (OS) was 10.7 (95% CI 4.8–16.5) months for patients treated with first-line lenvatinib (n = 57). With second- or later-line lenvatinib (n = 17), median PFS and OS were 4.1 (95% CI 3.1–5.1) and 6.4 (95% CI 5.1–7.7) months, respectively. In the Child-Pugh B group (n = 18), median PFS and OS were 2.6 (95% CI 0.6–4.6) and 5.3 (95% CI 2.0–8.5) months, respectively. The most common grade 3–4 toxicities were hyperbilirubinemia (n = 8; 8.7%), AST elevation (n = 6; 6.5%), and diarrhea (n = 5; 5.4%) across all study patients. Conclusions: In this real-world study, lenvatinib was found to be well tolerated and effective in more heterogeneous HCC patient populations.

Download Full-text

Clinical Equipoise for Trials of Novel Biologic Therapies, Therapeutic Success Rates, and Predictors of Success: A Meta-Analysis

JCO Precision Oncology ◽

10.1200/po.17.00062 ◽

2017 ◽

pp. 1-12

Author(s):

Doah Cho ◽

Felicia T. Roncolato ◽

Johnathan Man ◽

John Simes ◽

Sarah J. Lord ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Meta Analysis ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Predictors Of Success ◽

Biologic Therapies ◽

Therapeutic Success ◽

Free Survival ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Phase Iii Trials

Purpose The demand for more rapid access to novel biologic therapies than randomized controlled trials can deliver is a topic of ongoing study and debate. We aimed to inform this debate by estimating therapeutic success from phase III trials comparing novel biologic therapies with standard of care and identifying predictors of success. Methods This was a meta-analysis of phase III trials evaluating novel biologic therapies in advanced breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers. Therapeutic success was defined as statistically significant results for the primary end point favoring novel biologic therapies. Results Of 119 included phase III trials (76,726 patients), therapeutic success was 41%, with a statistically significant relative reduction in disease progression and death for novel biologic therapies over standard of care of 20% and 8%. Therapeutic success did not improve over time (pre-2010, 33%; 2010 to 2014, 44%; P = .2). Predictors of success were a biomarker-selected population (odds ratio, 4.74; 95% CI, 2.05 to 10.95) and progression-free survival end point compared with overall survival (odds ratio, 5.22; 95% CI, 2.41 to 11.39). Phase III trials with a biomarker-selected population showed a larger 28% progression-free survival benefit than phase III trials overall (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.75) but similar 8% overall survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.90 to 0.94). Therapeutic success of phase III trials with and without a preceding phase II trial were 43% and 30%, respectively Conclusion Therapeutic success of novel biologic therapies in phase III trials, including therapies with a matching predictive biomarker, was modest and has not significantly improved over time. Equipoise remains and supports the ongoing ethical and scientific requirement for phase III randomized controlled trials to estimate treatment efficacy and assess the value of potential biomarkers.

Download Full-text

Intergroup study EORTC-1333-GUCG: A randomized multicenter phase III trial comparing enzalutamide vs. a combination of Ra223 and enzalutamide in asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) patients metastatic to bone (PEACE III).

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2018.36.6_suppl.tps390 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽

pp. TPS390-TPS390

Author(s):

Bertrand F. Tombal ◽

Yohann Loriot ◽

Fred Saad ◽

Raymond S. McDermott ◽

Sandrine Marreaud ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Prostate Cancer ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

The United States ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer ◽

Risk Of Death ◽

Related Quality ◽

Favourable Safety Profile ◽

Health Related

TPS390 Background: α-emitting radiopharmaceutical Ra-223 reduces the risk of death by 30% vs placebo in phase 3 ALSYMPCA (Parker et al. NEJM 2013). Ra-223’s favourable safety profile and lack of significant toxicity support combining it with other agents. The ALSYMPCA trial was developed to add Ra-223 on the contemporary standard of care that did not include last generation AR pathway inhibitors enzalutamide, one of the modern reference treatments for asymptomatic or moderately symptomatic metastatic CRPC (Gillessen et al. Eur Urol. 2017). In addition Ra-223 is registered in symptomatic prostate cancer (PCa), a very late stage of modern patient disease. There is thus a good rationale to combine Ra-223 to modern AR pathway inhibitors and to initiate the treatment in asymptomatic or moderately symptomatic patients. Methods: The EORTC 1333-GUCG study will run in 51 sites (21 activated) across 7 European countries, 4 sites in US and 12 sites in Canada. The study is an intergroup initiative between EORTC (Coordinating Group), UNICANCER; Cancer Trials Ireland (Ireland), ACCRU (The United States), and CUOG (Canada). A total of 560 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive enzalutamide 160 mg q.d. p.o. or enzalutamide at the same dose and Ra223 at 55 kBq/kg i.v. monthly for 6 months. Patients will be stratified by country, pain (BPI 0-1 vs BPI 2-3), prior docetaxel use (no vs yes) and use of bone targeting agents (no vs yes). The main inclusion criteria require asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic (defined as no opioids and BPI-SF question 3 < 4), metastatic to bone with ≥ 2 bone metastases with or without additional lymph node metastases. Visceral metastases are not allowed. The primary endpoint is radiological progression-free survival (rPFS1), according to PCWG3. Secondary endpoints include: overall survival, PCa specific survival, 1st symptomatic skeletal event (SSE), time to initiation of next systemic anti-neoplastic therapy, time to pain progression, health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L and BPI). Clinical trial information: NCT02194842.

Download Full-text

Application of ASCO Value Framework to Treatment Advances in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

JCO Oncology Practice ◽

10.1200/op.20.00558 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. OP.20.00558 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Emerson Y. Chen ◽

Madeline Cook ◽

Christopher Deig ◽

Asad Arastu ◽

Vinay Prasad ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Secondary Analysis ◽

Health Benefit ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Primary Analysis ◽

Free Survival ◽

Drug Registration ◽

Phase Iii Trials

BACKGROUND: Determination of the comparative efficacy of one therapy over another for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be challenging. Application of a recognized value framework to published studies could objectively compare the potential benefit across available therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An umbrella review of phase III trials for HCC therapies was performed. ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit Score version 2 (ASCO-NHB v2) scores, the primary analysis, and European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 scores, the secondary analysis, were computed using selected drug registration trials. Both scores were compared between drugs that were Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved by 2020 and those that were not. RESULTS: Of the 22 studies identified, nine were FDA-approved and 13 were not. Across 22 trials, the median overall survival (OS) was 9.2 months (range, 1.9-16.4 months), with a median gain of 0.35 month (range, 2.3-3.3 months). HCC therapies that were FDA-approved showed longer OS (median 10.7 v 7.9 months, P < .01) and higher ASCO NHB scores (+18.4 v −5.7 scores, P < .01). The median gain in OS was 2.2 months in the approved treatments compared with −0.3 months in the unapproved group, with no difference in progression-free survival between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The nine FDA-approved therapies for HCC have higher mean NHB score than those that were not FDA-approved. The application of ASCO-NHB v2 and other proposed value frameworks could examine data of future therapies for HCC through a patient-oriented approach.

Download Full-text

Randomized, Multicenter, Open-Label Study of Oxaliplatin Plus Fluorouracil/Leucovorin Versus Doxorubicin As Palliative Chemotherapy in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma From Asia

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2012.44.5643 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 31 (28) ◽

pp. 3501-3508 ◽

Cited By ~ 189

Author(s):

Shukui Qin ◽

Yuxian Bai ◽

Ho Yeong Lim ◽

Sumitra Thongprasert ◽

Yee Chao ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Palliative Chemotherapy ◽

Locally Advanced ◽

Local Treatment ◽

Progression Free Survival ◽

Final Analysis ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Open Label ◽

End Point

Purpose To determine whether FOLFOX4 (infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) administered as palliative chemotherapy to patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) provides a survival benefit and efficacy versus doxorubicin. Patients and Methods This multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase III study in mainland China, Taiwan, Korea, and Thailand involved 371 patients age 18 to 75 years who had locally advanced or metastatic HCC and were ineligible for curative resection or local treatment. They were randomly assigned at a ratio of one to one to receive either FOLFOX4 (n = 184) or doxorubicin (n = 187). The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR) by RECIST (version 1.0), and safety. Results At the prespecified final analysis, median OS was 6.40 months with FOLFOX4 (95% CI, 5.30 to 7.03) and 4.97 months with doxorubicin (95% CI, 4.23 to 6.03; P = .07; hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.02). Median PFS was 2.93 months with FOLFOX4 (95% CI, 2.43 to 3.53), and 1.77 months with doxorubicin (95% CI, 1.63 to 2.30; P < .001; HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.79). RR was 8.15% with FOLFOX4 and 2.67% with doxorubicin (P = .02). On continued follow-up, the trend toward increased OS with FOLFOX4 was maintained (P = .04; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.99). Toxicity was consistent with previous experiences with FOLFOX4; proportions of grade 3 to 4 adverse events were similar between treatments. Conclusion Although the study did not meet its primary end point, the trend toward improved OS with FOLFOX4, along with increased PFS and RR, suggests that this regimen may confer some benefit to Asian patients, but an OS benefit cannot be concluded from these data.

Download Full-text