scholarly journals Combined Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy and Immunotherapy Versus Transarterial Chemoembolization in Locally Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chi-Leung Chiang ◽  
Keith Wan-Hang Chiu ◽  
Francis Ann-Shing Lee ◽  
Feng-Ming Spring Kong ◽  
Albert Chi-Yan Chan
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Propensity Score Matching Analysis ◽  
Tertiary Center ◽  
Matching Pair

Immunotherapy has achieved modest clinical activity in HCC patients. Propensity score matching analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of combined stereotactic SBRT-IO versus TACE in patients with locally advanced HCC in a tertiary center of Hong Kong. Patients with locally advanced HCC who were medically inoperable for, refractory to, or refused to curative surgical interventions were eligible. The primary outcome was PFS; the secondary outcomes were OS, ORR as per mRECIST version 1.1, and TRAEs. Matching pair analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes. A total of 226 patients were eligible. Approximately 16 patients in the SBRT-IO group were matched with 48 patients treated with TACE. The median tumor size was 10 cm (range: 2.9–19.6 cm) and 20.3% of the patients had portal vein invasion. The 12- and 24-month PFS were significantly better in the SBRT-IO group (93.3% vs 16.7% and 77.8% vs 2.1%, respectively, p <0.001); the 12- and 24-month OS were also better in the SBRT-IO arm (93.8% vs 31.3% and 80.4% vs 8.3%, respectively, p <0.001). The ORR was 87.5% (CR: 50%, PR: 37.5%) in SBRT-IO arm compared to 16.7% (CR: 2.4%, PR: 14.3%) in those receiving TACE alone (p <0.001). There were fewer ≥grade 3 TRAE (60.4% vs 18.8%, p = 0.004) and treatment discontinuations (25% vs 12.5%, p = 0.295) due to adverse events in the SBRT-IO arm. SBRT-IO had significant superior survival and less treatment toxicity than TACE in patients with locally advanced HCC. Our results provide rationale for studying this combination therapy in prospective randomized trials.

scholarly journals Combined Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy and Immunotherapy Versus Transarterial Chemoembolisation in Locally Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chi-Leung Chiang ◽  
Keith Wan-Hang Chiu ◽  
Francis Ann-Shing Lee ◽  
Feng-Ming Spring Kong ◽  
Albert Chi-Yan Chan
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Tumour Size ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Clinical Activity ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Propensity Score Matching Analysis ◽  
Tertiary Centre

Abstract Immunotherapy has achieved modest clinical activity in HCC patients. Propensity score matching analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of combined stereotactic SBRT-IO versus TACE in patients with locally advanced HCC in a tertiary centre of Hong KongPatients with locally advanced HCC who were medically inoperable for, refractory to, or refused to curative surgical interventions were eligible. The primary outcome was PFS; the secondary outcomes were OS, ORR as per mRECIST version 1.1, and TRAEs. Matching pair analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes.A total of 226 patients were eligible. 16 patients in the SBRT-IO group were matched with 48 patients treated with TACE. The median tumour size was 10 cm (range: 2.9-19.6 cm) and 20.3% of the patients had portal vein invasion. The 12-month and 24-month PFS were significantly better in the SBRT-IO group (93.3% vs 16.7% and 77.8% vs 2.1%, respectively, p<0.001); the 12-month and 24-month OS were also better in the SBRT-IO arm (93.8% vs 31.3% and 80.4% vs 8.3%, respectively, p<0.001). The ORR was 87.5% (CR: 50%, PR: 37.5%) in SBRT-IO arm compared to 16.7% (CR: 2.4%, PR: 14.3%) in those receiving TACE alone (p<0.001). There were fewer ≥ grade 3 TRAE (60.4% vs 18.8%, p=0.004) and treatment discontinuations (25% vs 12.5%, p=0.295) due to adverse events in the SBRT-IO arm.SBRT-IO had significant superior survival and less treatment toxicity than TACE in patients with locally advanced HCC. Our results provide rationale for studying this combination therapy in prospective randomised trials.

Sorafenib versus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A Japanese multi-center large cohort study.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 323-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sadahisa Ogasawara ◽  
Kazuomi Ueshima ◽  
Masafumi Ikeda ◽  
Yutaka Yasui ◽  
Takeshi Terashima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Hepatic Arterial Infusion ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Arterial Infusion ◽  
Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Infusion Chemotherapy ◽  
Sorafenib Group

323 Background: Sorafenib, approved in Japan in 2009, is the first systemic therapy demonstrated to significantly improve overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In Japan, hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), which directly delivers high concentrations of cytotoxic agents to liver tumors, has been offered to patients with advanced HCC since before sorafenib was approved. HAIC is particularly used in patients without extrahepatic metastases (EHM). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with advanced HCC who received HAIC and sorafenib. Methods: Consecutive patients with advanced HCC who received sorafenib or HAIC as the first-line systemic therapy were enrolled from 10 Japanese centers. The statistical analysis plan included pre-defined propensity score matching method and risk factors. All statistical analyses were performed by an independent biostatistician. Results: Between June 2009 and May 2016, 2006 patients were enrolled (sorafenib: 1465 patients, HAIC: 541 patients). The mean OS of patients with macrovascular invasion (MVI) and without EHM was significant longer in the HAIC group compared with the sorafenib group. After propensity score matching, there were 172 patients in each cohort. The OS was 9.1 months for the sorafenib group and 10.1 months for the HAIC group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.668 [95% CI: 0.475–0.935], P = 0.018). There was no significant difference in OS between patients without both MVI and EHM. After propensity score matching, there were 76 patients in each cohort. The OS was 15.4 months for the sorafenib group and 12.2 months for the HAIC group (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.227 [95% CI: 0.699–2.155], P = 0.475). Conclusions: HAIC might be a potential initial treatment for patients with advanced HCC with MVI (without EHM). Currently, several new drugs appear clinically beneficial for patients with advanced HCC. Although this study only focused on sorafenib as the chemo-agent, additional studies should be conducted to confirm the benefits associated with HAIC in a limited population of patients with advanced HCC.

scholarly journals Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy versus Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Liver Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 583-595
Author(s):  
Kazuomi Ueshima ◽  
Sadahisa Ogasawara ◽  
Masafumi Ikeda ◽  
Yutaka Yasui ◽  
Takeshi Terashima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Hepatic Arterial Infusion ◽  
Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Arterial Infusion ◽  
Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Infusion Chemotherapy

Background: Prior to the approval of sorafenib, hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) was offered to patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in East Asia, particularly Japan. According to the Japanese guidelines, HAIC is recommended as one of the treatment options in patients without extrahepatic metastasis (EHM). Methods: The present cohort study compared the use of HAIC and sorafenib on outcomes of patients with advanced HCC. Consecutive patients with advanced HCC who received HAIC or sorafenib as a first-line systemic therapy were enrolled from 10 Japanese institutions. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) in patients with macrovascular invasion (MVI), but without EHM, and OS in patients without both MVI and EHM. Results: Between 2009 and 2016, 2,006 patients were enrolled (541 HAIC patients, 1,465 sorafenib patients). After propensity score matching, the OS of patients with MVI but without EHM was significantly longer in the HAIC group compared with the sorafenib group (10.1 vs. 9.1 months for the HAIC and sorafenib groups, respectively; n = 170 for each group; hazard ratio [HR] 0.668; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.475–0.935; p = 0.018). There was no significant difference in OS between patients without both MVI and EHM (12.2 vs. 15.4 months for the HAIC and sorafenib groups, respectively; n = 76 in each cohort after propensity score matching; HR 1.227; 95% CI 0.699–2.155; p = 0.475). Conclusion: HAIC is a potential front-line treatment choice in a subpopulation of patients with advanced HCC with MVI but without EHM.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document