Efficacy and Safety of Radiotherapy Plus Anti-PD1 Versus Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization Plus Sorafenib For Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a Real-World Study

Background: The combination of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus sorafenib prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) than sorafenib or TACE monotherapy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study assessed the efficacy and safety of radiotherapy (RT) plus monoclonal antibody against programmed cell death 1 (anti-PD1) versus TACE plus sorafenib for patients with advanced HCC.Methods: Patients with advanced HCC who treated with RT plus anti-PD1 and TACE plus sorafenib were enrolled. Objective response rate (ORR), PFS, disease control rate (DCR) and OS were calculated to assess the antitumor response and the treatment-related adverse events to the safety.Results: Between January 2018 to March 2021, 37 patients underwent RT plus anti-PD1 and 41 patients underwent TACE plus sorafenib. The baseline characteristics between the two groups were comparable. The ORR and DCR were significantly higher in the RT+PD1 group than the TACE plus sorafenib group according to RECIST 1.1 (54.05% vs 12.20%, P < 0.001; 70.27% vs 46.37%, P = 0.041; respectively) and according to mRECIST (56.76% vs 31.71%, P = 0.039; 70.27% vs 46.37%, P = 0.041; respectively). RT plus anti-PD1 provided significantly better PFS (HR, 0.51; 95% CI 0.30-0.86; p=0.017) than TACE plus sorafenib. Moreover, patients with RT plus anti-PD1 had significantly higher 3-, 6-, and 9-month OS rates than those with TACE plus sorafenib(97.3% vs 92.30%, P < 0.001; 91.89% vs 68.60%, P < 0.001; 75.5% vs 60.60%, P < 0.001; respectively). The median OS was more favorable 17.4 months for the RT+PD1 group and 11.9 months for the TACE plus sorafenib group. No treatment-related death was observed. Grade 3 or more treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred significantly less in patients in the RT+PD1 group than the TACE plus sorafenib group (29.7% vs 75.6%, p < 0.001), and all TRAEs were manageable.Conclusions: In this real-world study, RT plus anti-PD1 showed significantly promising efficacy and manageable safety than TACE plus sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC. Toxicities were manageable, with no unexpected safety signals. The study provides evidence on a new therapeutic method in the treatment of advanced HCC.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Portal Vein Tumor Thrombus Treated With Transarterial Chemoembolization and Sorafenib vs.125Iodine Implantation

Background and AimsThis study investigated the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) combined with CT-guided 125iodine seed implantation for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with first-branch portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT).MethodsThis prospective, controlled, multicenter study included HCC patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C disease and PVTT in the right and/or left portal veins. Patients were treated with either TACE and sorafenib or TACE and CT-guided 125iodine seed implantation and regularly evaluated for clinical response and adverse events, with treatment termination resulting from declining clinical status, loss to follow-up, or death.ResultsThis study demonstrated a significant between-group difference in median overall survival (OS); therefore, it was terminated early. A total of 123 patients were included in this study, with 52 patients in the TACE-sorafenib group and 71 patients in the TACE-125iodine group, without significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. The median OS was 8.3 months (95% CI: 6.105–10.495) in the TACE-sorafenib group and 13.8 months (95% CI: 9.519–18.081) in the TACE-125iodine group. In a subgroup analysis of type IIa versus type IIb PVTT, the median OS was 17.5 months for type IIa and 7.1 months for IIb in the TACE-125iodine group. The median OS was 9.3 months for IIa and 4.0 months for IIb in the TACE-sorafenib group. Univariate and multivariate analyses confirmed that the PVTT type and treatment strategy were significant independent factors affecting OS. The objective response rates (ORR) for intrahepatic lesions and PVTT showed significant differences between groups. Most patients in both groups experienced minor adverse events related to TACE. The overall incidence of sorafenib-related adverse events or toxic effects was 90.4% in TACE-sorafenib group. In the TACE-125iodine group, the incidence of pneumothorax and minor hepatic subcapsular hemorrhage were 7.04% and 9.86%, respectively.ConclusionsThis study showed that TACE-125iodine treatment significantly enhanced survival of patients with HCC and type II PVTT, especially subtype IIa, with minimal adverse events.Clinical Trial RegistrationChinese Clinical Trials Database, identifier ChiCTR-ONN-16007929.

Impact of Concomitant Genetic Abnormalities on Sorafenib Therapy in FLT3-ITD Positive Acute Myeloid Leukemia Undergoing Allo-HSCT

Aim In this study, we investigated the co-occurring mutation landscape in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients with FLT3 internal tandem duplication (FLT3-ITD), and explored whether post-allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) sorafenib maintenance therapy could improve the outcomes of FLT3-ITD AML patients combined with other co-occurring genetic abnormalities. Methods A total of 456 FLT3-ITD AML patients receiving first allo-HSCT were included in this study. Gene mutations were detected using direct sequencing or next generation sequencing. Fusion genes were detected using a 53-gene polymerase chain reaction panel. The frequency of each genetic abnormality was investigated, and the mutation landscape was investigated. The primary outcome of this study was 3-year cumulative incidence of relapse. The secondary outcomes were 3-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and non-relapse mortality (NRM). The outcomes were compared between patients who received post-HSCT sorafenib maintenance and those who did not in the whole population and in subgroups referring to co-occurring mutations. Results A total of 190 patients received post transplantation sorafenib maintenance therapy (sorafenib group) and 266 patients did not (control group). Of the patients receiving sorafenib pre-transplantation, the median duration of sorafenib therapy was 106 days (IQR 68 - 132) in the sorafenib group, and 99 days (IQR 71 - 142) in the control group (p = 0.883). Of the patients receiving post-transplantation sorafenib maintenance therapy, sorafenib was initiated at a median of 30 days (IQR, 30 - 52 days) after allo-HSCT, and continued for a median of 148 days (IQR, 112 - 150). Median follow-up time was 38.7 months (IQR, 28.1 - 47.9). Thirty-four patients in the sorafenib group and 93 patients in the control group relapsed. The 3-year cumulative incidence of relapse was 18.0% (95% CI 13.1% - 24.3%) in the sorafenib group and 36.1% (95% CI 30.5% - 42.3%) in the control group (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29 - 0.64; p &lt; 0.001). A total of 126 patients died, including 39 in the sorafenib group and 87 in the control group. Three-year DFS was 75.8% in the sorafenib group and 57.5% in the control group (HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.34 - 0.66; p &lt; 0.001). Three-year OS was 79.5% for patients in the sorafenib group and 68.4% for patients in the control group (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 - 0.83, p = 0.004). Gene mutations were detected using a 12-mutation panel direct sequencing including FLT3-ITD, FLT3-TKD, NPM1, KIT, DNMT3A, CEBPA, ASXL1, TP53, TET2, IDH1, IDH2 and RUNX1 in all patients, and a 127-gene panel new generation sequencing in 188 patients. Except FLT3, a total of 920 co-occurring gene mutations and 147 cytogenetic abnormalties were detected. The co-occurring mutations that presented in at least 10% the cases were NPM1 (31.6%), DNMT3A (15.4%), TET2 (11.4%), and CEBPA (10.5%). There were 10.5% patients presented with both NPM1 and DNMT3A mutations (Triple-mutated AML patients), and 13.8% patients combined with at least one additional genetic abnormality classified as adverse according to the 2017 ELN risk stratification other than FLT3-ITD. Cytogenetic abnormalities presented in more than 1% the patients were RUNX1-RUNX1T1, which occurred in 23 patients (5.0%), followed by +8 (2.9%), complex karyotype (2.6%), CBFB-MYH11 (2.4%), DEK-NUP214 (1.3%) and -y (1.3%). Patients combined with NPM1(p = 0.009 and 0.009), DNMT3A (p = 0.036 and 0.086), triple-mutated AML patients (p = 0.030 and 0.027), and patients with at least one additional adverse abnormality (p = 0.014 and 0.005) benefit significantly in DFS and OS from post-transplantation sorafenib maintenance, but not those with CEBPA (p = 0.669 and 0.576) or TET2 (p = 0.375 and 0.178) mutations. Conclusion Post transplantation sorafenib maintenance therapy can improve the prognosis of FLT3-ITD AML patients combined with DNMT3A or NPM1, patients with triple-mutated AML, and patients combined with at least one additional adverse abnormalities, but not of those combined with CEBPA or TET2 mutations. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Association Between Adjuvant Sorafenib and the Prognosis of Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma at a High Risk of Recurrence After Radical Resection

BackgroundThe use of sorafenib in the adjuvant management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is controversial.AimTo analyze the effects of adjuvant sorafenib therapy in patients with HCC at high recurrence risk after radical resection.MethodsThis was a retrospective study of patients who underwent radical resection (R0 resection) for HCC at the Cancer Hospital of Tianjin Medical University between August 2009 and August 2017. All patients had microvascular invasion and were evaluated for portal vein tumor thrombus. The outcomes were overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and survival after recurrence. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used.ResultsBefore matching, there were 56 and 167 patients in the sorafenib and non-sorafenib groups. After PSM, there were 42 patients/group, and there were no significant differences in patient characteristics (all P&gt;0.05). After PSM, compared with the non-sorafenib group, the sorafenib group showed longer median OS (34 vs. 26 months, P=0.032) and survival after recurrence (16 vs. 9 months, P=0.002), but no difference in RFS (14 vs. 11 months, P=0.564). Adjuvant sorafenib was the only factor independently associated with OS (HR=0.619, 95% CI: 0377–0.994, P=0.047). No factors were independently associated with RFS (all P&gt;0.05).ConclusionAlthough adjuvant sorafenib therapy for patients with HCC and high recurrence risk does not reduce the recurrence risk of HCC, it might be associated with longer survival and a lower risk of death.

A change in the timing for starting systemic therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma : the comparison of sorafenib and lenvatinib as the first-line treatment

Aim : The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to evaluate the differences in the timing for starting systemic therapies as the first-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods : A total of 375 patients with HCC treated with sorafenib from May 2009 to March 2018 and 56 patients treated with lenvatinib from March 2018 to November 2018 at our affiliated hospitals were included in this study. Results : The median ages of the sorafenib and lenvatinib groups were 71.0 (interquartile range [IQR] : 64.0-77.0) and 73.5 (IQR : 68.0 -80.0) years old, and 300 (80.0%) and 42 (75.0%) patients were men, respectively. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage was early, intermediate and advanced in 39 patients (10.4%), 133 patients (35.5%) and 203 patients (54.1%) in the sorafenib group and 1 patient (1.8%), 17 patients (30.4%) and 38 patients (67.9%)in the lenvatinib group, respectively. In the analysis of intermediate HCC, patients who satisfied the criteria of TACE failure/refractoriness(P=0.017), those with ALBI grade 1 (P=0.040), and those with a serum AFP level <200 ng/ml (P=0.027)were found more frequently in the lenvatinib group than in the sorafenib group, with statistical significance. The objective response rate (ORR) of lenvatinib was 34.8% in the overall patients and 46.7%in the intermediate-stage HCC patients, which was significantly higher than sorafenib (P=0.001, P=0.017). Conclusions : The emergence of lenvatinib has encouraged physicians to start systemic chemotherapy earlier in intermediate-stage HCC patients.

A Real-World Comparative Analysis of Lenvatinib and Sorafenib as a Salvage Therapy for Transarterial Treatments in Unresectable HCC

Background/Aims: Lenvatinib was recently approved as a first-line oral multikinase inhibitor for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable HCC in patients with prior failure of transarterial treatment. Methods: Between January 2019 and September 2020, 98 unresectable HCC patients treated with lenvatinib or sorafenib as salvage therapy were enrolled from five Korean university-affiliated hospitals. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate were calculated to assess the antitumor response. Results: A total of 43 and 55 patients were treated with lenvatinib and sorafenib, respectively, as salvage therapy after the failure of transarterial treatments. The median PFS was 4.97 months in the lenvatinib group and 2.47 months in the sorafenib group (p = 0.001, log-rank test). The ORR was significantly higher in the lenvatinib group (25.6%) than in the sorafenib group (3.6%, p = 0.002). Use of lenvatinib over sorafenib (hazard ratio: 0.359, 95% confidence interval: 0.203–0.635, p < 0.001) was the most significant factor for a favorable PFS after the failure of transarterial treatments in all enrolled patients. For favorable OS, achieving objective response was the significant factor (hazard ratio 0.356, 95% confidence interval: 0.132–0.957, p = 0.041). There were no significant differences in the safety profile between the two groups. Conclusions: In this real-world study, lenvatinib was demonstrated to be more efficacious than sorafenib as a salvage therapy for transarterial treatments in unresectable HCC.

Real-Life Experience of Sorafenib Maintenance after Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation for FLT3-ITD AML Reveals High Rates of Toxicity-Related Treatment Interruption

Introduction: FLT3-Internal Tandem Duplication (FLT3-ITD) mutations of the gene encoding the FLT3 tyrosine kinase receptor are found in 25-30% of AML patients and are associated with a poor prognosis despite intensive chemotherapy and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). FLT3 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) significantly improve survival of FLT3 mutated AML patients in large prospective trials (Stone, NEJM 2017; doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1614359). Post-HSCT maintenance with sorafenib - a broad-spectrum TKI with strong activity against FLT3 - was recently shown to reduce the risk of relapse and improve survival in the phase II SORMAIN trial (Burchert, JCO 2020; doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.03345). Importantly, clinical trials reported a low rate of toxicities requiring sorafenib discontinuation (Chen et al, BBMT 2014;doi: 10.1016/j.bbmt.2014.09.007; Burchert et al., J Clin Oncol. 2020; doi: 10.1200/JCO.19.03345). The aim of our single-center retrospective analysis was to evaluate the real-life experience in patients treated with post-allogeneic HSCT sorafenib maintenance therapy for FLT3-ITD AML with a particular focus on tolerability and toxicity-related treatment interruption. Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective study on 33 FLT3-ITD AML patients undergoing allogeneic HSCT in complete remission between 2013 and 2020, including 20 patients who received sorafenib maintenance and 13 who did not. Sorafenib was started at hematologic reconstitution at 200 mg BID and increased at 400 mg BID after a week in case of good tolerance. Treatment was maintained until two years if tolerated. In case of toxicity, the drug was either reduced to 200mg BID, or stopped. Among the 13 patients in the untreated group, 8 were transplanted between 2013 and 2016 before we started to routinely use sorafenib maintenance, and 5 were transplanted in 2017 or later. Among the latter, sorafenib maintenance was not started because of aGVHD and insufficient hematologic reconstitution (n=3), low-allelic ratio of FLT3-ITD (n=1), early death due to PTLD (n=1). Results: In the sorafenib group (n=20), median time from transplant to sorafenib initiation was 68 days (range 40-213). Overall, 16 patients (80%) experienced toxicities leading to dose reduction (4 patients, 20%) or interruption (12 patients, 60%). In these patients, the average time on sorafenib before toxicity occurrence was 98 days (range 1-717; only one patient stopped treatment after 1 day because of severe diarrhea). Most common toxicities were skin (7, grade II), gastrointestinal (5, grade II), and hematologic (5, grade II and III). One patient experienced uveitis (grade III) and pneumonia (grade IV), both resolutive after sorafenib interruption. One patient experienced severe hypertension (grade III), 1 had hepatitis (grade III) and another one a PRESS syndrome (grade IV) possibly related to sorafenib. Other causes of sorafenib interruption included FLT3-ITD negative relapse in 1 patient, relapse in 1 patient, and end of scheduled maintenance in 1 patient. Among the 12 patients who interrupted sorafenib because of toxicities, 3 patients were re-challenged with good tolerance in 2 cases, while 7 were switched to midostaurine. Among these 7, 4 completed the 2-y treatment and 3 interrupted midostaurine because of toxicities (2 patients experienced digestive intolerance and 1 pneumonia). The average time of sorafenib exposure in the whole sorafenib group was 180 days (range 1-765). Importantly, the analysis of patients' outcome confirmed the previously reported positive impact of sorafenib maintenance on overall survival (Figure 1B) despite high rates of treatment interruption. Conclusion: Our real-life analysis reveals higher rates of toxicity-related interruption of sorafenib maintenance after allogeneic HSCT than previously reported in clinical trials. Interestingly, our results confirm the favorable impact of sorafenib maintenance on clinical outcome despite a high rate of toxicity-related treatment interruption, suggesting the feasibility of switching to other maintenance approaches in case of low tolerability. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare. OffLabel Disclosure: sorafenib as a maintenance treatment to prevent FLT3-ITD mutated AML reccurence after allogeneic transplantation

Efficacy and safety of lenvatinib versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis

Background Although sorafenib was recommended as a first-line systemic therapy to prolong overall survival time in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), two randomized phase 3 noninferiority trials demonstrated that lenvatinib was noninferior to sorafenib in unresectable HCC. Methods This study included three trials containing 1462 patients identified by a database search using standard terms. We conducted the data analysis in Review Manager version 5.3 software. Results The outcomes showed that there were nonsignificant differences in OS of 6, 12, 18, 30 and 36 months, PFS of 18, 24, 30 and 36 months and AEs (grade < 3) between the lenvatinib group and the sorafenib group, and there were significant differences in OS of 24 months (p = 0.01), PFS of 6 (p < 0.00001) and 12 (p < 0.00001) months, ORR (p < 0.00001) and DCR (p < 0.00001) between the lenvatinib group and the sorafenib group. Conclusions Lenvatinib was not superior to sorafenib in terms of OS and AEs, and lenvatinib was superior to sorafenib in terms of secondary endpoints, including PFS, ORR and DCR, in unresectable HCC.

Sorafenib is more effective in the treatment of TACE-refractory hepatocellular carcinoma than hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy: a meta-analysis

Background: Currently, several studies have compared the efficacy of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) and sorafenib in the treatment of TACE-refractory hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the conclusion is inconsistent. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the effectiveness of sorafenib and HAIC in patients with TACE-refractory HCC.Methods Multi-databases were searched to identify relevant studies published from inception to March 2020. The quality evaluation and data extraction were carried out for the selected articles meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data was analyzed using STATA16.Results Five studies with 583 patients were included. Although the objective response rate in the HAIC group was significantly higher than that in the sorafenib group (RR = 3.08, 95%CI [1.38, 6.87], p=0.006), the overall survival (OS) was significantly shorter than that in the patients receiving sorafenib treatment (HR = 1.69, 95% CI [1.09, 2.62], p=0.018). Progression-free survival (HR = 1.21, 95% CI [0.76, 1.92], p=0.426) and disease control rate (RR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.60, 1.48], p=0.798) were not significantly different between the two groups.Conclusion Compared with HAIC, patients with TACE- refractory HCC in the sorafenib group can obtain significantly longer OS. Sorafenib may be more suitable for the treatment of patients with TACE-refractory HCC. High-quality evidence is needed.

Transarterial Infusion of Epirubicin and Cisplatin Combined With Systemic Infusion of 5-Flurouracil Versus Sorafenib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Refractoriness of Transarterial Chemoembolization Using Doxorubicin

Transarterial chemoembolization using doxorubicin (TACE-DOX) is an effective therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, there are limited options for patients with TACE refractoriness. We compared the effectiveness between sorafenib and transarterial chemolipiodolization using epirubicin and cisplatin combined with systemic infusion of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU; TACL-ECF) in patients with previous TACE-DOX refractoriness. We retrospectively analyzed 742 consecutively enrolled cohort patients who received TACE-DOX as the first-line therapy for HCC. Among the 94 patients who failed with TACE-DOX, 49 patients were treated with TACL-ECF and 45 patients were treated with sorafenib as a rescue therapy. The TACL-ECF regimen comprised transarterial infusion of epirubicin and cisplatin combined with systemic infusion of 5-FU. Of the 94 patients, 22 and 72 patients were in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stages B and C, respectively; 66% patients were classified as having Child-Pugh class A (CPC A). Overall survival (OS) after rescue therapy did not differ between the sorafenib and TACL-ECF groups (4.1 months vs 6.4 months, P = .355). Progression-free survival (PFS) did not differ between the sorafenib and TACL-ECF groups (2.8 months vs 3.5 months, P = .629). Adverse events of CTC grade 3/4 occurred more frequently in the sorafenib group than in the TACL-ECF group ( P = .024). The present study showed that the OS and PFS did not differ between patients given rescue TACL-ECF therapy and those given sorafenib therapy. The TACL-ECF treatment was better tolerated than sorafenib. The TACL-ECF might be considered as an alternative therapy for the patients with TACE-DOX refractoriness, especially CPC B and sorafenib-intolerant patients.