Second‐line treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma after sorafenib: Characterizing treatments used over the past 10 years and real‐world eligibility for cabozantinib, regorafenib, and ramucirumab
Open Access
- 7 May 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Cancer Medicine
- Vol. 9 (13), 4640-4647
- https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3116
Abstract
Background The CELESTIAL, RESORCE, and REACH‐2 trials showed survival benefit of cabozantinib, regorafenib, and ramucirumab, respectively, in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated with sorafenib who had good performance status (ECOG 0‐1) and liver function (Child‐Pugh‐A). This study characterizes subsequent treatments received by HCC patients after sorafenib, and determines the proportion of patients eligible for novel therapies if strict eligibility criteria (SEC) were utilized compared to more liberal modified eligibility criteria (MEC, including ECOG 2, Child‐Pugh‐B7). Methods HCC patients who received sorafenib between 2008 and 2017 were included from the Canadian HCC CHORD Database. Patients were classified as eligible or ineligible based on available CELESTIAL, RESORCE, and REACH‐2 trial SEC or MEC. Median overall survival (mOS) was assessed using the Kaplan‐Meier method. Results A total of 730 patients were identified; and 172 (23.6%) received subsequent treatment. Patients who received subsequent treatment had longer mOS than those who did not (12.1 vs 3.3 months; P < .001). Using SEC, only 13.1% of patients would be eligible for cabozantinib, regorafenib, or ramucirumab. Expanding eligibility to include patients who meet MEC increased the proportion of eligible patients to 31.7%. Higher ineligibility for regorafenib and ramucirumab was driven by trial‐specific criteria, including sorafenib intolerance (28%) for RESORCE and AFP <400 (58.9%) for REACH‐2. Conclusions A small proportion of real‐world HCC patients would be eligible for cabozantinib, regorafenib, or ramucirumab if SEC in clinical trials were followed, while more than double would be eligible if MEC were applied. Patients who received subsequent treatment had improved mOS, regardless of whether they met SEC or MEC.Keywords
Funding Information
- Tom Baker Cancer Centre Clinical Research Unit Grant
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Regorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment (RESORCE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trialThe Lancet, 2016
- Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975‐2012, featuring the increasing incidence of liver cancerCancer, 2016
- Linifanib Versus Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Results of a Randomized Phase III TrialJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2015
- Sunitinib Versus Sorafenib in Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer: Results of a Randomized Phase III TrialJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2013
- Brivanib Versus Sorafenib As First-Line Therapy in Patients With Unresectable, Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Results From the Randomized Phase III BRISK-FL StudyJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2013
- Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Subanalyses of a phase III trialJournal of Hepatology, 2012
- Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma according to baseline status: Subset analyses of the phase III Sorafenib Asia–Pacific trialEuropean Journal of Cancer, 2012
- First interim analysis of the GIDEON (Global Investigation of therapeutic DEcisions in hepatocellular carcinoma and Of its treatment with sorafeNib) non-interventional studyInternational Journal of Clinical Practice, 2012
- Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trialThe Lancet Oncology, 2008
- Sorafenib in Advanced Hepatocellular CarcinomaThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2008