Dataset Information

Effectiveness of nivolumab versus regorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma patients who failed sorafenib treatment.

ABSTRACT:

Background/aims

Several treatment options are currently available for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) failing previous sorafenib treatment. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of regorafenib and nivolumab in these patients.

Methods

Consecutive HCC patients who received regorafenib or nivolumab after failure of sorafenib treatment were included. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints were time to progression, tumor response rate, and adverse events. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score was conducted to reduce treatment selection bias.

Results

Among 150 study patients, 102 patients received regorafenib and 48 patients received nivolumab. Median OS was 6.9 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0-10.8) months for regorafenib and 5.9 (95% CI, 3.7-8.1) months for nivolumab (P=0.77 by log-rank test). In multivariable analysis, nivolumab was associated with prolonged OS (vs. regorafenib: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30-0.96; P=0.04). Time to progression was not significantly different between groups (nivolumab vs. regorafenib: aHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.51-1.30; P=0.48). HRs were maintained after IPTW. Objective response rates were 5.9% and 16.7% in patients treated with regorafenib and nivolumab, respectively (P=0.04).

Conclusion

After sorafenib failure, the use of nivolumab may be associated with improved OS and better objective response rate as compared to using regorafenib.

SUBMITTER: Lee CH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7364358 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of nivolumab versus regorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma patients who failed sorafenib treatment.

Lee Cheol-Hyung CH Lee Yun Bin YB Kim Minseok Albert MA Jang Heejoon H Oh Hyunwoo H Kim Sun Woong SW Cho Eun Ju EJ Lee Kyung-Hun KH Lee Jeong-Hoon JH Yu Su Jong SJ Yoon Jung-Hwan JH Kim Tae-You TY Kim Yoon Jun YJ

Clinical and molecular hepatology 20200528 3

<h4>Background/aims</h4>Several treatment options are currently available for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) failing previous sorafenib treatment. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of regorafenib and nivolumab in these patients.<h4>Methods</h4>Consecutive HCC patients who received regorafenib or nivolumab after failure of sorafenib treatment were included. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints were time to progression, tumor response rate, and adver ...[more]

PMID: 32460459

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: Nivolumab improves overall survival (OS) and is associated with fewer adverse events than sorafenib for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab compared with sorafenib treatment for aHCC remains unclear. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and sorafenib in the treatment of aHCC. Materials and methods: A partitioned survival model that included three mutually exclusive health states was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nivolumab and sorafenib for treating aHCC. The clinical characteristics and outcomes of the patients in the model were obtained from the CheckMate 459. We performed deterministic one-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate the robustness of the model. Subgroup analyses were also performed. Costs, life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net health benefits (INHB), and incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) were measured. Results: The base case analysis showed that compared with sorafenib, treatment with nivolumab was associated with an increment of 0.50 (2.45 vs. 1.95) life-years and an increment of 0.32 (1.59 vs. 1.27) QALYs, as well as a $69,762 increase in cost per patient. The ICER was $220,864/QALY. The INHB and INMB were −0.15 QALYs and −$22,362 at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY, respectively. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the probability of nivolumab being cost-effective was only 10.38% at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. The model was most sensitive to the costs of sorafenib and nivolumab according to the one-way sensitivity analysis. When the price of sorafenib exceeded $0.93/mg or nivolumab was less than $24.23/mg, nivolumab was more cost-effective. The subgroup analysis illustrated that the probability of cost-effectiveness was >50% in the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage B subgroups for nivolumab at a WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. This study also showed that the probability of cost-effectiveness was <50% in most subgroups. Conclusion: Nivolumab was not cost-effective, although it was associated with better clinical benefit and a favorable safety profile for the treatment of aHCC compared with sorafenib from the third-party payer perspective in the United States. If the price of nivolumab is substantially reduced, favorable cost-effectiveness can be achieved among patients with aHCC.

Project description:BackgroundAt present, there is no standard for the posterior treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study isTo evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) combined with regorafenib and anti-PD-1 antibody with continued TACE combined with regorafenib in patients with HCC after the failure of second-line treatment with regorafenib.MethodsWe enrolled patients with advanced HCC who were treated with sorafenib and sequential regorafenib. All patients were treated with TACE and found to have tumor progression in 2021. After tumor progression, patients were treated with TACE combined with regorafenib and PD-1 antibody or with continued TACE combined with regorafenib according to the wishes of the patient. Efficacy was evaluated after 1 month of treatment. The objective response rate (ORR), disease-control rate (DCR), and safety were evaluated according to adverse reactions of patients.ResultsNine patients were treated with TACE combined with regorafenib and PD-1 antibody, and the 9 patients continued to receive TACE combined with regorafenib. There was no significant difference in baseline data between the 2 groups. In the PD-1 group five patients achieved a partial response (PR), three achieved stable disease (SD), and one patient had progressive disease (PD) after 1 month of treatment. The ORR was 55.6% and the DCR was 88.9%. In the continued TACE-regorafenib group, four patients achieved PR, one achieved SD, and four patients achieved PD after 1 month of treatment, while the ORR was 44.4% and the DCR was 55.6%. There was a significant difference in the DCR between the two groups (P=0.012), while adverse events were similar in both.ConclusionsTACE combined with regorafenib and PD-1 antibody had a higher DCR and was more effective than continued TACE combined with regorafenib in patients with HCC who failed second-line treatment with regorafenib. However, PD-1 antibody therapy might increase the risk of death by causing an uncontrollable immune response. Given the risk of an immune response, patients may choose to continue TACE combined with regorafenib, given the similar ORR of the two treatments.

Project description:Background Lenvatinib, regorafenib and anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) immunotherapy have shown promising clinical outcomes in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after sorafenib failure, respectively. However, the combination of the two treatments has not been reported. We compared the efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors with lenvatinib (PL) and PD-1 inhibitors plus regorafenib (PR) in patients with advanced HCC in this study. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of advanced HCC patients who undergone PD-1 inhibitors combined with lenvatinib or regorafenib after failure of sorafenib at Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from July 2018 and December 2020. The overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), effective rates and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were investigated. Results In total, 61 patients met the criteria and were included in the present study, and they were divided into the PL group (n = 32) and PR group (n = 29). The overall response rate (ORR) (12.5%vs. 10.3%, respectively; p = 0.557) and disease control rate (DCR) (71.9%vs. 58.6%, respectively; p < 0.207) were higher in the PL group than in the PR group, but there was no statistical difference. Furthermore, median PFS and OS were not significantly different between the two groups in Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (PFS: 5.3 months vs 4.0 months, p = 0.512; OS: 14.1 months vs 13.7 months, p = 0.764 for the PL group vs PR group). The most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were hand -foot skin reaction (24/61,39.3%), hypertension (20/61,32.8%) and hypothyroidism (13/61,21.3%). The frequent TRAEs (≥Grade 3) during PD-1 inhibitors plus lenvatinib or regorafenib treatment were hand-foot skin reaction (5/29,12.4%), thrombocytopenia (2/29 6.90%) and proteinuria (n =2/32,6.25%). Conclusions Combination of lenvatinib/regorafenib and PD-1 inhibitors is a promising therapy for HCC patients after sorafenib failure.

Project description:On March 10, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with sorafenib. The recommended approved dosage was nivolumab 1 mg/kg i.v. plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by nivolumab 240 mg i.v. every 2 weeks. The approval was based on data from cohort 4 of CheckMate 040, which randomized patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HCC previously treated with or who were intolerant to sorafenib to receive one of three different dosing regimens of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab. Investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) was the primary endpoint, and ORR assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) was an exploratory endpoint. BICR-assessed ORR and duration of response (DoR) form the primary basis of the FDA's regulatory decision, and BICR-assessed ORR was comparable in all three arms at 31%-32% with 95% confidence interval [CI] 18%-47%. The DoR ranged from 17.5 to 22.2 months across the three arms, with overlapping 95% CIs. Adverse events (AEs) were generally consistent with the known AE profiles of nivolumab and ipilimumab, and no new safety events were identified. This article summarizes the FDA review of the data supporting the approval of nivolumab and ipilimumab for the treatment of HCC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy is another option for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who experience radiographic progression during or after sorafenib or sorafenib intolerance. No new toxicities were identified, but, as expected, increased toxicity was observed with the addition of ipilimumab to nivolumab as compared with nivolumab alone, which is also approved for the same indication. Whether to administer nivolumab as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab is expected to be a joint decision between the oncologist and patient, taking into consideration the potential for a higher likelihood of response and the potentially higher rate of toxicity with the combination.

Project description:BackgroundPhase III trials show sorafenib improves survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Because of narrow trial eligibility, results may not be generalizable to a broader HCC population. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of initial sorafenib versus no treatment among Medicare beneficiaries with advanced HCC.Materials and methodsPatients with advanced HCC diagnosed from 2008 to 2011 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database. Eligible patients received initial sorafenib or no therapy and were covered by Medicare parts A, B, and D. Sorafenib use and outcomes were described in this population. Using a propensity score (PS)-matched sample, we compared the effectiveness of sorafenib versus no treatment by Cox proportional hazards and binomial regression, using a landmark requiring all patients to survive ≥60 days after diagnosis.ResultsOf 1,532 patients, 27% received initial sorafenib. Median duration of sorafenib use was 60 days (interquartile range [IQR], 30-107 days), and median survival from first prescription was 3 months (IQR, 1-8 months). In the PS-matched cohort, median survival was 3 months from the 60-day landmark in sorafenib-treated (n = 223) and 2 months in untreated (n = 223) patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.95 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.78-1.16]). Sorafenib was associated with a nonsignificant reduction in mortality at 3 months (44% versus 51%; adjusted risk ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.72-1.07]), but no reduction thereafter.ConclusionSurvival after sorafenib initiation in newly diagnosed Medicare beneficiaries with HCC is exceptionally short, suggesting trial results are not generalizable to all HCC patients. The downsides of sorafenib use-high drug-related symptom burden and high drug cost-must be considered in light of this minimal benefit.Implications for practiceThe findings of a median survival of only 3 months in Medicare beneficiaries with HCC prescribed sorafenib as first-line therapy highlight the questionable value of sorafenib in this population. Patients should be cautioned that outside of the narrow confines of randomized trials, their life expectancy may be very short, and any benefit of sorafenib is likely to be quite small. Given that sorafenib causes considerable adverse effects and offers no symptom palliation, supportive care should be discussed as a reasonable alternative to sorafenib, particularly for patients who have a poor performance status or advanced cirrhosis.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of nivolumab versus regorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma patients who failed sorafenib treatment.

Background/aims

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Effectiveness of nivolumab versus regorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma patients who failed sorafenib treatment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets