Jean Luc Raoul

Sorafenib in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND No effective systemic therapy exists for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. A preliminary study suggested that sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, the platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and Raf may be effective in hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS In this multicenter, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 602 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who had not received previous systemic treatment to receive either sorafenib (at a dose of 400 mg twice daily) or placebo. Primary outcomes were overall survival and the time to symptomatic progression. Secondary outcomes included the time to radiologic progression and safety. RESULTS At the second planned interim analysis, 321 deaths had occurred, and the study was stopped. Median overall survival was 10.7 months in the sorafenib group and 7.9 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the sorafenib group, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.87; P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the median time to symptomatic progression (4.1 months vs. 4.9 months, respectively, P=0.77). The median time to radiologic progression was 5.5 months in the sorafenib group and 2.8 months in the placebo group (P<0.001). Seven patients in the sorafenib group (2%) and two patients in the placebo group (1%) had a partial response; no patients had a complete response. Diarrhea, weight loss, hand-foot skin reaction, and hypophosphatemia were more frequent in the sorafenib group. CONCLUSIONS In patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, median survival and the time to radiologic progression were nearly 3 months longer for patients treated with sorafenib than for those given placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00105443.)

Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: subanalyses of a phase III trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS The Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) Assessment Randomized Protocol (SHARP) trial demonstrated that sorafenib improves overall survival and is safe for patients with advanced HCC. In this trial, 602 patients with well-preserved liver function (>95% Child-Pugh A) were randomized to receive either sorafenib 400mg or matching placebo orally b.i.d. on a continuous basis. Because HCC is a heterogeneous disease, baseline patient characteristics may affect individual responses to treatment. In a comprehensive series of exploratory subgroup analyses, data from the SHARP trial were analyzed to discern if baseline patient characteristics influenced the efficacy and safety of sorafenib. METHODS Five subgroup domains were assessed: disease etiology, tumor burden, performance status, tumor stage, and prior therapy. Overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), disease control rate (DCR), and safety were assessed for subgroups within each domain. RESULTS Subgroup analyses showed that sorafenib consistently improved median OS compared with placebo, as reflected by hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.50-0.85, similar to the complete cohort (HR=0.69). Sorafenib also consistently improved median TTP (HR, 0.40-0.64), except in HBV-positive patients (HR, 1.03), and DCR. Results are limited by small patient numbers in some subsets. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events included diarrhea, hand-foot skin reaction, and fatigue; the incidence of which did not differ appreciably among subgroups. CONCLUSIONS These exploratory subgroup analyses showed that sorafenib consistently improved median OS and DCR compared with placebo in patients with advanced HCC, irrespective of disease etiology, baseline tumor burden, performance status, tumor stage, and prior therapy.

Brivanib Versus Sorafenib As First-Line Therapy in Patients With Unresectable, Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Results From the Randomized Phase III BRISK-FL Study

PURPOSE Brivanib is a dual inhibitor of vascular-endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor receptors that are implicated in the pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Our multinational, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial compared brivanib with sorafenib as first-line treatment for HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS Advanced HCC patients who had no prior systemic therapy were randomly assigned (ratio, 1:1) to receive sorafenib 400 mg twice daily orally (n = 578) or brivanib 800 mg once daily orally (n = 577). Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) based on modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST), and safety. RESULTS The primary end point of OS noninferiority for brivanib versus sorafenib in the per-protocol population (n = 1,150) was not met (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95.8% CI, 0.93 to 1.22), based on the prespecified margin (upper CI limit for HR ≤ 1.08). Median OS was 9.9 months for sorafenib and 9.5 months for brivanib. TTP, ORR, and DCR were similar between the study arms. Most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events for sorafenib and brivanib were hyponatremia (9% and 23%, respectively), AST elevation (17% and 14%), fatigue (7% and 15%), hand-foot-skin reaction (15% and 2%), and hypertension (5% and 13%). Discontinuation as a result of adverse events was 33% for sorafenib and 43% for brivanib; rates for dose reduction were 50% and 49%, respectively. CONCLUSION Our study did not meet its primary end point of OS noninferiority for brivanib versus sorafenib. However, both agents had similar antitumor activity, based on secondary efficacy end points. Brivanib had an acceptable safety profile, but was less well-tolerated than sorafenib.

Evolving strategies for the management of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: available evidence and expert opinion on the use of transarterial chemoembolization.

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is considered the gold standard for treating intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, intermediate-stage HCC includes a heterogeneous population of patients with varying tumour burdens, liver function (Child-Pugh A or B) and disease aetiology. This suggests that not all patients with intermediate-stage HCC will derive similar benefit from TACE, and that some patients may benefit from other treatment options. Results of an extensive literature review into the treatment of unresectable HCC with TACE were combined with our own clinical experience to identify factors that may predict survival after TACE. We also report contraindications to TACE and propose a treatment algorithm for the repetition of TACE. In addition, we have constructed a number of expert opinions that may be used as a guide to help physicians make treatment decisions for their patients with intermediate-stage HCC. The data included in the literature review related almost exclusively to conventional TACE, rather than to TACE with drug-eluting beads. Therefore, the findings and conclusions of the literature review are only applicable to the treatment of HCC with conventional TACE. Treating physicians may want to consider other treatment options for patients with intermediate-stage HCC who are not suitable for or do not respond to TACE. By distinguishing those patients who represent good candidates for TACE from those where little or no benefit might be expected, it may be possible to make better use of current treatment options and improve outcomes for patients.

Heterogeneity of Patients with Intermediate (BCLC B) Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Proposal for a Subclassification to Facilitate Treatment Decisions

The intermediate stage of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) comprises a highly heterogeneous patient population and therefore poses unique challenges for therapeutic management, different from the early and advanced stages. Patients classified as having intermediate HCC by the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system present with varying tumor burden and liver function. Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is currently recommended as the standard of care in this setting, but there is considerable variation in the clinical benefit patients derive from this treatment.In April 2012, a panel of experts convened to discuss unresolved issues surrounding the application of current guidelines when managing patients with intermediate HCC. The meeting explored the applicability of a subclassification system for intermediate HCC patients to tailor therapeutic interventions based on the evidence available to date and expert opinion. The present report summarizes the proposal of the expert panel: four substages of intermediate HCC patients, B1 to B4.

Individual Fluorouracil Dose Adjustment Based on Pharmacokinetic Follow-Up Compared With Conventional Dosage: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Trial of Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE A phase III, multicenter, randomized study compared conventional dosing of fluorouracil (FU) plus folinic acid with pharmacokinetically guided FU dose adjustment in terms of response, tolerability, and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS Two hundred eight patients with measurable metastatic colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to one of two arms: arm A (104 patients; 96 assessable), in which the FU dose was calculated based on body-surface area; and arm B (104 patients; 90 assessable), in which the FU dose was individually determined using pharmacokinetically guided adjustments. The initial regimen was 1,500 mg/m(2) FU plus 200 mg/m(2) folinic acid infusion during a continuous 8-hour period administered once weekly. FU doses were adjusted weekly in arm B based on a single-point measurement of FU plasma concentrations at steady state until the therapeutic range (targeted area under the curve 20-25 mg x h x L(-1)) previously established in other studies was reached. RESULTS An intent-to-treat analysis of the 208 patients showed the objective response rate was 18.3% in arm A and 33.7% in arm B (P = .004). Median overall survival was 16 months in arm A and 22 months in arm B (P = .08). The mean FU dose throughout treatment was 1,500 mg/m(2)/wk in arm A and 1,790 +/- 386 mg/m(2)/wk (range, 900 to 3,300 mg/m(2)/wk) in arm B. Toxic adverse effects were significantly more frequent and severe in arm A compared with arm B (P = .003). CONCLUSION Individual FU dose adjustment based on pharmacokinetic monitoring resulted in significantly improved objective response rate, a trend to higher survival rate, and fewer grade 3/4 toxicities. These results support the value of pharmacokinetically guided management of FU dose in the treatment of metastatic colorectal patients.

Randomized Multicenter Phase II Trial of a Biweekly Regimen of Fluorouracil and Leucovorin (LV5FU2), LV5FU2 Plus Cisplatin, or LV5FU2 Plus Irinotecan in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Gastric Cancer: A Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive Group Study—FFCD 9803

PURPOSE To determine the efficacy and safety of a biweekly regimen of leucovorin (LV) plus fluorouracil (FU) alone or in combination with cisplatin or irinotecan in patients with previously untreated metastatic gastric adenocarcinoma and to select the best arm for a phase III study. PATIENTS AND METHODS One hundred thirty-six patients (two were ineligible) were enrolled onto the randomized multicenter phase II trial. Patients received LV 200 mg/m(2) (2-hour infusion) followed by FU 400 mg/m(2) (bolus) and FU 600 mg/m(2) (22-hour continuous infusion) on days 1 and 2 every 14 days (LV5FU2; arm A), LV5FU2 plus cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) (1-hour infusion) on day 1 or 2 (arm B), or LV5FU2 plus irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) (2-hour infusion) on day 1 (arm C). RESULTS The overall response rates, which were confirmed by an independent expert panel, were 13% (95% CI, 3.4% to 23.3%), 27% (95% CI, 14.1% to 40.4%), and 40% (95% CI, 25.7% to 54.3%) for arms A, B, and C, respectively. Median progression-free survival and overall survival times were 3.2 months (95% CI, 1.8 to 4.6 months) and 6.8 months (95% CI, 2.6 to 11.1 months) with LV5FU2, respectively; 4.9 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 6.3 months) and 9.5 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 12.2 months) with LV5FU2-cisplatin, respectively; and 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.5 to 8.3 months) and 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.3 to 13.3 months) with LV5FU2-irinotecan, respectively. CONCLUSION Of the three regimens tested, the combination of LV5FU2-irinotecan is the most promising and will be assessed in a phase III trial.

Research Reporting Standards for Radioembolization of Hepatic Malignancies

Primary Liver Tumors Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary malignancy of the liver; its incidence is increasing worldwide. It ranks as the sixth most common tumor and third most common cause of cancer-related mortality (1,2). Primary liver tumors include HCC and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Surgical resection is preferred over transplantation and is considered potentially curative in patients with resectable HCC and normal liver function (3). Transplantation is considered the gold standard for patients with unresectable HCC and whose disease is within the Milan criteria (4). Resection and transplantation have limited roles, given advanced disease (chronic liver disease and/or tumor extent) at presentation and limited organ availability (5–7). Chemoembolization and radiofrequency ablation represent standard therapies in treating patients and serve as a bridge to transplantation in selected patients (8,9). Radioembolization has an emerging role in “bridging” patients within criteria by delaying tumor progression. It has also been shown to downstage disease beyond the Milan, to within, transplant criteria (10–12). A recent study has demonstrated that radioembolization leads to longer time-to-progression and better toxicity profile when compared with chemoembolization (13). Patients with macrovascular tumor involvement have also exhibited evidence of clinical benefit after radioembolization (14).

Relationship between baseline hepatic status and outcome, and effect of sorafenib on liver function: SHARP trial subanalyses

BACKGROUND & AIMS Hepatic markers are utilized in many classification systems of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and, by measuring organ damage and tumor stage, can influence treatment. Moreover, elevated serum concentrations of aminotransferases and alpha-fetoprotein are indicators of poor prognosis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. We examined the effects of sorafenib on hepatic markers by performing exploratory subset analyses of the Sorafenib HCC Assessment Randomized Protocol (SHARP) trial in patients categorized by baseline concentrations of alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase, alpha-fetoprotein, and bilirubin; and by evaluating the effects of sorafenib on bilirubin concentrations during treatment. METHODS Patients (n=602) were grouped by baseline concentrations of alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase (not significantly elevated, mildly elevated, or moderately elevated), alpha-fetoprotein (normal or elevated), and bilirubin (normal or elevated). Bilirubin was measured at baseline and on day 1 of each cycle. RESULTS Patients with elevated baseline concentrations of alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase, alpha-fetoprotein, or bilirubin had shorter overall survival (OS) than those with normal baseline concentrations, irrespective of treatment group. No notable differences in safety profiles were observed between patients with normal vs. elevated alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase, alpha-fetoprotein, or bilirubin. Median changes from baseline in bilirubin concentration at the last cycle of treatment were +0.17 and +0.19 mg/dl in the sorafenib and placebo groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS These subset analyses suggest that sorafenib is safe and effective for hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of baseline alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase, alpha-fetoprotein, or bilirubin concentration and that hepatic function remains stable over the course of sorafenib therapy.

Role of the multidisciplinary team in the diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

It has long been appreciated that hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a complex disease. HCC is typically preceded by liver cirrhosis, which is itself caused by various types of hepatitis of both viral and nonviral etiologies. Thus, the treatment of patients with HCC requires multiple healthcare professionals, including hepatologists, medical oncologists, surgical oncologists, transplantation surgeons, diagnostic radiologists, pathologists, nurses, nurse practitioners and interventional radiologists. These specialists should meet regularly to review patients’ progress, ensure that treatments are individualized for each patient and agree on next steps. We review case presentations provided by the authors to illustrate the benefits and advantages of the multidisciplinary team matrix in the management of patients with HCC, including the effects of this treatment technique on patient outcome, survival and quality of life.