Ronnie Tung-Ping Poon

Adjuvant sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma after resection or ablation (STORM): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND There is no standard of care for adjuvant therapy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. This trial was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib versus placebo as adjuvant therapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after surgical resection or local ablation. METHODS We undertook this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with a complete radiological response after surgical resection (n=900) or local ablation (n=214) in 202 sites (hospitals and research centres) in 28 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 400 mg oral sorafenib or placebo twice a day, for a maximum of 4 years, according to a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) using an interactive voice-response system. Patients were stratified by curative treatment, geography, Child-Pugh status, and recurrence risk. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival assessed after database cut-off on Nov 29, 2013. We analysed efficacy in the intention-to-treat population and safety in randomly assigned patients receiving at least one study dose. The final analysis is reported. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00692770. FINDINGS We screened 1602 patients between Aug 15, 2008, and Nov 17, 2010, and randomly assigned 1114 patients. Of 556 patients in the sorafenib group, 553 (>99%) received the study treatment and 471 (85%) terminated treatment. Of 558 patients in the placebo group, 554 (99%) received the study treatment and 447 (80%) terminated treatment. Median duration of treatment and mean daily dose were 12·5 months (IQR 2·6-35·8) and 577 mg per day (SD 212·8) for sorafenib, compared with 22·2 months (8·1-38·8) and 778·0 mg per day (79·8) for placebo. Dose modification was reported for 497 (89%) of 559 patients in the sorafenib group and 206 (38%) of 548 patients in the placebo group. At final analysis, 464 recurrence-free survival events had occurred (270 in the placebo group and 194 in the sorafenib group). Median follow-up for recurrence-free survival was 8·5 months (IQR 2·9-19·5) in the sorafenib group and 8·4 months (2·9-19·8) in the placebo group. We noted no difference in median recurrence-free survival between the two groups (33·3 months in the sorafenib group vs 33·7 months in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·940; 95% CI 0·780-1·134; one-sided p=0·26). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hand-foot skin reaction (154 [28%] of 559 patients in the sorafenib group vs four [<1%] of 548 patients in the placebo group) and diarrhoea (36 [6%] vs five [<1%] in the placebo group). Sorafenib-related serious adverse events included hand-foot skin reaction (ten [2%]), abnormal hepatic function (four [<1%]), and fatigue (three [<1%]). There were four (<1%) drug-related deaths in the sorafenib group and two (<1%) in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION Our data indicate that sorafenib is not an effective intervention in the adjuvant setting for hepatocellular carcinoma following resection or ablation.

Management of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the era of targeted therapy

Systemic chemotherapy has had a disappointing track record in the management of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Single‐agent doxorubicin produces a response rate of 10–15%, but without any survival benefit, and combination chemotherapy has also yielded unimpressive results. With recent advances in the knowledge of hepato‐carcinogenesis, there has been encouraging development in the systemic therapy of advanced HCC patients, and particularly in the targeted therapy of advanced HCC. Among the newly identified targets, exciting results have been shown in targeting the anti‐angiogenic pathway and the Raf/mitogen‐activated protein kinase pathways. Bevacizumab, both as a single agent and in combination with other agents, has shown initial encouraging activity in treating advanced HCC. More recently, single‐agent sorafenib, a putative multitargeted kinase inhibitor, has shown to prolong the overall survival of patients with advanced HCC in the pivotal phase III Sorafenib HCC Assessment Randomized Protocol (SHARP) and Oriental study. Currently, sorafenib is the only approved targeted therapy for patients with advanced HCC. In addition, however, promising early results have been reported for other molecular‐targeted drugs including erlotinib and sunitinib. Future progress seems likely to depend on using controlled clinical trials to optimize synergistic combination treatments.

The Outcomes and Safety of Single-Agent Sorafenib in the Treatment of Elderly Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC)

BACKGROUND With the aging population, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the elderly represents a significant health burden. We aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and tolerability of single-agent sorafenib in treating elderly patients with advanced HCC versus the younger population. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed a consecutive cohort of advanced HCC patients with Child-Pugh A or B liver function and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0-2 treated with sorafenib. The patients were categorized into older (age ≥70 years) and younger (age <70 years) groups. Treatment outcomes and related adverse events (AEs) were compared. RESULTS In total, 172 patients, 35 in the older (median age, 73 years) and 137 in the younger (median age, 55 years) group, were analyzed. The median progression-free survival time was similar in the older and younger groups (2.99 months versus 3.09 months; p = .275), as was the overall survival time (5.32 months versus 5.16 months; p = .310). Grade 3 or 4 AEs were observed in 68.6% of older and 62.7% of younger patients (p = .560), with neutropenia (11.4% versus 0.7%; p = .007), malaise (11.4% versus 2.2%; p = .033), and mucositis (5.7% versus 0.0%; p = .041) being more frequently reported in the elderly cohort. CONCLUSIONS The survival benefits and overall treatment-related AEs of sorafenib are comparable in elderly and younger advanced HCC patients. Nevertheless, more vigilant monitoring in the elderly is warranted because they are more susceptible to develop neutropenia, malaise, and mucositis.

Randomized, open-label phase 2 study comparing frontline dovitinib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Angiogenesis inhibition by the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and platelet‐derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) inhibitor sorafenib provides survival benefit in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, angiogenic escape from sorafenib may occur due to angiogenesis‐associated fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) pathway activation. In addition to VEGFR and PDGFR, dovitinib inhibits FGFR. Frontline oral dovitinib (500 mg/day, 5 days on, 2 days off; n = 82) versus sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; n = 83) was evaluated in an open‐label, randomized phase 2 study of Asian‐Pacific patients with advanced HCC. The primary and key secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and time to tumor progression (TTP) as determined by a local investigator, respectively. Patients included in the study were ineligible for surgical and/or locoregional therapies or had disease progression after receiving these therapies. The median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 8.0 (6.6‐9.1) months for dovitinib and 8.4 (5.4‐11.3) months for sorafenib. The median TTP (95% CI) per investigator assessment was 4.1 (2.8‐4.2) months and 4.1 (2.8‐4.3) months for dovitinib and sorafenib, respectively. Common any‐cause adverse events included diarrhea (62%), decreased appetite (43%), nausea (41%), vomiting (41%), fatigue (35%), rash (34%), and pyrexia (30%) for dovitinib and palmar‐plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (66%) and decreased appetite (31%) for sorafenib. Subgroup analysis revealed a significantly higher median OS for patients in the dovitinib arm who had baseline plasma soluble VEGFR1 (sVEGFR1) and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) below median levels versus at or above the median levels (median OS [95% CI]: sVEGFR1, 11.2 [9.0‐13.8] and 5.7 [4.3‐7.0] months, respectively [P = .0002]; HGF, 11.2 [8.9‐13.8] and 5.9 [5.0‐7.6] months, respectively [P = 0.0002]). Conclusion: Dovitinib was well tolerated, but activity was not greater than sorafenib as a frontline systemic therapy for HCC. Based on these data, no subsequent phase 3 study has been planned. (Hepatology 2016;64:774‐784)

Systemic Management of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients: The Role of Multi-Targeted Anti-Angiogenic Inhibitors

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide resulting in between 250,000 to one million deaths per annum. It carries dismal prognosis and the number death is close to the incidence of disease owing to the aggressive nature of this tumor. The incidence of HCC is highest in China, eastern Asia, and Saharan African. The main etiology of HCC in these regions is chronic hepatitis B viral infection. In most Western countries, HCC is mainly related to hepatitis C infection and alcoholic liver disease. Nonalcoholic steato-hepatitis and exposure to aflatoxins are also known risk factors for development of HCC.

A Framework Is Required to Reduce Publication Bias The Academic Surgeon's View

Publication bias refers to the tendency of researchers, reviewers, and editors to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on the direction or strength of the study, leading to a bias in selective publication of studies with positive outcomes. The existence of publication bias in surgical literature has been well-documented. Publication bias leads to misleading conclusion in metaanalysis of clinical trials as negative studies are underrepresented. As a result, inappropriate investigations or treatments may be recommended to patients. To reduce publication bias in surgical literature, a framework of measures directed at individual investigators, institutions, reviewers, and editors of journals are outlined in this chapter. Compulsory registration of all clinical trials in public registry and online open access journals for publication of all trials, irrespective of positive or negative results, are particularly important measures to reduce publication bias.