-
1.
Potential of novel colchicine dosage schedule for the palliative treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.
Lin, ZY, Yeh, ML, Huang, CI, Chen, SC, Huang, CF, Huang, JF, Dai, CY, Yu, ML, Chuang, WL
The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences. 2021;(7):616-623
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Previous in vitro and in vivo experiments had demonstrated dose-dependent anti-cancer effects of clinical plasma colchicine concentrations on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cells. This phase IIa trial was to evaluate the potential efficiency and safety of our novel colchicine dosage schedule for the palliative treatment of advanced HCC. The dosage schedule started from oral intake of 1 mg colchicine three times per day for 4 days and discontinuation in the following 3 days (one cycle). The treatment cycle was repeated and the dosage was adjusted ranging from 3 to 1.5 mg/day according to the condition of the participant. The control group was originated from chart review of 86 HCC patients treated by sorafenib for more than 2 months. Fifteen participants signed the inform consent. Two participants were excluded due to screening failure in one and less than four treatment cycles in another. For severe adverse events, the colchicine group demonstrated higher incidence of biliary tract obstruction (p = 0.0184) than the sorafenib group. Comparison grade 1 or 2 adverse events between two groups, the colchicine group had higher incidence of diarrhea (p = 0) and the sorafenib group had higher incidence of palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (p = 0.0045). There was no significant difference in mortality, median survival, and overall survival between two groups (all p > 0.2). In conclusion, our novel colchicine dosage schedule is clinically feasible and has the potential to be applied in the palliative treatment of advanced HCC especially based on the cost-effectiveness consideration.
-
2.
Donafenib Versus Sorafenib in First-Line Treatment of Unresectable or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel-Controlled Phase II-III Trial.
Qin, S, Bi, F, Gu, S, Bai, Y, Chen, Z, Wang, Z, Ying, J, Lu, Y, Meng, Z, Pan, H, et al
Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. 2021;(27):3002-3011
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE Donafenib, a novel multikinase inhibitor and a deuterated sorafenib derivative, has shown efficacy in phase Ia and Ib hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) studies. This study compared the efficacy and safety of donafenib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy for advanced HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS This open-label, randomized, parallel-controlled, multicenter phase II-III trial enrolled patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC, a Child-Pugh score ≤ 7, and no prior systemic therapy from 37 sites across China. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral donafenib (0.2 g) or sorafenib (0.4 g) twice daily until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), tested for noninferiority and superiority. Efficacy was primarily assessed in the full analysis set (FAS), and safety was assessed in all treated patients. RESULTS Between March 21, 2016, and April 16, 2018, 668 patients (intention-to-treat) were randomly assigned to donafenib and sorafenib treatment arms; the FAS included 328 and 331 patients, respectively. Median OS was significantly longer with donafenib than sorafenib treatment (FAS; 12.1 v 10.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.831; 95% CI, 0.699 to 0.988; P = .0245); donafenib also exhibited superior OS outcomes versus sorafenib in the intention-to-treat population. The median progression-free survival was 3.7 v 3.6 months (P = .0570). The objective response rate was 4.6% v 2.7% (P = .2448), and the disease control rate was 30.8% v 28.7% (FAS; P = .5532). Drug-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in significantly fewer patients receiving donafenib than sorafenib (125 [38%] v 165 [50%]; P = .0018). CONCLUSION Donafenib showed superiority over sorafenib in improving OS and has favorable safety and tolerability in Chinese patients with advanced HCC, showing promise as a potential first-line monotherapy for these patients.
-
3.
Phase IB study of sorafenib and evofosfamide in patients with advanced hepatocellular and renal cell carcinomas (NCCTG N1135, Alliance).
Tran, NH, Foster, NR, Mahipal, A, Byrne, T, Hubbard, J, Silva, A, Mody, K, Alberts, S, Borad, MJ
Investigational new drugs. 2021;(4):1072-1080
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Background Sorafenib (Sor) remains a first-line option for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) or refractory renal cell carcinomas (RCC). PLC/PRF/5 HCC model showed upregulation of hypoxia with enhanced efficacy when Sor is combined with hypoxia-activated prodrug evofosfamide (Evo). Methods This phase IB 3 + 3 design investigated 3 Evo dose levels (240, 340, 480 mg/m2 on days 8, 15, 22), combined with Sor 200 mg orally twice daily (po bid) on days 1-28 of a 28-day cycle. Primary objectives included determining maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of Sor + Evo. Results Eighteen patients were enrolled (median age 62.5 years; 17 male /1 female; 12 HCC/6 RCC) across three dose levels (DL0: Sor 200 mg bid/Evo 240 mg/m2 [n = 6], DL1:Sor 200 mg bid/Evo 480 mg/m2 [n = 5], DL1a: Sor 200 mg bid/Evo 340 mg/m2 [n = 7]). Two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were reported with Evo 480 mg/m2 (grade 3 mucositis, grade 4 hepatic failure). Grade 3 rash DLT was observed in one patient at Evo 240 mg/m2. No DLTs were observed at Evo 340 mg/m2. MTD and RP2D were established as Sor 200 mg/Evo 340 mg/m2 and Sor 200/Evo 240 mg/m2, respectively. The most common treatment-related adverse events included fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, hypertension, and nausea/vomiting. Two partial responses were observed, one each at DL0 and DL1a.; disease control rate was 55%. Conclusions RP2D was established as sorafenib 200 mg bid + Evo 240 mg/m2. While preliminary anti-tumor activity was observed, future development must account for advances in immunotherapy in HCC/RCC.
-
4.
Camrelizumab Combined with FOLFOX4 Regimen as First-Line Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinomas: A Sub-Cohort of a Multicenter Phase Ib/II Study.
Li, H, Qin, S, Liu, Y, Chen, Z, Ren, Z, Xiong, J, Meng, Z, Zhang, X, Wang, L, Zhang, X, et al
Drug design, development and therapy. 2021;:1873-1882
Abstract
BACKGROUND Immune checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy can synergistically increase efficacy in a variety of malignancies. We conducted this phase Ib/II study to assess the safety and efficacy of anti-PD-1 antibody camrelizumab in combination with FOLFOX4 for treatment-naive advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). METHODS This open-label, multicenter phase Ib/II study (NCT03092895) enrolled patients with aHCC and without prior systemic treatment for treatment with camrelizumab (3 mg/kg) and FOLFOX4 every two weeks. First, six patients were enrolled, followed by an additional 28 patients after dose-limiting toxicity cases were determined to be <33% of patients. The primary endpoint was tolerability and safety of treatment. RESULTS A total of 34 aHCC patients were enrolled and received study treatment. No dose-limiting toxicity were observed in the first six patients enrolled. Twenty-nine (85.3%) of the total 34 patients had grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), with the most common ones being decreased neutrophil count (55.9%) and decreased white blood cell count (38.2%). No TRAEs-related deaths occurred. The objective response and disease control rate were 29.4% (95% CI, 15.1-47.5) and 79.4% (95% CI, 62.1-91.3), respectively. The median duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival was 6.9 months (range, 3.3-11.5), 7.4 months (95% CI, 3.9-9.2), and 11.7 months (95% CI, 8.2-22.0), respectively. CONCLUSION Camrelizumab combined with FOLFOX4 for first-line treatment of patients with aHCC showed good safety and tolerability, with promising preliminary antitumor activity.
-
5.
Covariate-adjusted analysis of the Phase 3 REFLECT study of lenvatinib versus sorafenib in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.
Briggs, A, Daniele, B, Dick, K, Evans, TRJ, Galle, PR, Hubner, RA, Lopez, C, Siebert, U, Tremblay, G
British journal of cancer. 2020;(12):1754-1759
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND In the Phase 3 REFLECT trial in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC), the multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, lenvatinib, was noninferior to sorafenib in the primary outcome of overall survival. Post-hoc review revealed imbalances in prognostic variables between treatment arms. Here, we re-analyse overall survival data from REFLECT to adjust for the imbalance in covariates. METHODS Univariable and multivariable adjustments were undertaken for a candidate set of covariate values that a physician panel indicated could be prognostically associated with overall survival in uHCC. The values included baseline variables observed pre- and post-randomisation. Univariable analyses were based on a stratified Cox model. The multivariable analysis used a "forwards stepwise" Cox model. RESULTS Univariable analysis identified alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) as the most influential variable. The chosen multivariable Cox model analysis resulted in an estimated adjusted hazard ratio for lenvatinib of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.699-0.948) when only baseline variables were included. Adjusting for post-randomisation treatment variables further increased the estimated superiority of lenvatinib. CONCLUSIONS Covariate adjustment of REFLECT suggests that the original noninferiority trial likely underestimated the true effect of lenvatinib on overall survival due to an imbalance in baseline prognostic covariates and the greater use of post-treatment therapies in the sorafenib arm. TRIAL REGISTRATION Trial number: NCT01761266 (Submitted January 2, 2013).
-
6.
A Phase 2 Study of Galunisertib (TGF-β1 Receptor Type I Inhibitor) and Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
Kelley, RK, Gane, E, Assenat, E, Siebler, J, Galle, PR, Merle, P, Hourmand, IO, Cleverly, A, Zhao, Y, Gueorguieva, I, et al
Clinical and translational gastroenterology. 2019;(7):e00056
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Inhibition of tumor growth factor-β (TGF-β) receptor type I potentiated the activity of sorafenib in preclinical models of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Galunisertib is a small-molecule selective inhibitor of TGF-β1 receptor type I, which demonstrated activity in a phase 2 trial as second-line HCC treatment. METHODS The combination of galunisertib and sorafenib (400 mg BID) was tested in patients with advanced HCC and Child-Pugh A liver function without prior systemic therapy. Galunisertib dose was administered 80 or 150 mg b.i.d. orally for 14 days every 28 days in safety lead-in cohorts; in the expansion cohort, all patients received galunisertib 150 mg b.i.d. Objectives included time-to-tumor progression, changes in circulating alpha fetoprotein and TGF-β1, safety, overall survival (OS), response rate, and pharmacokinetics (PK). RESULTS Patients (n = 47) were enrolled from 5 non-Asian countries; 3 and 44 patients received the 80 mg and 150 mg b.i.d. doses of galunisertib, respectively. The pharmacokinetics and safety profiles were consistent with monotherapy of each drug. For the 150 mg b.i.d. galunisertib cohort, the median time-to-tumor progression was 4.1 months; the median OS was 18.8 months. A partial response was seen in 2 patients, stable disease in 21, and progressive disease in 13. TGF-β1 responders (decrease of >20% from baseline) vs nonresponders had longer OS (22.8 vs 12.0 months, P = 0.038). DISCUSSION The combination of galunisertib and sorafenib showed acceptable safety and a prolonged OS outcome.
-
7.
Cabozantinib exposure-response analyses of efficacy and safety in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.
Nguyen, L, Chapel, S, Tran, BD, Lacy, S
Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. 2019;(6):577-589
Abstract
Cabozantinib, a multi-kinase inhibitor, is approved in the United States and European Union for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma following prior sorafenib treatment. In the Phase III CELESTIAL trial, hepatocellular carcinoma patients receiving cabozantinib showed longer overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) than those receiving placebo. The approved cabozantinib (Cabometyx®) dose is 60 mg once daily with allowable dose modifications to manage adverse events (AE). Time-to-event Cox proportional hazard exposure-response (ER) models were developed to characterize the relationship between predicted cabozantinib exposure and the likelihood of various efficacy and safety endpoints. The ER models were used to predict hazard ratios (HR) for efficacy and safety endpoints for starting doses of 60, 40, or 20 mg daily. Statistically significant relationships between cabozantinib exposure and efficacy and safety endpoints were observed. For efficacy endpoints, predicted HR were lower for OS and PFS at 40 and 60 mg relative to the 20 mg dose: HR for death (OS) are 0.84 (40 mg) and 0.70 (60 mg); HR for disease progression/death (PFS) are 0.73 (40 mg) and 0.62 (60 mg). For safety endpoints, predicted HR were lower for palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (PPE), diarrhea, and hypertension at 20 or 40 mg relative to the 60 mg dose: HR for PPE are 0.31 (20 mg) and 0.66 (40 mg); HR for diarrhea are 0.61 (20 mg) and 0.86 (40 mg); HR for hypertension are 0.46 (20 mg) and 0.76 (40 mg). The rate of dose modifications was predicted to increase in patients with lower cabozantinib apparent clearance. OS and PFS showed the greatest benefit at the 60 mg dose. However, higher cabozantinib exposure was predicted to increase the likelihood of AE and subsequent dose reductions appeared to decrease these risks.
-
8.
Sorafenib with or without concurrent transarterial chemoembolization in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: The phase III STAH trial.
Park, JW, Kim, YJ, Kim, DY, Bae, SH, Paik, SW, Lee, YJ, Kim, HY, Lee, HC, Han, SY, Cheong, JY, et al
Journal of hepatology. 2019;(4):684-691
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS Sorafenib is first-line standard of care for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), yet it confers limited survival benefit. Therefore, we aimed to compare clinical outcomes of sorafenib combined with concurrent conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) vs. sorafenib alone in patients with advanced HCC. METHODS In this investigator-initiated, multicenter, phase III trial, patients were randomized to receive sorafenib alone (Arm S, n = 169) or in combination with cTACE on demand (Arm C, n = 170). Sorafenib was started within 3 days and cTACE within 7-21 days of randomization. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS For Arms C and S, the median OS was 12.8 vs. 10.8 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.91; 90% CI 0.69-1.21; p = 0.290); median time to progression, 5.3 vs. 3.5 months (HR 0.67; 90% CI 0.53-0.85; p = 0.003); median progression-free survival, 5.2 vs. 3.6 months (HR 0.73; 90% CI 0.59-0.91; p = 0.01); and tumor response rate, 60.6% vs. 47.3% (p = 0.005). For Arms C and S, serious (grade ≥3) adverse events occurred in 33.3% vs. 19.8% (p = 0.006) of patients and included increased alanine aminotransferase levels (20.3% vs. 3.6%), hyperbilirubinemia (11.8% vs. 3.0%), ascites (11.8% vs. 4.2%), thrombocytopenia (7.2% vs. 1.2%), anorexia (7.2% vs. 1.2%), and hand-foot skin reaction (10.5% vs. 11.4%). A post hoc subgroup analysis compared OS in Arm C patients (46.4%) receiving ≥2 cTACE sessions to Arm S patients (18.6 vs. 10.8 months; HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.40-0.82; p = 0.006). CONCLUSION Compared with sorafenib alone, sorafenib combined with cTACE did not improve OS in patients with advanced HCC. However, sorafenib combined with cTACE significantly improved time to progression, progression-free survival, and tumor response rate. Sorafenib alone remains the first-line standard of care for patients with advanced HCC. LAY SUMMARY For patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma requiring sorafenib therapy, co-administration with conventional transarterial chemoembolization did not improve overall survival compared to sorafenib alone. Therefore, sorafenib alone remains the first-line standard of care for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Clinical Trial Number: NCT01829035.
-
9.
A Phase Ib, Open-Label Study of Dalantercept, an Activin Receptor-Like Kinase 1 Ligand Trap, plus Sorafenib in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
Abou-Alfa, GK, Miksad, RA, Tejani, MA, Williamson, S, Gutierrez, ME, Olowokure, OO, Sharma, MR, El Dika, I, Sherman, ML, Pandya, SS
The oncologist. 2019;(2):161-e70
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
LESSONS LEARNED Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) often have limited therapeutic responses to the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib, which is standard of care in advanced HCC. Targeting the activin receptor-like kinase 1 (ALK1) and VEGF pathways simultaneously by combining the ALK1 ligand trap dalantercept with sorafenib may result in more effective angiogenic blockade and delay tumor progression in patients with advanced HCC.Although the combination was generally well tolerated, there was no additive antitumor activity with the combination of dalantercept plus sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC. No complete or partial responses were observed, and overall survival ranged from 1.9 to 23.3 months.These results suggest that, in this patient population, further development of the possible limited benefits of combination therapy with dalantercept plus sorafenib is not warranted. BACKGROUND Targeting the activin receptor-like kinase 1 (ALK1) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathways may result in more effective angiogenic blockade in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS In this phase Ib study, patients with advanced HCC were enrolled to dose-escalation cohorts, starting at 0.6 mg/kg dalantercept subcutaneously every 3 weeks plus 400 mg sorafenib orally once daily, or to a dose expansion cohort. The primary objective was to determine the safety and tolerability and the dalantercept maximum tolerated dose (MTD) level. Secondary objectives were to assess the preliminary activity and the association of pharmacodynamic biomarkers with tumor response. RESULTS A total of 21 patients were enrolled in the study. Five patients received 0.6 mg/kg dalantercept in the first dose escalation cohort. Based on the initial safety results, the dose level was de-escalated to 0.4 mg/kg in the second cohort (n = 6). The MTD was identified as 0.4 mg/kg and used for the dose expansion cohort (n = 10). At this dose level, the combination was generally well tolerated. Overall survival ranged from 1.9 to 23.3 months, and the best overall response was stable disease. CONCLUSION The addition of dalantercept to sorafenib did not improve antitumor activity in patients with HCC. The dalantercept program in this population was discontinued.
-
10.
Phase I Study of Sorafenib and Vorinostat in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
Gordon, SW, McGuire, WP, Shafer, DA, Sterling, RK, Lee, HM, Matherly, SC, Roberts, JD, Bose, P, Tombes, MB, Shrader, EE, et al
American journal of clinical oncology. 2019;(8):649-654
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Preclinical data suggest histone deacetylase inhibitors improve the therapeutic index of sorafenib. A phase I study was initiated to establish the recommended phase 2 dose of sorafenib combined with vorinostat in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients received vorinostat (200 to 400 mg by mouth once daily, 5 of 7 d) and sorafenib at standard or reduced doses (400 mg [cohort A] or 200 mg [cohort B] by mouth twice daily). Patients who received 14 days of vorinostat in cycle 1 were evaluable for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). RESULTS Sixteen patients were treated. Thirteen patients were evaluable for response. Three patients experienced DLTs, 2 in cohort A (grade [gr] 3 hypokalemia; gr 3 maculopapular rash) and 1 in cohort B (gr 3 hepatic failure; gr 3 hypophosphatemia; gr 4 thrombocytopenia). Eleven patients required dose reductions or omissions for non-DLTtoxicity. Ten patients (77%) had stable disease (SD). The median treatment duration was 4.7 months for response-evaluable patients. One patient with SD was on treatment for 29.9 months, and another patient, also with SD, was on treatment for 18.7 months. Another patient electively stopped therapy after 15 months and remains without evidence of progression 3 years later. CONCLUSIONS Although some patients had durable disease control, the addition of vorinostat to sorafenib led to toxicities in most patients, requiring dose modifications that prevented determination of the recommended phase 2 dose. The combination is not recommended for further exploration with this vorinostat schedule in this patient population.