Sorafenib plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with cisplatin versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: randomized phase II trial

In a randomized phase II study of sorafenib plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with cisplatin in comparison with sorafenib alone in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, it yielded favorable overall survival when compared with sorafenib alone. This is the first report of its effectiveness in relation to the overall survival in comparison with that of sorafenib alone in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Background

Sorafenib (Sor) is acknowledged as a standard therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This trial was conducted to evaluate the effect of addition of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with cisplatin (SorCDDP) to Sor for the treatment of advanced HCC.

Patients and methods

We conducted a multicenter open-labeled randomized phase II trial in chemo-naïve patients with advanced HCC with Child-Pugh scores of 5–7. Eligible patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive SorCDDP (sorafenib: 400 mg bid; cisplatin: 65 mg/m², day 1, every 4–6 weeks) or Sor (400 mg bid). The primary end point was overall survival.

Results

A total of 108 patients were randomized (Sor, n = 42; SorCDDP, n = 66). The median survival in the Sor and SorCDDP arms were 8.7 and 10.6 months, respectively [stratified hazard ratio (95% confidence interval), 0.60 (0.38–0.96), P = 0.031]. The median time to progression and the response rate were, respectively, 2.8 months and 7.3% in the Sor arm and 3.1 months and 21.7% in the SorCDDP arm. The adverse events were more frequent in the SorCDDP arm than in the Sor arm, but well-tolerated.

Conclusion

SorCDDP yielded favorable overall survival when compared with Sor in patients with advanced HCC.

Clinical Trial registration

UMIN-CTR (http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index-j.htm), identification number: UMIN000005703.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Diagnosis and Treatment of Primary Aldosteronism in Japan

Approximately 10% of cases of hypertension in Japan are caused by primary aldosteronism (PA), amounting to about 4 million patients in total. Primary aldosteronism due to unilateral aldosterone hypersecretion is potentially curable by adrenalectomy. The clinical benefits of identifying and treating PA have been reported internationally, but its cost-effectiveness is unclear. We examined whether diagnosing and treating hidden PA in hypertensive population was cost-effective compared with suboptimal treatment. Our hypothetical patient was a 50-year-old man diagnosed with stage I-III hypertension. We established a Markov decision model based on plausible clinical pathways and prognoses of PA. We applied cost-effectiveness analysis comparing a comprehensive diagnostic strategy for PA (measurement of plasma aldosterone/renin ratio, 2 loading tests, imaging, and selective adrenal venous sampling) with a suboptimal strategy to manage hypertension by medication unless the typical signs of PA or other complication were manifest. Outcome measures were expected costs, expected effectiveness, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The robustness of the findings was established by one-way and scenario sensitivity analyses. The comprehensive PA diagnostic strategy increased the expected costs by 64 004 JPY and expected life-years by 0.013 compared with standard treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the diagnosis of PA was 4 923 385 JPY per year. Our findings were sensitive to the outcomes of screening and treatment, and the costs of continuous or periodic medication for hypertension and the treatment of stroke and its complications.

Randomized phase II study of axitinib versus placebo plus best supportive care in second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of axitinib, a potent and selective vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1-3 inhibitor, combined with best supportive care (BSC) was evaluated in a global, randomized, placebo-controlled phase II trial in patients with locally advanced or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with HCC and Child-Pugh Class A who progressed on or were intolerant to one prior antiangiogenic therapy were stratified by tumour invasion (presence/absence of extrahepatic spread and/or vascular invasion) and region (Asian/non-Asian) and randomized (2:1) to axitinib/BSC (starting dose 5 mg twice-daily) or placebo/BSC. The primary end point was overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

The estimated hazard ratio for OS was 0.907 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.646-1.274; one-sided stratified P = 0.287] for axitinib/BSC (n = 134) versus placebo/BSC (n = 68), with the median (95% CI) of 12.7 (10.2-14.9) versus 9.7 (5.9-11.8) months, respectively. Results of prespecified subgroup analyses in Asian versus non-Asian patients or presence versus absence of tumour invasion were consistent with the overall population. Improvements favouring axitinib/BSC (P < 0.01) were observed in secondary efficacy end point analyses [progression-free survival (PFS), time to tumour progression (TTP), and clinical benefit rate (CBR)], and were retained among Asian patients in the prespecified subgroup analyses. Overall response rate did not differ significantly between treatments and patient-reported outcomes favoured placebo/BSC. Most common all-causality adverse events with axitinib/BSC were diarrhoea (54%), hypertension (54%), and decreased appetite (47%). Baseline serum analyses identified potential new prognostic (interleukin-6, E-selectin, interleukin-8, angiopoietin-2, migration inhibitory factor, and c-MET) or predictive (E-selectin and stromal-derived factor-1) factors for survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Axitinib/BSC did not improve OS over placebo/BSC in the overall population or in stratification subgroups. However, axitinib/BSC resulted in significantly longer PFS and TTP and higher CBR, with acceptable toxicity in patients with advanced HCC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01210495.