Cost-effectiveness analysis of ramucirumab treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib with α-fetoprotein concentrations of at least 400 ng/ml

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To update an evidence-based guideline to assist in clinical decision-making for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel to update the 2020 guideline on systemic therapy for HCC. The panel updated the systematic review to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through October 2023 and updated recommendations.

RESULTS

Ten new RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were added to the evidence base.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) or durvalumab + tremelimumab (durva + treme) may be offered first-line for patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1. Where there are contraindications to these therapies, sorafenib, lenvatinib, or durvalumab may be offered first-line. Following first-line treatment with atezo + bev, second-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), ramucirumab (for patients with alpha-fetoprotein [AFP] ≥400 ng/mL), durva + treme, or nivolumab + ipilimumab (nivo + ipi) may be recommended for appropriate candidates. Following first-line therapy with durva + treme, second-line therapy with a TKI is recommended. Following first-line treatment with sorafenib or lenvatinib, second-line therapy options include cabozantinib, regorafenib for patients who previously tolerated sorafenib, ramucirumab (AFP ≥400 ng/mL), nivo + ipi, or durvalumab; atezo + bev or durva + treme may be considered for patients who did not have access to these therapies in the first-line setting, and do not have contraindications. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab are also options for appropriate patients following sorafenib or lenvatinib. Third-line therapy may be considered in Child-Pugh class A patients with good PS, using one of the agents listed previously that has a nonidentical mechanism of action with previously received therapy. A cautious approach to systemic therapy is recommended for patients with Child-Pugh class B advanced HCC. Further guidance on choosing between options is included within the guideline.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

Comparative analysis of disease modelling for health economic evaluations of systemic therapies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to systematically analyse methodological and structural assumptions utilised in model-based health economic evaluations of systemic advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) therapies, discuss the existing challenges, and develop methodological recommendations for future models in advanced HCC.

METHODS

We performed literature searches using five databases (Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Econlit, and CNKI) up to December 4, 2022. Technology appraisals from Canada, England, Australia, and the United States were also considered. Model-based full economic evaluations of systemic advanced HCC therapies in English or Chinese met the eligibility criteria. The reporting quality was assessed by using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist.

RESULTS

Of 12,863 records retrieved, 55 were eligible for inclusion. Markov model (n = 29, 53%) and partitioned survival model (n = 27, 49%) were the most commonly used modelling techniques. Most studies were based on health-state-driven structure (n = 51, 93%), followed by treatment-line-driven structure (n = 2, 4%) and combination structure (n = 1, 2%). Only three studies (5%) adopted external real-world data to extrapolate the overall survival or calibrate the extrapolation. Few studies reported the assumptions of transition probabilities. Utility modelling approaches were state-based (n = 51, 93%) and time-to-death (n = 1, 2%). Only 13 studies (24%) reported five types of model validation. Economic evaluation results of specific treatment strategies varied among studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Disease modelling for health economic evaluations of systemic therapies in advanced HCC has adopted various modelling approaches and assumptions, leading to marked uncertainties in results. By proposing methodological recommendations, we suggest that future model-based studies for health economic evaluation of HCC therapies should follow good modelling practice guidelines and improve modelling methods to generate reliable health and economic evidence.

Comparative biochemical kinase activity analysis identifies rivoceranib as a highly selective VEGFR2 inhibitor

Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2), a key regulator of tumor angiogenesis, is highly expressed across numerous tumor types and has been an attractive target for anti-cancer therapy. However, clinical application of available VEGFR2 inhibitors has been challenged by limited efficacy and a wide range of side effects, potentially due to inadequate selectivity for VEGFR2. Thus, development of potent VEGFR2 inhibitors with improved selectivity is needed. Rivoceranib is an orally administered tyrosine kinase inhibitor that potently and selectively targets VEGFR2. A comparative understanding of the potency and selectivity of rivoceranib and approved inhibitors of VEGFR2 is valuable to inform rationale for therapy selection in the clinic. Here, we performed biochemical analyses of the kinase activity of VEGFR2 and of a panel of 270 kinases to compare rivoceranib to 10 FDA-approved kinase inhibitors ("reference inhibitors") with known activity against VEGFR2. Rivoceranib demonstrated potency within the range of the reference inhibitors, with a VEGFR2 kinase inhibition IC₅₀ value of 16 nM. However, analysis of residual kinase activity of the panel of 270 kinases showed that rivoceranib displayed greater selectivity for VEGFR2 compared with the reference inhibitors. Differences in selectivity among compounds within the observed range of potency of VEGFR2 kinase inhibition are clinically relevant, as toxicities associated with available VEGFR2 inhibitors are thought to be partly due to their effects against kinases other than VEGFR2. Together, this comparative biochemical analysis highlights the potential for rivoceranib to address clinical limitations associated with off-target effects of currently available VEGFR2 inhibitors.

Advancements in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Potential Preclinical Drugs and their Future

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the foremost causes of tumor-affiliated demises globally. The HCC treatment has undergone numerous developments in terms of both drug and non-drug treatments. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized the usage of a variety of drugs for the treatment of HCC in recent years, involving multi-kinase inhibitors (lenvatinib, regorafenib, ramucirumab, and cabozantinib), immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) (pembrolizumab and nivolumab), and combination therapies like atezolizumab along with bevacizumab. There are currently over a thousand ongoing clinical and preclinical studies for novel HCC drugs, which portrays a competent setting in the field. This review discusses the i. FDA-approved HCC drugs, their molecular targets, safety profiles, and potential disadvantages; ii. The intrial agents/drugs, their molecular targets, and possible benefits compared to alternatives, and iii. The current and future status of potential preclinical drugs with novel therapeutic targets for HCC. Consequently, existing drug treatments and novel strategies with their balanced consumption could ensure a promising future for a universal remedy of HCC in the near future.

Clinical Characteristics, Treatment Patterns, and Healthcare Costs and Utilization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) Patients Treated at a Large Referral Center in Washington State 2007-2018

Introduction

Though the treatment landscape for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has evolved significantly with the refinement of liver-directed therapy techniques and the introduction of new drugs, few studies have investigated the impact of the changing treatment landscape on lifetime treatment costs, particularly in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage C disease. We sought to investigate real-world clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and healthcare costs in a cohort of HCC patients treated at a single high-volume institution in Washington (WA) state.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with HCC between 2007 and 2018 using abstracted electronic medical record (EMR) data linked to cancer registry data and health claims from commercial plans, Medicare, and Medicaid. We described clinical and treatment characteristics, including BCLC stage and Child Pugh score. We investigated median survival and mean lifetime treatment costs by BCLC stage using Kaplan-Meier cost estimator methods. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to investigate factors associated with overall survival.

Results

The final cohort included 215 patients, the majority of whom were white (71%), male (68%), and with underlying hepatitis C (61%). Mean per patient lifetime costs were highest in BCLC A and BCLC C patients. Mean lifetime costs in BCLC A patients ($292,134) was driven by surgery, hospital, pharmacy, imaging, and outpatient costs. Chemotherapy costs were highest in BCLC C patients, though not the predominant area of spending. Median survival was highest in patients with BCLC 0 and A disease; BCLC stage C and higher area deprivation index (ADI) were associated with poorer survival.

Conclusion

In a cohort of WA state HCC patients, mean lifetime costs were highest in patients with BCLC A disease, attributable to surgery and hospital costs. As increased utilization of newer and less toxic therapies improves survival in BCLC C patients, mean lifetime costs in this group may also rise.

HCC and Molecular Targeting Therapies: Back to the Future

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of death from cancer in the world. Recently, the effectiveness of new antiviral therapies and the HBV vaccine have reduced HCC’s incidence, while non-alcoholic steato-hepatitis is an emerging risk factor. This review focuses on antiangiogenic molecules and immune checkpoint inhibitors approved for HCC treatment and possible future approaches. Sorafenib was the first drug approved for the treatment of advanced HCC (aHCC) and it has been shown to increase survival by a few months. Lenvatinib, a multikinase inhibitor, has shown non-inferiority in survival compared with sorafenib and an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS). The combination of atezolizumab (an anti-PDL1 antibody) and bevacizumab (an anti-VEGF antibody) was the first drug combination approved for HCC, demonstrating improved survival compared with sorafenib (19.2 vs. 13.4 months). As a second line of therapy, three regimens (regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab) have been approved for the treatment of aHCC after progression on sorafenib according to guidelines. Furthermore, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and nivolumab plus ipilimumab have been approved by the FDA (2017, 2018, and 2020, respectively). Finally, immune target therapy, cancer vaccines, and epigenetic drugs represent three new possible weapons for the treatment of HCC.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Overview of the Changing Landscape of Treatment Options

The last three years have seen remarkable progress in comprehending predisposing factors and upgrading our treatment arsenal concerning hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Until recently, there were no means to withstand the progression of viral hepatitis-associated liver cirrhosis to HCC. A deeper understanding of the molecular mechanism of the disease, the use of biomarkers, and the follow-up, allowed us to realize that conventional chemotherapy failing to increase survival in patients with advanced HCC tends to be exiled from clinical practice. Multi-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) such as sorafenib, lenvatinib targeting mainly the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1–3 VEGFRs 1–3 provided until recently the standard of care for these patients, as first- or second-line treatment. Since May 2020, the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab combination (immunotherapy plus anti-VEGF) has become the new reference standard in first-line HCC treatment. Additionally, anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) immunotherapy can be used as a second-line treatment following first-line treatment’s failure. Phase III clinical trials have recently suggested the efficacy of novel anti-angiogenic factors such as cabozantinib and ramucirumab as a second-line treatment option. With considerations about toxicity arising, clinical trials are investigating combinations of the aforementioned targeted therapies with immunotherapy as first-line treatment. This paper aims to perform a systematic review describing the evolving treatment options for HCC over the last decades, ranging from neoadjuvant treatment to systemic therapy of advanced-stage HCC. With the landscape of HCC treatment shifting towards novel agents the forming of a new therapeutic algorithm for HCC seems to be imperative.

Application of ASCO Value Framework to Treatment Advances in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Determination of the comparative efficacy of one therapy over another for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be challenging. Application of a recognized value framework to published studies could objectively compare the potential benefit across available therapies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An umbrella review of phase III trials for HCC therapies was performed. ASCO Value Framework Net Health Benefit Score version 2 (ASCO-NHB v2) scores, the primary analysis, and European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 scores, the secondary analysis, were computed using selected drug registration trials. Both scores were compared between drugs that were Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved by 2020 and those that were not.

RESULTS

Of the 22 studies identified, nine were FDA-approved and 13 were not. Across 22 trials, the median overall survival (OS) was 9.2 months (range, 1.9-16.4 months), with a median gain of 0.35 month (range, 2.3-3.3 months). HCC therapies that were FDA-approved showed longer OS (median 10.7 v 7.9 months, P < .01) and higher ASCO NHB scores (+18.4 v -5.7 scores, P < .01). The median gain in OS was 2.2 months in the approved treatments compared with -0.3 months in the unapproved group, with no difference in progression-free survival between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The nine FDA-approved therapies for HCC have higher mean NHB score than those that were not FDA-approved. The application of ASCO-NHB v2 and other proposed value frameworks could examine data of future therapies for HCC through a patient-oriented approach.

Systemic Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline to assist in clinical decision making for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of published phase III randomized controlled trials (2007-2020) on systemic therapy for advanced HCC and provide recommended care options for this patient population.

RESULTS

Nine phase III randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Atezolizumab + bevacizumab (atezo + bev) may be offered as first-line treatment of most patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0-1, and following management of esophageal varices, when present, according to institutional guidelines. Where there are contraindications to atezolizumab and/or bevacizumab, tyrosine kinase inhibitors sorafenib or lenvatinib may be offered as first-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, and ECOG PS 0-1. Following first-line treatment with atezo + bev, and until better data are available, second-line therapy with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor may be recommended for appropriate candidates. Following first-line therapy with sorafenib or lenvatinib, second-line therapy options for appropriate candidates include cabozantinib, regorafenib for patients who previously tolerated sorafenib, or ramucirumab (for patients with α-fetoprotein ≥ 400 ng/mL), or atezo + bev where patients did not have access to this option as first-line therapy. Pembrolizumab or nivolumab are also reasonable options for appropriate patients following sorafenib or lenvatinib. Consideration of nivolumab + ipilimumab as an option for second-line therapy and third-line therapy is discussed. Further guidance on choosing between therapy options is included within the guideline. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

Assessing the risk-benefit profile of ramucirumab in patients with advanced solid tumors: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Ramucirumab is a widely used cancer drug having gained six regulatory approvals in various advanced solid tumors. Thus, assessing the risk-benefit profile of such a commonly used drug across multiple tumor types is necessary to inform clinical and reimbursement decisions. To objectively assess the risks and benefits of ramucirumab in patients with advanced solid tumors, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and conference abstracts for all RCTs of ramucirumab in patients with advanced solid cancer was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Data on treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs), fatal adverse events (FAEs), primary endpoint, gains in median overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) with their hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and quality of life (QOL) were extracted from each RCT. Summary relative risks (RR) with 95% CI for SAEs and FAEs were calculated by pooling data across the RCTs using random-effects model. Treatment benefit was evaluated descriptively in terms of median and HR with 95% CI of OS and PFS gains as well as improvements in QOL. ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS), a validated tool, was used to objectively quantify clinical benefit of ramucirumab in approved settings.

FINDINGS

Ten RCTs met our inclusion criteria. Compared with the control arm, the use of ramucirumab was associated with a significantly increased risk of developing SAE (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.05-1.21, incidence 37.5% v 33.5%). The increase in risk of FAE (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.96-2.07, incidence 1.8% v 1.3%) was not statistically significant. Using the ESMO MCBS tool, clinical benefit with ramucirumab was not substantial in any indication, five of six approvals scoring a "negligible benefit" score of 1 or 2. QOL was either not reported (30%) or not improved (70%) in these RCTs.

INTERPRETATION

In this meta-analysis of RCTs, use of ramucirumab in patients with advanced cancer was associated with increased risk of treatment related serious and possibly fatal adverse events but the magnitude of clinical benefit from ramucirumab was mostly negligible with no trial reporting an improvement in QOL. These relative risks and benefits should be considered in clinical and regulatory decision making.

FUNDING

None.

Profile of Cabozantinib for the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Patient Selection and Special Considerations

Management of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma is challenging. With an increasing number of options for the first and second-line treatment, understanding and developing optimal systemic treatment strategies are crucial. In second line, two tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and one monoclonal antibody have been approved after sorafenib by both the European Medicines Agency and the Food and Drug Administration based on the results of phase 3 trials: cabozantinib, regorafenib and ramucirumab. Cabozantinib has demonstrated an improved overall survival and progression-free survival in the phase 3 CELESTIAL study in second and third line, in patients in good general condition (performance status 0-1) and with a normal liver function Child-Pugh class A. Analysis of subgroups has shown that even elderly patients over 65 years, or patients with high baseline alpha-fetoprotein ≥400 ng/mL benefit from cabozantinib. The choice in second-line between the three drugs should be based on factors such as previous tolerance of sorafenib, safety profile of drugs and quality of life. In this review, we will analyze clinical data available on cabozantinib, clarifying the choice between the different possible treatments. However, the upcoming of a new standard in first line with the combination atezolizumab and bevacizumab will change the game and will warrant further investigations to define the accurate subsequent sequence of TKIs. Cabozantinib is also actually tested in first-line in combination with atezolizumab, results of the phase 3 COSMIC trial are eagerly awaited.