Molecular targeted agents as second-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis and review

Efficacy and Safety of Second-line Treatments in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Sorafenib Failure: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In the last decade, several second-line therapies followed by sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been reported. But the outcomes were different from each other. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the second-line therapies followed by sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC.

METHODS

Embase (1974 to October 2019) and Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to October 2019) were searched for randomized clinical trials on second-line therapies followed by sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC. The quality of each study was assessed by the modified Jadad scale. Statistical analysis was carried out by RevMan5.3 software. Efficacy and safety were analyzed. Efficacy included overall survival (OS), disease control rate, time to progression, and progression-free survival.

RESULTS

Eight studies involving 3,173 patients were eligible. No difference in OS was found between the second-line treatment group and the control group (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.74-1.01, p=0.06). Disease control rate (relative risk (RR)=1.36, 95% CI: 1.16-1.60, p=0.0002), time to progression (HR=0.64, 95% CI: 0.51-0.81, p=0.0002) and progression-free survival (HR=0.60, 95% CI: 0.46-0.77, p<0.0001) were significantly improved by the second-line therapies. There was a slight difference in adverse events of any grade (RR=1.07, 95% CI: 1.00-1.14, p=0.03) between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

These second-line therapies followed by sorafenib may potentially improve the prognosis in patients with advanced HCC. Compared with other second-line therapies, regorafenib seemed to be more effective.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of second-line therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma

Background

In patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (hcc) following sorafenib failure, it is unclear which treatment is most efficacious, as treatments in the second-line setting have not been directly compared and no standard therapy exists. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (nma) aimed to compare the clinical benefits and toxicities of these treatments.

Methods

A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (rcts) was conducted to identify phase iii rcts in advanced hcc following sorafenib failure. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of placebo were examined for heterogeneity. Primary outcomes of interest were extracted for results, including overall survival (os), progression-free survival (pfs), objective response rate (orr), grade 3/4 toxicities, and subgroups. An nma was conducted to compare both drugs through the intermediate placebo. Comparisons were expressed as hazard ratios (hrs) for os and pfs, and as risk difference (rd) for orr and toxicities. Subgroup analyses for os and pfs were also performed.

Results

Two rcts were identified (1280 patients) and compared through an indirect network; celestial (cabozantinib vs. placebo) and resorce (regorafenib vs. placebo). Baseline characteristics of patients in both trials were similar. Both trials also had similar placebo outcomes. Cabozantinib, compared with regorafenib, showed similar os [hazard ratio (hr): 1.21; 95% confidence interval (ci): 0.90 to 1.62], pfs (hr: 1.02; 95% ci: 0.78 to 1.34) and orr (-3.0%; 95% ci: -7.6% to 1.7%). Both treatments showed similar toxicities, but there were marginally higher risks of grade 3/4 hand-foot syndrome (5%; 95% ci: 0.1% to 9.8%), diarrhea (4.8%; 95% ci: 1.1% to 8.5%), and anorexia (4.4%; 95% ci: 0.8% to 8.0%) for cabozantinib. Subgroup results for os and pfs were consistent with overall results.

Conclusions

Overall, this nma determined that cabozantinib and regorafenib have similar clinical benefits and toxicities for second-line hcc.

Comparing the efficacy and safety of second-line therapies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis of phase III trials

BACKGROUND

The prospect for targeted therapies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has dramatically changed since several recent clinical trials have yielded promising results. The number of second-line therapies is increasing, though the consequent challenge is to consider differences between these interventions. This is a comparative investigation of presently approved second-line drugs for HCC based on findings from phase III randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

Data related to treatment efficacy including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) were extracted and compared using a Bayesian approach. Adverse events (AEs) and the rate of discontinuation due to AEs were assessed and compared with provide a more complete understanding. OS and PFS in patients with alpha fetoprotein (AFP) values greater than 400 were compared and ranked as a subgroup.

RESULTS

A total of five trials involving 2571 patients were included. The comparison suggests that regorafenib and cabozantinib significantly prolong OS compared with placebo. The rate of AEs and treatment discontinuation did not significantly differ, although the types of AEs varied substantially. Subgroup analysis did not highlight a significant OS difference between regorafenib [hazard ratio (HR) 0.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.92], cabozantinib (HR 0.71; CI 0.54-0.94) and ramucirumab (HR 0.69; CI 0.57-0.84). Conclusion: Among the four second-line HCC therapies compared, regorafenib and cabozantinib appear to be better choices in terms of OS. Cabozantinib, regorafenib and ramucirumab have similar levels of efficacy for those with AFP >400, although ramucirumab has fewer side effects. No significant difference was observed in AEs, but some AEs related to each of these interventions should be given further consideration.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cabozantinib as second-line therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

In the CELESTIAL trial for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), cabozantinib showed improved survival compared with placebo but comes at a price. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib for sorafenib-resistant HCC from the payer's perspective of the USA, UK and China.

METHODS

We developed Markov models to simulate the patients pre-treated with first-line sorafenib following the CELESTIAL trial. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated for the treatment with cabozantinib or best supportive care. The list price for drugs was acquired from the Red Book, the British National Formulary, West China hospital and reported literature. Adverse events, utilities weights, and transition likelihood between states were sourced from the published randomized phase III trial. A willing-to-pay threshold was set $150 000/QALY in the USA, $70 671/QALY (£50 000/QALY) in the UK and $26 481/QALY (3x GDP per capita) in China. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were developed to test the models' uncertainty.

RESULTS

In the base case, treatment with cabozantinib increased effectiveness by 0.13 QALYs, resulting in an ICER vs best supportive care of $833 497/QALY in the USA, $304 177/QALY in the UK and $156 437/QALY in China. The models were most sensitive to assumptions about transitions to progression with both cabozantinib and best supportive care, the utility associated with being progression free. These results were robust across a range of scenarios and sensitivity analyses, including deterministic and probabilistic analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Cabozantinib at its current cost would not be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with sorafenib-resistant HCC from the payer's perspective in the USA, UK or China. Substantial discounts are necessary to meet conventional cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Second-line Treatments of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) constitutes the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths. First-line therapy is either sorafenib or lenvatinib. Several treatment options have been recently added to the second-line treatment of advanced HCC. The aim of this network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was to compare the second-line treatments of advanced HCC.

METHODS

Network meta-analyses were computed for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, rates of grade 3 to 5 adverse events, and for treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. OS was considered to be the primary outcome of this study, and everolimus was chosen to be the common comparator for efficacy analyses and placebo for safety analyses. Subgroup analyses were computed for OS in patients with hepatitis B, patients with hepatitis C, Asian patients, patients with macrovascular invasion, and patients with extrahepatic metastases.

RESULTS

Thirteen randomized controlled trials including 5076 patients and evaluating 11 agents were found to be eligible. Regorafenib [hazard ratio (HR)=0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.44-0.81] and cabozantinib (HR=0.72, 95% CI=0.55-0.95) were found to significantly prolong OS compared with everolimus. The effect of regorafenib on OS tended to be conserved across patient subgroups. Regorafenib was also found to significantly prolong progression-free survival (HR=0.46, 95% CI=0.35-0.62) and significantly increase the rates of grade 3 to 5 adverse events (odds ratios=3.18, 95% CI=2.22-4.54) and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (odds ratios=2.67, 95% CI=1.21-5.87).

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis concludes that, based on current evidence, regorafenib could be the agent of choice in the second-line treatment of HCC, with cabozantinib as a possible alternative for sorafenib-intolerant patients.