Efficacy and Safety of Regorafenib with or without PD-1 Inhibitors as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Real-World Clinical Practice

Regorafenib plus programmed death‑1 inhibitors vs. regorafenib monotherapy in second‑line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta‑analysis

The present study compared the efficacy and safety of regorafenib plus programmed death-1 inhibitors (R-P) with regorafenib monotherapy as second-line therapies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A systematic search of relevant literature published in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases until October 2023 was conducted. Two authors independently performed data extraction and screening using standardized protocols. Stata/MP 17.0 was used for the meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of R-P treatment on major outcome indicators, including overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), tumor response and adverse reactions, in patients with advanced HCC. The results indicated that five cohort studies involving 444 patients with advanced HCC were included. The results revealed that R-P treatment improved overall survival [hazard ratio (HR), 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.77; I2=0.0%; P=0.663] and PFS (HR, 0.51; 95% CI 0.41-0.63; I2=17.5%; P=0.303). Additionally, it increased the objective response rate (risk ratio, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.49-3.64; I2=0.0%; P=0.994) and disease control rate (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.20-1.63; I2=0.0%; P=0.892) compared with those of regorafenib. However, R-P treatment was associated with an increased incidence of adverse events, such as hypothyroidism, thrombocytopenia and rash, compared with that in regorafenib. In conclusion, R-P is superior to regorafenib monotherapy in terms of survival benefits and tumor response.

Regorafenib with immunotherapy versus regorafenib alone as second-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicenter real-world study

INTRODUCTION

Regorafenib remains the standard and widely used second-line strategy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). There is still a lack of large-scale multicenter real-world evidence concerning the concurrent use of regorafenib with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). This study aims to evaluate whether combining regorafenib with ICI provides greater clinical benefit than regorafenib monotherapy as second-line therapy for advanced HCC under real-world circumstances.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study included 208 patients from five medical facilities. One hundred forty-three patients received regorafenib plus ICI combination therapy, while 65 patients received regorafenib monotherapy. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was employed.

RESULTS

The regorafenib plus ICI group demonstrated significantly higher objective response rate (24.3% vs. 10.3%, after PSM, p = 0.030) and disease control rate (79.4% vs. 50.0%, after PSM, p < 0.001) compared to the regorafenib monotherapy group based on mRECIST criteria. Median progression-free survival (7.9 vs. 3.2 months, after PSM, p < 0.001) and overall survival (25.6 vs. 16.4 months, p = 0.010, after PSM) were also considerably longer in the regorafenib plus ICI group. The incidence of Grades 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) was marginally greater in the regorafenib plus ICI group than in the regorafenib group (23.8% vs. 20.0%, p = 0.546). Notably, there were no instances of treatment-related mortality or emergence of new TRAEs in any treatment group.

CONCLUSION

The combination of regorafenib and ICI shows potential as a viable second-line treatment for advanced HCC, exhibiting favorable efficacy while maintaining a tolerable safety profile in contrast to regorafenib monotherapy.

Immunotherapy and Radiation Therapy Combinatorial Approaches in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a prevalent and often fatal liver cancer, presents significant treatment challenges, especially in its advanced stages. This article delves into the promising approach of combining immunotherapy, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors, with radiation therapy, a cornerstone of HCC management. Our review synthesizes current preclinical and clinical research, highlighting the potential synergistic effects of this combinational treatment. Emerging evidence suggests that this synergy enhances tumor control and improves patient survival rates. The combination leverages the localized, tumor-targeting ability of radiation therapy and the systemic, immune-boosting effects of immunotherapy, potentially overcoming the limitations inherent in each treatment modality when used separately. This integrative approach is especially promising in addressing the complex tumor microenvironment of HCC. However, the treatment landscape is nuanced, with challenges such as patient-specific response variability and potential resistance to therapies. Future research directions should focus on refining these combination strategies, tailoring them to individual patient profiles, and understanding the underlying mechanisms that govern the interaction between immunotherapy and radiation therapy. Such advancements could significantly improve HCC management, setting new standards for patient care and treatment efficacy.

New Opportunities in the Systemic Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma-Today and Tomorrow

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer. Liver cirrhosis, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease represent major risk factors of HCC. Multiple different treatment options are available, depending on the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) algorithm. Systemic treatment is reserved for certain patients in stages B and C, who will not benefit from regional treatment methods. In the last fifteen years, the arsenal of available therapeutics has largely expanded, which improved treatment outcomes. Nevertheless, not all patients respond to these agents and novel combinations and drugs are needed. In this review, we aim to summarize the pathway of trials investigating the safety and efficacy of targeted therapeutics and immunotherapies since the introduction of sorafenib. Furthermore, we discuss the current evidence regarding resistance mechanisms and potential novel targets in the treatment of advanced HCC.

Efficacy and safety of regorafenib as second-line treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and macrovascular invasion and(or) extrahepatic metastasis

Background

Macrovascular invasion and(or) extrahepatic metastasis are the main clinical characteristics of Chinese patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after entering the second-line treatment. The aim of this study was to explore the efficacy and safety of regorafenib as a second-line treatment for these patients with HCC.

Methods

We selected 253 patients with primary liver cancer who were treated in Henan Cancer Hospital from June 2017 to September 2020. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 63 patients with HCC with macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic metastasis were finally included. The clinical data of patients were obtained by consulting the electronic medical record system and through telephone follow-up. The median overall survival (mOS), duration of drug use, and disease control rate (DCR) of patients were evaluated, and the Cox regression model was used to analyze the risk factors of prognosis.

Results

The mOS of 63 patients with HCC administered regorafenib as second-line treatment was 9.6 months, the duration of drug use was 3.8 months, and the DCR was 59% (37/63). Cox multivariate analysis showed that overall survival (OS) was closely related to the level of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and treatment method but not to the type of first-line drug. The mOS of patients with AFP ≥400 ng/mL was 7.4 months, which was significantly lower than that of those with AFP <400 ng/mL (12.5 months) (P=0.0052). The mOS of patients treated with regorafenib alone was 6.8 months, which was significantly lower than that of those treated with regorafenib combined with immunotherapy (24.3 months) and intervention therapy (17.5 months) (P<0.0001). The mOS of patients using regorafenib as second-line treatment in the first-line sorafenib group and first-line nonsorafenib group were 9.5 and 9.6 months, respectively (P=0.9766). The grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) with an incidence of more than 10% included hand-foot syndrome, increased bilirubin, decreased albumin, and elevated transaminase, with incidences of 22%, 14%, 11%, and 10%, respectively.

Conclusions

As second-line treatment for patients with HCC with macrovascular invasion and(or) extrahepatic metastasis, regorafenib has definite efficacy and tolerable adverse reactions. It is the preferred drug for the second-line treatment of patients with advanced HCC.

Efficacy and Safety of TACE Combined with Regorafenib Plus PD-1 Inhibitor in the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Sorafenib Resistance

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of TACE combined with regorafenib plus PD-1 inhibitor as a second-line therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma after sorafenib resistance.

Materials and Methods

The clinical data of 76 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who were drug-resistant to sorafenib from September 2018 to May 2022 in the tumor intervention department were collected. Among them, 35 patients used TACE combined with regorafenib plus PD-1 inhibitor (TACE-R-P) as second-line treatment, and the remaining 41 patients used TACE combined with regorafenib (TACE-R) as second-line treatment. The mRECIST (modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) standard was used to evaluate the therapeutic effect. The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of the two groups were compared. Blood samples were collected before and after treatment to detect the changes in biochemical indicators, and the adverse events (AEs) related to treatment were recorded.

Results

A total of 76 patients were included in the study, including 35 patients receiving TACE-R-P treatment and 41 patients receiving TACE-R treatment. Patients in the TACE-R-P group had longer median OS (19.7months vs 15.2months, HR:0.7716, 95% CI:0.4767-1.2490, P=0.03), longer median PFS (6.3months vs 3.8months, HR:0.6032, 95% CI:0.3727-0.9763, P=0.0029), higher objective response rate (37.14% vs 19.51%, P=0.001) and higher disease control rate (71.43% vs 48.78%, P=0.001) than those in the TACE-R group. Multivariate analysis showed that Child-Pugh grade (B/A; HR=1.283, 95% CI: 0.623-1.707, P=0.014), PVTT (Yes/No, HR=1.455, 95% CI: 0.977-2.038, P=0.018), extrahepatic metastasis (Yes/No, HR=1.766, 95% CI: 1.135-2.302, P=0.022) and treatment option (TACE-R/TACE-R-P, HR=1.930, 95% CI: 1.461-2.850, P=0.017) were independent prognostic factors for OS. There was no significant difference in the incidence and severity of AEs between the two groups.

Conclusion

TACE-R-P treatment can be more effective than TACE-R treatment for HCC after sorafenib resistance and can be given priority as a second-line treatment for HCC.