Refining sorafenib therapy: lessons from clinical practice

Management of Apatinib-Related Adverse Events in Patients With Advanced Osteosarcoma From Four Prospective Trials: Chinese Sarcoma Study Group Experience

Four prospective trials have reported apatinib-related efficacy in osteosarcoma, with a high response rate of 43.2%. Currently, Adverse Events (AEs) have increasingly gained attention, as treatment with multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) is potentially lifelong. For this reason, a consensus meeting of the Chinese Sarcoma Study Group (CSSG), which is a multidisciplinary panel composed of pediatric, medical and surgical oncologists specializing in sarcoma, nurse specialists, oncological senior pharmacists and gastroenterologists, was held to develop comprehensive guidelines on AEs emerging due to apatinib treatment to better assist in the prevention, management, and understanding of AE development. We summarized all AEs that arose in ≥10% of the participants as well as rare AEs that required extra caution to prevent that were observed in these four published prospective trials and arranged these AEs into 14 disorder systems according to CTCAE 5.0. In this review, we discuss strategies for the management of AEs in patients with advanced osteosarcoma, with the aim of maximizing treatment benefits and minimizing the need for apatinib treatment discontinuation. We also focus on providing recommendations for the prophylaxis and treatment of advanced osteosarcoma using apatinib to achieve optimal outcomes.

Management of Adverse Events Associated with Cabozantinib Treatment in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Cabozantinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor whose targets include vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, MET, and the TAM family of kinases (TYRO3, AXL, MER). Cabozantinib is approved for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who have been previously treated with sorafenib, based on improved overall survival and progression-free survival relative to placebo in the phase III CELESTIAL study. During CELESTIAL, the most common adverse events (AEs) experienced by patients receiving cabozantinib included palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, fatigue, gastrointestinal-related events, and hypertension. These AEs can significantly impact treatment tolerability and patient quality of life. However, AEs can be effectively managed with supportive care and dose modifications. During CELESTIAL, more than half of the patients receiving cabozantinib required a dose reduction, while the rate of treatment discontinuation due to AEs was low. Here, we review the safety profile of cabozantinib and provide guidance on the prevention and management of the more common AEs, based on current evidence from the literature as well as our clinical experience. We consider the specific challenges faced by clinicians in treating this patient population and discuss factors that may affect exposure and tolerability to cabozantinib.

BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF HEPATOLOGY UPDATED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT OF HEPATOCELLULAR CARCINOMA

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality worldwide. The Brazilian Society of Hepatology (SBH) published in 2015 its first recommendations about the management of HCC. Since then, new data have emerged in the literature, prompting the governing board of SBH to sponsor a single-topic meeting in August 2018 in São Paulo. All the invited experts were asked to make a systematic review of the literature reviewing the management of HCC in subjects with cirrhosis. After the meeting, all panelists gathered together for the discussion of the topics and the elaboration of updated recommendations. The text was subsequently submitted for suggestions and approval of all members of the Brazilian Society of Hepatology through its homepage. The present manuscript is the final version of the reviewed manuscript containing the recommendations of SBH.

Outcomes and Quality of Life of Systemic Therapy in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers worldwide; most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease for which there is no known cure. Tremendous progress has been made over the past decade in the development of new agents for HCC, including small-molecule kinase inhibitors such as sorafenib, lenvatinib, cabozantinib, regorafenib, and monoclonal antibodies like ramucirumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab. Ideal use of these agents in clinics has improved the long-term outcome of patients with advanced HCC as well as introduced unique toxicities that can affect quality of life. These toxicities usually are thought to be partially related to cirrhosis, a major risk factor for the development of HCC and a pathophysiological barrier complicating the optimal delivery of antineoplastic therapy. Additionally, side effects of medications together with advanced HCC symptoms not only decrease quality of life, but also cause treatment interruptions and dose reductions that can potentially decrease efficacy. Physicians caring for patients with advanced HCC are called to optimally manage HCC along with cirrhosis in order to prolong life while at the same time preserve the quality of life. In this review, we aimed to summarize outcomes and quality of life with the use of modern systemic treatments in advanced HCC and provide a physician reference for treatment toxicity and cirrhosis management.

Management of adverse events associated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors: Improving outcomes for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common form of primary liver cancer. Sorafenib, regorafenib, lenvatinib and cabozantinib are tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) that target, in part, vascular endothelial growth factor receptors, and are approved in various regions of the world for the treatment of advanced HCC. All these agents are associated with a range of adverse events (AEs) that can have a substantial impact on patients' health-related quality of life. Fatigue, diarrhoea, hand-foot skin reaction, nausea, vomiting, decreased appetite, hypertension and weight loss are among the most common AEs experienced with these four TKIs. In this review, we discuss strategies for the management of these AEs in patients with advanced HCC, with the aim of maximizing treatment benefits and minimizing the need for TKI treatment discontinuation. We also consider potential TKI-drug interactions and discuss the use of TKIs in patients with liver dysfunction or who have experienced tumour recurrence after liver transplantation. Use of appropriate AE management strategies and avoidance of contraindicated drugs should help patients with advanced HCC to achieve optimal outcomes with TKIs.

Sorafenib: key lessons from over 10 years of experience

Introduction: In 2005, sorafenib was the first targeted therapy approved for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), transforming treatment. In hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), for more than a decade, sorafenib remained the only approved systemic therapy to have demonstrated a survival benefit in first-line unresectable HCC. In 2013, sorafenib was the first targeted agent approved for patients with differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) refractory to radioactive iodine treatment. Areas covered: This review discusses the development, advances, and challenges associated with sorafenib use in RCC, HCC, and DTC over the past decade. A search was performed on PubMed and key congresses as required, with no time limits. Expert commentary: Sorafenib has had a lasting impact on the therapeutic landscape of RCC, HCC, and DTC, and remains an important treatment option despite a rapidly evolving treatment landscape. Extensive clinical and real-world experience has been invaluable in improving patient management and maximizing benefit from treatment. Ongoing clinical trials continue to evaluate sorafenib in different settings, and in combination with other therapies in HCC and DTC. We have no doubt that sorafenib will continue to be an important treatment option in the coming years.

Clinical outcomes with long-term sorafenib treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter real-life study

AIM

This multicenter field-practice study evaluates outcomes of long-term sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.

METHODS

Consecutive HCC patients on sorafenib were enrolled. We evaluated those receiving sorafenib for ≥12 months.

RESULTS

Out of 800 patients on sorafenib, 81 (10%) received long-term treatment. Median duration of treatment was 22.7 months (range: 12.3-92.6). Only 21 (26%) reported grade 3/4 adverse events. Complete response was reported in 11 patients (14%). Median overall survival was 34.8 months (95% CI: 29.9-44.3). Only baseline Child-Pugh class was associated with survival.

CONCLUSION

Sorafenib could result in long-term control of HCC in a relevant proportion of patients. Given the availability of regorafenib in the second-line setting, an earlier introduction of systemic therapy may be considered according to clinical indications.

Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost analysis of yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization versus sorafenib

Aim: The aim was to evaluate cost–effectiveness of yttrium-90 transarterial radioembolization (TARE) in comparison to sorafenib treatment. Patients & methods: A single-center, retrospective, observational study was performed, 166 patients with intermediate-/advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma were treated with sorafenib and 19 with TARE. The patients out of the sorafenib group matching the inclusion criteria for TARE, were reassigned to a subgroup SOR3. Results: Mean costs for SOR3 patients amounted to €27,992 per patient, instead for TARE treatment, mean expense per patient was €17,761 (p = 0.028). Overall survival was similar between the two groups, while midterm survival rates (p = 0.012) were significantly higher with TARE treatment. Conclusion: TARE causes significantly lower treatment costs than sorafenib with better outcome in midterm survival.

Advances in studies of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and their acquired resistance

Protein tyrosine kinase (PTK) is one of the major signaling enzymes in the process of cell signal transduction, which catalyzes the transfer of ATP-γ-phosphate to the tyrosine residues of the substrate protein, making it phosphorylation, regulating cell growth, differentiation, death and a series of physiological and biochemical processes. Abnormal expression of PTK usually leads to cell proliferation disorders, and is closely related to tumor invasion, metastasis and tumor angiogenesis. At present, a variety of PTKs have been used as targets in the screening of anti-tumor drugs. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) compete with ATP for the ATP binding site of PTK and reduce tyrosine kinase phosphorylation, thereby inhibiting cancer cell proliferation. TKI has made great progress in the treatment of cancer, but the attendant acquired acquired resistance is still inevitable, restricting the treatment of cancer. In this paper, we summarize the role of PTK in cancer, TKI treatment of tumor pathways and TKI acquired resistance mechanisms, which provide some reference for further research on TKI treatment of tumors.

A randomized phase II study of paclitaxel alone versus paclitaxel plus sorafenib in second- and third-line treatment of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (PASO)

Background

We conducted an open-label, randomized, two-arm multi-center study to assess the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel versus paclitaxel + sorafenib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer.

Methods

Patients were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel monotherapy (80 mg/m²) weekly (3 weeks on, 1 week off) plus sorafenib 400 mg orally, twice a day taken continuously throughout 28 day cycles. Sorafenib dose was gradually escalated from a starting dose of 200 mg twice a day. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS).

Results

A pre-planned efficacy interim analysis was performed on the data of 60 patients, 30 patients in each treatment arm. Median PFS was estimated at 6.6 months (95% CI: 5.1 to 9.0) in patients randomized to single-agent paclitaxel (Arm A) and 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.8 to 6.5) in patients randomized to paclitaxel-sorafenib combination (Arm B) therapy. Contrary to the hypothesis, the treatment effect was statistically significant in favor of paclitaxel monotherapy (hazard ratio 1.80, 95% CI: 1.02 to 3.20; log-rank test P = 0.0409). It was decided to stop the trial early for futility. Median OS was also in favor of Arm A (20.7 months (95% CI: 16.4 to 26.7) versus 12.1 months (95% CI: 5.8 to 20.4) in Arm B. Clinical control was achieved in 28 patients (93.3%) in Arm A and in 21 patients 70.0% in Arm B. Overall response rate was met in 43.3% of patients in Arm A and in 40.0% in Arm B. Toxicities were increased in Arm B with higher rates of diarrhea, nausea, neutropenia, hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) and anorexia, Grad 3 and 4 toxicities were rare.

Conclusions

In this pre-planned interim analysis, paclitaxel-sorafenib combination therapy was not found to be superior to paclitaxel monotherapy with regard to the primary end point, progression-free survival. The trial was therefore discontinued early. There was no indication of more favorable outcomes for combination therapy in secondary efficacy end points. As expected, the safety and toxicity profile of the combination therapy was less favorable compared to monotherapy. Overall, this trial did not demonstrate that adding sorafenib to second- or third-line paclitaxel provides any clinical benefit to patients with HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Cautious dosing using a sorafenib ramp up schedule might have contributed to negative results.

Trial registration

The study was registered at EudraCT (No 2009–018025-73) and retrospectively registered at Clinical trials.gov on March 17, 2011 (NCT01320111).

Pluronic® P123/F127 mixed micelles delivering sorafenib and its combination with verteporfin in cancer cells

Here, we developed Pluronic® P123/F127 (poloxamer) mixed micelles for the intravenous delivery of the anticancer drug sorafenib (SRB) or its combination with verteporfin (VP), a photosensitizer for photodynamic therapy that should complement well the cytotoxicity profile of the chemotherapeutic. SRB loading inside the core of micelles was governed by the drug:poloxamer weight ratio, while in the case of the SRB-VP combination, a mutual interference between the two drugs occurred and only specific ratios could ensure maximum loading efficiency. Coentrapment of SRB did not alter the photophysical properties of VP, confirming that SRB did not participate in any bimolecular process with the photosensitizer. Fluorescence resonance energy-transfer measurement of micelles in serum protein-containing cell-culture medium demonstrated the excellent stability of the system in physiologically relevant conditions. These results were in line with the results of the release study showing a release rate of both drugs in the presence of proteins slower than in phosphate buffer. SRB release was sustained, while VP remained substantially entrapped in the micelle core. Cytotoxicity studies in MDA-MB231 cells revealed that at 24 hours, SRB-loaded micelles were more active than free SRB only at very low SRB concentrations, while at 24+24 hours a prolonged cytotoxic effect of SRB-loaded micelles was observed, very likely mediated by the block in the S phase of the cell cycle. The combination of SRB with VP under light exposure was less cytotoxic than both the free combination and VP-loaded micelles + SRB-loaded micelles combination. This behavior was clearly explainable in terms of micelle uptake and intracellular localization. Besides the clear advantage of delivering SRB in poloxamer micelles, our results provide a clear example that each photochemotherapeutic combination needs detailed investigations on their particular interaction, and no generalization on enhanced cytotoxic effects should be derived a priori.

Randomized, open-label phase 2 study comparing frontline dovitinib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Angiogenesis inhibition by the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) inhibitor sorafenib provides survival benefit in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, angiogenic escape from sorafenib may occur due to angiogenesis-associated fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) pathway activation. In addition to VEGFR and PDGFR, dovitinib inhibits FGFR. Frontline oral dovitinib (500 mg/day, 5 days on, 2 days off; n = 82) versus sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; n = 83) was evaluated in an open-label, randomized phase 2 study of Asian-Pacific patients with advanced HCC. The primary and key secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and time to tumor progression (TTP) as determined by a local investigator, respectively. Patients included in the study were ineligible for surgical and/or locoregional therapies or had disease progression after receiving these therapies. The median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 8.0 (6.6-9.1) months for dovitinib and 8.4 (5.4-11.3) months for sorafenib. The median TTP (95% CI) per investigator assessment was 4.1 (2.8-4.2) months and 4.1 (2.8-4.3) months for dovitinib and sorafenib, respectively. Common any-cause adverse events included diarrhea (62%), decreased appetite (43%), nausea (41%), vomiting (41%), fatigue (35%), rash (34%), and pyrexia (30%) for dovitinib and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (66%) and decreased appetite (31%) for sorafenib. Subgroup analysis revealed a significantly higher median OS for patients in the dovitinib arm who had baseline plasma soluble VEGFR1 (sVEGFR1) and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) below median levels versus at or above the median levels (median OS [95% CI]: sVEGFR1, 11.2 [9.0-13.8] and 5.7 [4.3-7.0] months, respectively [P = .0002]; HGF, 11.2 [8.9-13.8] and 5.9 [5.0-7.6] months, respectively [P = 0.0002]).

CONCLUSION

Dovitinib was well tolerated, but activity was not greater than sorafenib as a frontline systemic therapy for HCC. Based on these data, no subsequent phase 3 study has been planned. (Hepatology 2016;64:774-784).

Sorafenib after resection improves the outcome of BCLC stage C hepatocellular carcinoma

AIM: To evaluate whether sorafenib use after resection impacts tumor relapse and survival in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage C hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS: This retrospective study enrolled 36 male BCLC stage C HCC patients with portal vein thrombus and Child-Pugh class A liver function. Twenty-four patients received only surgical resection (SR), and 12 patients received oral sorafenib within 30 d after surgery. The primary outcomes were time to progression (TTP) (the time from surgical resection until HCC recurrence or extrahepatic metastases) and overall survival (OS). The secondary outcome was the rate of postoperative recurrence or metastasis. TTP and OS were analyzed using Kaplan Meier curves.

RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in the serum levels of alpha-fetoprotein, copies of hepatitis B virus-DNA, preoperative laboratory results, degree of hepatic fibrosis, types of portal vein tumor thrombus, number of satellite lesions, tumor diameter, pathological results, volume of blood loss, volume of blood transfusion, or surgery time (all P > 0.05). Patients in the SR + sorafenib group had a significantly longer TTP (29 mo vs 22 mo, P = 0.041) and a significantly longer median OS (37 mo vs 30 mo, P = 0.01) compared to patients in the SR group. The SR group had 18 cases (75%) of recurrence/metastasis while the SR + sorafenib group had six cases (50%) of recurrence/metastasis. A total of 19 patients died after surgery (five in the SR + sorafenib group and 14 in the SR group). The most common sorafenib-related adverse events were skin reactions, diarrhea, and hypertension, all of which were resolved with treatment.

CONCLUSION: Sorafenib after SR was well-tolerated. Patients who received sorafenib after SR had better outcomes compared to patients who received only SR.

Cancer and liver cirrhosis: implications on prognosis and management

Liver cirrhosis, the end-stage of every chronic liver disease, is not only the major risk factor for the development of hepatocellular carcinoma but also a limiting factor for anticancer therapy of liver and non-hepatic malignancies. Liver cirrhosis may limit surgical and interventional approaches to cancer treatment, influence pharmacokinetics of anticancer drugs, increase side effects of chemotherapy, render patients susceptible for hepatotoxicity, and ultimately result in a competitive risk for morbidity and mortality. In this review, we provide a concise overview about the impact of liver cirrhosis on the management and prognosis of patients with primary liver cancer or non-hepatic malignancies.

Patterns of treatment and costs of intermediate and advanced hepatocellular carcinoma management in four Italian centers

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a severe health condition associated with high hospitalizations and mortality rates, which also imposes a relevant economic burden.

PURPOSE

The aim of the present survey is to investigate treatment strategies and related costs for HCC in the intermediate and advanced stages of the disease.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The survey was conducted in four Italian centers through structured interviews with physicians. Information regarding the stage of disease, treatments performed, and related health care resource consumption was included in the questionnaire. Direct health care cost per patient associated with the most relevant treatments such as sorafenib, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), and transarterial radioembolization (TARE) was evaluated.

RESULTS

Between 2013 and 2014, 285 patients with HCC were treated in the four participating centers; of these, 80 were in intermediate stage HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Classification [BCLC] B), and 57 were in the advanced stage of the disease (BCLC C). In intermediate stage HCC, the most frequent first-line treatment was TACE (63%) followed by sorafenib (15%), radiofrequency ablation (14%), and TARE (1.3%). In the advanced stage of HCC, the most frequently used first-line therapy was sorafenib (56%), followed by best supportive care (21%), TACE (18%), and TARE (3.5%). The total costs of treatment per patient amounted to €12,214.54 with sorafenib, €13,418.49 with TACE, and €26,106.08 with TARE. Both in the intermediate and in the advanced stage of the disease, variability in treatment patterns among centers was observed.

CONCLUSION

The present analysis raises for the first time the awareness of the overall costs incurred by the Italian National Healthcare System for different treatments used in intermediate and advanced HCC. Further investigations would be important to better understand the effective health care resource usage.

Adjuvant sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma after resection or ablation (STORM): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is no standard of care for adjuvant therapy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. This trial was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib versus placebo as adjuvant therapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after surgical resection or local ablation.

METHODS

We undertook this phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with a complete radiological response after surgical resection (n=900) or local ablation (n=214) in 202 sites (hospitals and research centres) in 28 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 400 mg oral sorafenib or placebo twice a day, for a maximum of 4 years, according to a block randomisation scheme (block size of four) using an interactive voice-response system. Patients were stratified by curative treatment, geography, Child-Pugh status, and recurrence risk. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival assessed after database cut-off on Nov 29, 2013. We analysed efficacy in the intention-to-treat population and safety in randomly assigned patients receiving at least one study dose. The final analysis is reported. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00692770.

FINDINGS

We screened 1602 patients between Aug 15, 2008, and Nov 17, 2010, and randomly assigned 1114 patients. Of 556 patients in the sorafenib group, 553 (>99%) received the study treatment and 471 (85%) terminated treatment. Of 558 patients in the placebo group, 554 (99%) received the study treatment and 447 (80%) terminated treatment. Median duration of treatment and mean daily dose were 12·5 months (IQR 2·6-35·8) and 577 mg per day (SD 212·8) for sorafenib, compared with 22·2 months (8·1-38·8) and 778·0 mg per day (79·8) for placebo. Dose modification was reported for 497 (89%) of 559 patients in the sorafenib group and 206 (38%) of 548 patients in the placebo group. At final analysis, 464 recurrence-free survival events had occurred (270 in the placebo group and 194 in the sorafenib group). Median follow-up for recurrence-free survival was 8·5 months (IQR 2·9-19·5) in the sorafenib group and 8·4 months (2·9-19·8) in the placebo group. We noted no difference in median recurrence-free survival between the two groups (33·3 months in the sorafenib group vs 33·7 months in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR] 0·940; 95% CI 0·780-1·134; one-sided p=0·26). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were hand-foot skin reaction (154 [28%] of 559 patients in the sorafenib group vs four [<1%] of 548 patients in the placebo group) and diarrhoea (36 [6%] vs five [<1%] in the placebo group). Sorafenib-related serious adverse events included hand-foot skin reaction (ten [2%]), abnormal hepatic function (four [<1%]), and fatigue (three [<1%]). There were four (<1%) drug-related deaths in the sorafenib group and two (<1%) in the placebo group.

INTERPRETATION

Our data indicate that sorafenib is not an effective intervention in the adjuvant setting for hepatocellular carcinoma following resection or ablation.