Helen M Parsons1, Quyen Chu2, Jordan J Karlitz3, Jennifer L Stevens4, Linda C Harlan5. 1. Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 2. LSU-Health Sciences Center-Shreveport, Shreveport, LA, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA, USA. 4. Information Management Services, Calverton, MD, USA. 5. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The adoption of sorafenib into oncology practice as a first-line systemic treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is not well understood. We examined sorafenib use since Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2007 and associated survival for individuals diagnosed with advanced HCC, conducting a population-based evaluation of treatment patterns and outcomes for this newly approved drug in the US over time. METHODS: We identified individuals diagnosed with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage C from the 2007 and 2012 National Cancer Institute Patterns of Care study. We examined trends in use as well as patient and clinical factors associated with receiving sorafenib using multivariate logistic regression analysis. We then evaluated the association between sorafenib use and overall hazard of death using multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Among 550 individuals diagnosed with advanced HCC, we found no significant increase in the proportion of patients treated with sorafenib from 2007 to 2012 (26.3 vs. 30.4%). After adjusting for patient and clinical characteristics, non-Hispanic Blacks (compared to non-Hispanic Whites) and those with a lower Child-Pugh score remained more likely to receive sorafenib. Individuals receiving systemic chemotherapy only, radiation therapy only, or no treatment at all experienced a higher risk of death than those treated with sorafenib, while those receiving a transplant experienced a lower risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib has not been widely adopted into oncology practice since FDA approval for advanced HCC. Few factors apart from Child-Pugh score and race/ethnicity predict sorafenib use in clinical practice, although sorafenib treatment is associated with a lower risk of death.
BACKGROUND: The adoption of sorafenib into oncology practice as a first-line systemic treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is not well understood. We examined sorafenib use since Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2007 and associated survival for individuals diagnosed with advanced HCC, conducting a population-based evaluation of treatment patterns and outcomes for this newly approved drug in the US over time. METHODS: We identified individuals diagnosed with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage C from the 2007 and 2012 National Cancer Institute Patterns of Care study. We examined trends in use as well as patient and clinical factors associated with receiving sorafenib using multivariate logistic regression analysis. We then evaluated the association between sorafenib use and overall hazard of death using multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Among 550 individuals diagnosed with advanced HCC, we found no significant increase in the proportion of patients treated with sorafenib from 2007 to 2012 (26.3 vs. 30.4%). After adjusting for patient and clinical characteristics, non-Hispanic Blacks (compared to non-Hispanic Whites) and those with a lower Child-Pugh score remained more likely to receive sorafenib. Individuals receiving systemic chemotherapy only, radiation therapy only, or no treatment at all experienced a higher risk of death than those treated with sorafenib, while those receiving a transplant experienced a lower risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib has not been widely adopted into oncology practice since FDA approval for advanced HCC. Few factors apart from Child-Pugh score and race/ethnicity predict sorafenib use in clinical practice, although sorafenib treatment is associated with a lower risk of death.
Authors: Joanne Chiu; Yuen Fong Tang; Tzy-Jyun Yao; Ashley Wong; Hilda Wong; Roland Leung; Pierre Chan; Tan To Cheung; Albert C Chan; Roberta Pang; Sheung-Tat Fan; Ronnie Poon; Thomas Yau Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Chun Sung Byun; Soonjae Hwang; Sung-Hun Woo; Moon Young Kim; Jin Suk Lee; Jong In Lee; Jee Hyun Kong; Keum Seok Bae; Il Hwan Park; Sung Hoon Kim; Young Woo Eom Journal: Int J Med Sci Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Ruth P Norris; Rosie Dew; Linda Sharp; Alastair Greystoke; Stephen Rice; Kristina Johnell; Adam Todd Journal: BMC Med Date: 2020-10-23 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Lucas N Solano; Grady L Nelson; Conor T Ronayne; Shirisha Jonnalagadda; Sravan K Jonnalagadda; Kaija Kottke; Robert Chitren; Joseph L Johnson; Manoj K Pandey; Subash C Jonnalagadda; Venkatram R Mereddy Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 4.379