Sharon W Kwan1, William P Harris2, Laura S Gold1, Paul L Hebert3. 1. 1 Department of Radiology and the Comparative Effectiveness, Cost, and Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA 98195. 2. 2 Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 3. 3 Veterans Administration Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of embolization with that of sorafenib in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma as practiced in real-world settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This population-based observational study was conducted with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database. Patients 65 years old and older with a diagnosis of primary liver cancer between 2007 and 2011 who underwent embolization or sorafenib treatment were identified. Patients were excluded if they had insufficient claims records, a diagnosis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, or other primary cancer or had undergone liver transplant or combination therapy. The primary outcome of interest was overall survival. Inverse probability of treatment weighting models were used to control for selection bias. RESULTS: The inclusion and exclusion criteria were met by 1017 patients. Models showed good balance between treatment groups. Compared with those who underwent embolization, patients treated with sorafenib had significantly higher hazard of earlier death from time of treatment (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.46-2.37; p < 0.0001) and from time of cancer diagnosis (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.46-2.39; p < 0.0001). The survival advantage after embolization was seen in both intermediate- and advanced-stage disease. CONCLUSION: This comparative effectiveness study of Medicare patients with hepatocellular carcinoma showed significantly longer overall survival after treatment with embolization than with sorafenib. Because these findings conflict with expert opinion-based guidelines for treatment of advanced-stage disease, prospective randomized comparative trials in this subpopulation would be justified.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical effectiveness of embolization with that of sorafenib in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma as practiced in real-world settings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This population-based observational study was conducted with the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database. Patients 65 years old and older with a diagnosis of primary liver cancer between 2007 and 2011 who underwent embolization or sorafenib treatment were identified. Patients were excluded if they had insufficient claims records, a diagnosis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, or other primary cancer or had undergone liver transplant or combination therapy. The primary outcome of interest was overall survival. Inverse probability of treatment weighting models were used to control for selection bias. RESULTS: The inclusion and exclusion criteria were met by 1017 patients. Models showed good balance between treatment groups. Compared with those who underwent embolization, patients treated with sorafenib had significantly higher hazard of earlier death from time of treatment (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.46-2.37; p < 0.0001) and from time of cancer diagnosis (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.46-2.39; p < 0.0001). The survival advantage after embolization was seen in both intermediate- and advanced-stage disease. CONCLUSION: This comparative effectiveness study of Medicare patients with hepatocellular carcinoma showed significantly longer overall survival after treatment with embolization than with sorafenib. Because these findings conflict with expert opinion-based guidelines for treatment of advanced-stage disease, prospective randomized comparative trials in this subpopulation would be justified.
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