Sojung Han1,2, Hye Jin Choi3, Seung-Hoon Beom3, Hye Rim Kim4, Hyein Lee2, Jae Seung Lee1,2,5, Hye Won Lee1,2,5, Jun Yong Park1,2,5, Seung Up Kim1,2,5, Do Young Kim1,2,5, Sang Hoon Ahn1,2,5, Kwang-Hyub Han1, Jinsil Seong6, Jong Yun Won7, Beom Kyung Kim8,9,10. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea. 2. Yonsei Liver Center, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University Health System, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea. 3. Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei Cancer Center, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea. 4. Biostatistics Collaboration Unit, Department of Biomedical Systems Informatics, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea. 5. Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea. 7. Department of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea. 8. Department of Internal Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea. beomkkim@yuhs.ac. 9. Yonsei Liver Center, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University Health System, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea. beomkkim@yuhs.ac. 10. Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, 03722, Republic of Korea. beomkkim@yuhs.ac.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We compared the clinical efficacies of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) vs. sorafenib as sequential maintenance therapy following liver-directed concurrent chemoradiotherapy (LD-CCRT) for locally advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: Patients undergoing HAIC with 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (HAIC-maintain group, n = 151) or sorafenib (Sorafenib-maintain group, n = 37) after LD-CCRT were consecutively enrolled. The study endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment response rates. RESULTS: The median OS among HAIC-maintain and Sorafenib-maintain groups were 15.9 and 24.3 months (p = 0.287), whereas the median PFS were 8.1 and 9.1 months (p = 0.651), respectively. During the planned treatments, the radiological objective response rate (54.3% vs. 64.9%; p = 0.246), and conversion rate to surgical resection or liver transplantation after successful down-staging (15.9% vs. 18.9%; p = 0.657) were comparable between the HAIC-maintain and Sorafenib-maintain groups. Similar results were found after the inverse probability of treatment weighting and propensity score-matching analyses. Regarding treatment-related adverse events, the HAIC-maintain group showed worse profiles in terms of leukopenia (all grades [p = 0.001] and grades 3 or 4 [p = 0.041]) and hypoalbuminemia (p = 0.001) than the Sorafenib-maintain group. CONCLUSIONS: The overall clinical efficacies between the sequential treatment of HAIC vs. sorafenib after LD-CCRT were comparable for locally advanced HCC.
BACKGROUND: We compared the clinical efficacies of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) vs. sorafenib as sequential maintenance therapy following liver-directed concurrent chemoradiotherapy (LD-CCRT) for locally advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS:Patients undergoing HAIC with 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (HAIC-maintain group, n = 151) or sorafenib (Sorafenib-maintain group, n = 37) after LD-CCRT were consecutively enrolled. The study endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment response rates. RESULTS: The median OS among HAIC-maintain and Sorafenib-maintain groups were 15.9 and 24.3 months (p = 0.287), whereas the median PFS were 8.1 and 9.1 months (p = 0.651), respectively. During the planned treatments, the radiological objective response rate (54.3% vs. 64.9%; p = 0.246), and conversion rate to surgical resection or liver transplantation after successful down-staging (15.9% vs. 18.9%; p = 0.657) were comparable between the HAIC-maintain and Sorafenib-maintain groups. Similar results were found after the inverse probability of treatment weighting and propensity score-matching analyses. Regarding treatment-related adverse events, the HAIC-maintain group showed worse profiles in terms of leukopenia (all grades [p = 0.001] and grades 3 or 4 [p = 0.041]) and hypoalbuminemia (p = 0.001) than the Sorafenib-maintain group. CONCLUSIONS: The overall clinical efficacies between the sequential treatment of HAIC vs. sorafenib after LD-CCRT were comparable for locally advanced HCC.
Authors: Julie K Heimbach; Laura M Kulik; Richard S Finn; Claude B Sirlin; Michael M Abecassis; Lewis R Roberts; Andrew X Zhu; M Hassan Murad; Jorge A Marrero Journal: Hepatology Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Richard S Finn; Shukui Qin; Masafumi Ikeda; Peter R Galle; Michel Ducreux; Tae-You Kim; Masatoshi Kudo; Valeriy Breder; Philippe Merle; Ahmed O Kaseb; Daneng Li; Wendy Verret; Derek-Zhen Xu; Sairy Hernandez; Juan Liu; Chen Huang; Sohail Mulla; Yulei Wang; Ho Yeong Lim; Andrew X Zhu; Ann-Lii Cheng Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Beom Kyung Kim; Sang Hoon Ahn; Jin Sil Seong; Jun Yong Park; Do Young Kim; Ja Kyung Kim; Do Youn Lee; Kwang Hoon Lee; Kwang-Hyub Han Journal: Liver Int Date: 2010-11-17 Impact factor: 5.828
Authors: Dai Hoon Han; Beom Kyung Kim; Sojung Han; Hye Won Lee; Jun Yong Park; Seung Up Kim; Do Young Kim; Sang Hoon Ahn; Kwang-Hyub Han; Jinsil Seong; Jong Yun Won Journal: J Hepatocell Carcinoma Date: 2020-12-17