Giuseppe Cabibbo1, Maria Reig2, Ciro Celsa1,3, Ferran Torres4,5, Salvatore Battaglia6, Marco Enea7, Giacomo Emanuele Maria Rizzo1, Salvatore Petta1, Vincenza Calvaruso1, Vito Di Marco1, Antonio Craxì1, Amit G Singal8, Jordi Bruix2, Calogero Cammà1. 1. Section of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, PROMISE, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy. 2. Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) Group, Liver Unit, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, IDIBAPS, Universidad de Barcelona, CIBEREHD, Hospital Clinic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 3. Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy. 4. Biostatistics and Data Management Core Facility, IDIBAPS, Hospital Clinic Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 5. Biostatistics Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 6. Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche, Aziendali e Statistiche, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy. 7. Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, PROMISE, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy. 8. Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Atezolizumab (ATEZO) plus bevacizumab (BEVA) represents the new standard of care for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the choice of the second-line treatment after the failure of immunotherapy-based first-line remains elusive. Taking into account the weaknesses of the available evidence, we developed a simulation model based on available phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to identify optimal risk/benefit sequential strategies. METHODS: A Markov model was built to estimate the overall survival (OS) of sequential first- and second-line systemic treatments. Sequences starting with first-line ATEZO plus BEVA followed by 5 second-line treatments (sorafenib [SORA], lenvatinib [LENVA], regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab) were compared. The probability of transition between states (initial treatment, cancer progression, and death) was derived from RCTs. Life-year gained (LYG) was the main outcome. Rates of severe adverse events (SAEs) (≥ grade 3) were calculated. The incremental safety-effectiveness ratio (ISER) was calculated as the difference in probability of SAEs divided by LYG between the 2 most effective sequences. RESULTS: ATEZO plus BEVA followed by LENVA (median OS, 24 months) or SORA (median OS, 23 months) was the most effective sequence, producing a LYG of 0.50 and 0.42 year, respectively. ATEZO plus BEVA followed by SORA was the safest sequence (SAEs 63%). At a willingness-to-risk threshold of 10% of SAEs for LYG, ATEZO plus BEVA followed by second-line SORA was favored in 72% of cases, while at a threshold of 30% of SAEs for LYG, ATEZO plus BEVA followed by second-line LENVA was favored in 69% of cases. CONCLUSION: Our simulation model provides a strong rationale to support ongoing trials evaluating second-line tyrosine-kinase inhibitors after first-line ATEZO plus BEVA. Future evidence from ongoing RCTs and prospective real-world studies are needed to prove the net health benefit of sequential treatment options for advanced HCC.
INTRODUCTION: Atezolizumab (ATEZO) plus bevacizumab (BEVA) represents the new standard of care for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the choice of the second-line treatment after the failure of immunotherapy-based first-line remains elusive. Taking into account the weaknesses of the available evidence, we developed a simulation model based on available phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to identify optimal risk/benefit sequential strategies. METHODS: A Markov model was built to estimate the overall survival (OS) of sequential first- and second-line systemic treatments. Sequences starting with first-line ATEZO plus BEVA followed by 5 second-line treatments (sorafenib [SORA], lenvatinib [LENVA], regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab) were compared. The probability of transition between states (initial treatment, cancer progression, and death) was derived from RCTs. Life-year gained (LYG) was the main outcome. Rates of severe adverse events (SAEs) (≥ grade 3) were calculated. The incremental safety-effectiveness ratio (ISER) was calculated as the difference in probability of SAEs divided by LYG between the 2 most effective sequences. RESULTS: ATEZO plus BEVA followed by LENVA (median OS, 24 months) or SORA (median OS, 23 months) was the most effective sequence, producing a LYG of 0.50 and 0.42 year, respectively. ATEZO plus BEVA followed by SORA was the safest sequence (SAEs 63%). At a willingness-to-risk threshold of 10% of SAEs for LYG, ATEZO plus BEVA followed by second-line SORA was favored in 72% of cases, while at a threshold of 30% of SAEs for LYG, ATEZO plus BEVA followed by second-line LENVA was favored in 69% of cases. CONCLUSION: Our simulation model provides a strong rationale to support ongoing trials evaluating second-line tyrosine-kinase inhibitors after first-line ATEZO plus BEVA. Future evidence from ongoing RCTs and prospective real-world studies are needed to prove the net health benefit of sequential treatment options for advanced HCC.
Authors: Giuseppe Cabibbo; Salvatore Petta; Marco Barbara; Simona Attardo; Laura Bucci; Fabio Farinati; Edoardo G Giannini; Giulia Negrini; Francesca Ciccarese; Gian Lodovico Rapaccini; Maria Di Marco; Eugenio Caturelli; Marco Zoli; Franco Borzio; Rodolfo Sacco; Roberto Virdone; Fabio Marra; Andrea Mega; Filomena Morisco; Luisa Benvegnù; Antonio Gasbarrini; Gianluca Svegliati-Baroni; Francesco Giuseppe Foschi; Andrea Olivani; Alberto Masotto; Gerardo Nardone; Antonio Colecchia; Marcello Persico; Antonio Craxì; Franco Trevisani; Calogero Cammà Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Lowell E Schnipper; Nancy E Davidson; Dana S Wollins; Courtney Tyne; Douglas W Blayney; Diane Blum; Adam P Dicker; Patricia A Ganz; J Russell Hoverman; Robert Langdon; Gary H Lyman; Neal J Meropol; Therese Mulvey; Lee Newcomer; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Blase Polite; Derek Raghavan; Gregory Rossi; Leonard Saltz; Deborah Schrag; Thomas J Smith; Peter P Yu; Clifford A Hudis; Richard L Schilsky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-06-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ghassan K Abou-Alfa; Tim Meyer; Ann-Lii Cheng; Anthony B El-Khoueiry; Lorenza Rimassa; Baek-Yeol Ryoo; Irfan Cicin; Philippe Merle; YenHsun Chen; Joong-Won Park; Jean-Frederic Blanc; Luigi Bolondi; Heinz-Josef Klümpen; Stephen L Chan; Vittorina Zagonel; Tiziana Pressiani; Min-Hee Ryu; Alan P Venook; Colin Hessel; Anne E Borgman-Hagey; Gisela Schwab; Robin K Kelley Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Josep M Llovet; Sergio Ricci; Vincenzo Mazzaferro; Philip Hilgard; Edward Gane; Jean-Frédéric Blanc; Andre Cosme de Oliveira; Armando Santoro; Jean-Luc Raoul; Alejandro Forner; Myron Schwartz; Camillo Porta; Stefan Zeuzem; Luigi Bolondi; Tim F Greten; Peter R Galle; Jean-François Seitz; Ivan Borbath; Dieter Häussinger; Tom Giannaris; Minghua Shan; Marius Moscovici; Dimitris Voliotis; Jordi Bruix Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-07-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrew X Zhu; Yoon-Koo Kang; Chia-Jui Yen; Richard S Finn; Peter R Galle; Josep M Llovet; Eric Assenat; Giovanni Brandi; Marc Pracht; Ho Yeong Lim; Kun-Ming Rau; Kenta Motomura; Izumi Ohno; Philippe Merle; Bruno Daniele; Dong Bok Shin; Guido Gerken; Christophe Borg; Jean-Baptiste Hiriart; Takuji Okusaka; Manabu Morimoto; Yanzhi Hsu; Paolo B Abada; Masatoshi Kudo Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-01-18 Impact factor: 41.316