Jian Zhai1, Jianwei Liu2, Zhigang Fu1, Shilei Bai2, Xiaowei Li1, Zengqiang Qu1, Yanfu Sun2, Ruiliang Ge3, Feng Xue2. 1. Department II of Interventional Radiology, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China. 2. Department of Hepatic Surgery II, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China. 3. Department of Outpatient, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
Background: There is lack of studies on sequential regorafenib after sorafenib and lenvatinib treatment failure in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study was to explore the safety and prognosis of sequential regorafenib after sorafenib and lenvatinib failure in HCC patients. Methods: This study was a retrospective, real-world study that included 50 HCC patients who received sequential regrafinib after sorafenib and lenvatinib failure. The safety and prognosis of two groups were compared. Results: The incidence of all grade and III/IV adverse events were 68% and 24%. According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) 1.1 and modified (m) RECIST standards, the objective response rates (ORRs) after receiving regorafenib were 14.0% and 22.0%, respectively. The disease control rates (DCRs) were 62.0% and 60.0%, respectively. Based on different first-line targeted drugs, 50 patients were divided into sorafenib (n=22) and lenvatinib group (n=28). There was no differences between two groups except age and bilirubin. And there was no differences in other treatments before or after regorafenib. The baseline between two groups was basically same and had good comparability. There was no difference in incidence of all grade and III/IV adverse events, ORR and DCR between two groups (P>0.05). On long-term prognosis, total overall survival (TOS) in sorafenib and lenvatinib group were 23.0 (95% CI: 15.1-30.9) vs. 29.7 (95% CI: 21.4-38.1) months. The difference was statistically significant (P=0.041). Besides, regorafenib overall survival (ROS) in sorafenib and lenvatinib group were 11.7 (95% CI: 7.1-16.3) vs. 15.9 (95% CI: 8.3-23.5) months. The difference was statistically significant ( P=0.045). The regorafenib progression-free survival (RPFS) was 5.6 (95% CI: 1.9-9.2) vs. 8.0 (95% CI: 5.1-10.9) months in sorafenib and lenvatinib group, respectively, and difference was not statistically significant (P=0.380). Conclusions: Regorafenib is an effective drug for second-line treatment of HCC, with fewer severe adverse events, ORR and DCR was 14-22% and 62-60%, respectively. Both TOS and ROS in lenvatinib group were better than those in sorafenib group. For HCC patients whose first-line targeted drug is lenvatinib, it is safe and effective to accept regorafenib after disease progresses. 2022 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.
Background: There is lack of studies on sequential regorafenib after sorafenib and lenvatinib treatment failure in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study was to explore the safety and prognosis of sequential regorafenib after sorafenib and lenvatinib failure in HCC patients. Methods: This study was a retrospective, real-world study that included 50 HCC patients who received sequential regrafinib after sorafenib and lenvatinib failure. The safety and prognosis of two groups were compared. Results: The incidence of all grade and III/IV adverse events were 68% and 24%. According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) 1.1 and modified (m) RECIST standards, the objective response rates (ORRs) after receiving regorafenib were 14.0% and 22.0%, respectively. The disease control rates (DCRs) were 62.0% and 60.0%, respectively. Based on different first-line targeted drugs, 50 patients were divided into sorafenib (n=22) and lenvatinib group (n=28). There was no differences between two groups except age and bilirubin. And there was no differences in other treatments before or after regorafenib. The baseline between two groups was basically same and had good comparability. There was no difference in incidence of all grade and III/IV adverse events, ORR and DCR between two groups (P>0.05). On long-term prognosis, total overall survival (TOS) in sorafenib and lenvatinib group were 23.0 (95% CI: 15.1-30.9) vs. 29.7 (95% CI: 21.4-38.1) months. The difference was statistically significant (P=0.041). Besides, regorafenib overall survival (ROS) in sorafenib and lenvatinib group were 11.7 (95% CI: 7.1-16.3) vs. 15.9 (95% CI: 8.3-23.5) months. The difference was statistically significant ( P=0.045). The regorafenib progression-free survival (RPFS) was 5.6 (95% CI: 1.9-9.2) vs. 8.0 (95% CI: 5.1-10.9) months in sorafenib and lenvatinib group, respectively, and difference was not statistically significant (P=0.380). Conclusions: Regorafenib is an effective drug for second-line treatment of HCC, with fewer severe adverse events, ORR and DCR was 14-22% and 62-60%, respectively. Both TOS and ROS in lenvatinib group were better than those in sorafenib group. For HCC patients whose first-line targeted drug is lenvatinib, it is safe and effective to accept regorafenib after disease progresses. 2022 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Changhoon Yoo; Seonggyu Byeon; Yeonghak Bang; Jaekyung Cheon; Jin W Kim; Jee H Kim; Hong J Chon; Beodeul Kang; Myoung J Kang; Ilhwan Kim; Jun-Eul Hwang; Jung H Kang; Myung A Lee; Jung Y Hong; Ho Y Lim; Baek-Yeol Ryoo Journal: Liver Int Date: 2020-05-25 Impact factor: 5.828
Authors: Scott M Wilhelm; Lila Adnane; Philippa Newell; Augusto Villanueva; Josep M Llovet; Mark Lynch Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 6.261
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