scholarly journals Evaluation of sorafenib treatment and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a comparative study using the propensity score matching method

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (8) ◽  
pp. 1214-1223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kotaro Fukubayashi ◽  
Motohiko Tanaka ◽  
Kazuhiro Izumi ◽  
Takehisa Watanabe ◽  
Satomi Fujie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Hepatic Arterial Infusion ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Matching Method ◽  
Arterial Infusion ◽  
Sorafenib Treatment ◽  
Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy ◽  
Infusion Chemotherapy

Sorafenib versus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A Japanese multi-center large cohort study.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 323-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sadahisa Ogasawara ◽  
Kazuomi Ueshima ◽  
Masafumi Ikeda ◽  
Yutaka Yasui ◽  
Takeshi Terashima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Hepatic Arterial Infusion ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Arterial Infusion ◽  
Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Infusion Chemotherapy ◽  
Sorafenib Group

323 Background: Sorafenib, approved in Japan in 2009, is the first systemic therapy demonstrated to significantly improve overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In Japan, hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), which directly delivers high concentrations of cytotoxic agents to liver tumors, has been offered to patients with advanced HCC since before sorafenib was approved. HAIC is particularly used in patients without extrahepatic metastases (EHM). This study aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with advanced HCC who received HAIC and sorafenib. Methods: Consecutive patients with advanced HCC who received sorafenib or HAIC as the first-line systemic therapy were enrolled from 10 Japanese centers. The statistical analysis plan included pre-defined propensity score matching method and risk factors. All statistical analyses were performed by an independent biostatistician. Results: Between June 2009 and May 2016, 2006 patients were enrolled (sorafenib: 1465 patients, HAIC: 541 patients). The mean OS of patients with macrovascular invasion (MVI) and without EHM was significant longer in the HAIC group compared with the sorafenib group. After propensity score matching, there were 172 patients in each cohort. The OS was 9.1 months for the sorafenib group and 10.1 months for the HAIC group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.668 [95% CI: 0.475–0.935], P = 0.018). There was no significant difference in OS between patients without both MVI and EHM. After propensity score matching, there were 76 patients in each cohort. The OS was 15.4 months for the sorafenib group and 12.2 months for the HAIC group (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.227 [95% CI: 0.699–2.155], P = 0.475). Conclusions: HAIC might be a potential initial treatment for patients with advanced HCC with MVI (without EHM). Currently, several new drugs appear clinically beneficial for patients with advanced HCC. Although this study only focused on sorafenib as the chemo-agent, additional studies should be conducted to confirm the benefits associated with HAIC in a limited population of patients with advanced HCC.

scholarly journals Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy versus Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Liver Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 583-595
Author(s):  
Kazuomi Ueshima ◽  
Sadahisa Ogasawara ◽  
Masafumi Ikeda ◽  
Yutaka Yasui ◽  
Takeshi Terashima ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Hepatic Arterial Infusion ◽  
Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Arterial Infusion ◽  
Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Infusion Chemotherapy

Background: Prior to the approval of sorafenib, hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) was offered to patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in East Asia, particularly Japan. According to the Japanese guidelines, HAIC is recommended as one of the treatment options in patients without extrahepatic metastasis (EHM). Methods: The present cohort study compared the use of HAIC and sorafenib on outcomes of patients with advanced HCC. Consecutive patients with advanced HCC who received HAIC or sorafenib as a first-line systemic therapy were enrolled from 10 Japanese institutions. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) in patients with macrovascular invasion (MVI), but without EHM, and OS in patients without both MVI and EHM. Results: Between 2009 and 2016, 2,006 patients were enrolled (541 HAIC patients, 1,465 sorafenib patients). After propensity score matching, the OS of patients with MVI but without EHM was significantly longer in the HAIC group compared with the sorafenib group (10.1 vs. 9.1 months for the HAIC and sorafenib groups, respectively; n = 170 for each group; hazard ratio [HR] 0.668; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.475–0.935; p = 0.018). There was no significant difference in OS between patients without both MVI and EHM (12.2 vs. 15.4 months for the HAIC and sorafenib groups, respectively; n = 76 in each cohort after propensity score matching; HR 1.227; 95% CI 0.699–2.155; p = 0.475). Conclusion: HAIC is a potential front-line treatment choice in a subpopulation of patients with advanced HCC with MVI but without EHM.

scholarly journals Toripalimab Combined With Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy Versus Lenvatinib for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 153303382110638
Author(s):  
Yu-Jie Xu ◽  
Zhi-Cheng Lai ◽  
Min-Ke He ◽  
Xiao-Yun Bu ◽  
Huan-Wei Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Disease Control ◽  
Hepatic Arterial Infusion ◽  
Disease Control Rate ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Arterial Infusion ◽  
Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy ◽  
Infusion Chemotherapy ◽  
Recist 1.1

Purpose: Immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy have synergistic effects in multiple malignancies. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of toripalimab plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) of oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin versus lenvatinib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Materials and Methods: We conducted this retrospective study at 3 hospitals in China and eligible patients were 18 years or older and had a primary diagnosis of unresectable HCC with macroscopic vascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread. These patients were treated with toripalimab plus HAIC or lenvatinib monotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), disease control rate per response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) 1.1, and objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1. The results were compared by Student's test or the chi-square test, and the survival curves were calculated by the Kaplan–Meier method, and propensity-score matching (PSM) was used to reduce bias. Results: A total of 118 patients were recruited for this study: 53 in the TorHAIC group and 65 in the lenvatinib group. We found that the TorHAIC group showed a longer PFS (9.3 [95% CI, 7.81-10.8] vs 4.8 months [95% CI, 3.31−6.29]; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.57, 95% CI, 0.38-0.85; p = .006), a longer OS (17.13 [95% CI, 13.99−20.27] vs 10.1 months [95% CI, 8.14−12.06]; HR = 0.5, 95% CI, 0.31 − 0.81; p = .005), a higher disease control rate (86.8% vs 69.2%, p = .002) and a higher ORR (47.2% vs 9.2%, p < .001) by RECIST criteria than the lenvatinib group. Both toripalimab plus HAIC and lenvatinib had acceptable safety profiles. No treatment-related deaths occurred in this study. In the propensity score-matched cohorts (47 pairs), the outcomes in the TorHAIC group were also better than those in the lenvatinib group ( p < .05). Conclusion: Toripalimab plus HAIC was tolerable and effective in advanced HCC and the result needs to be confirmed in the phase III trial.

scholarly journals Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy with Cisplatin Versus Sorafenib for Intrahepatic Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuki Zaizen ◽  
Masahito Nakano ◽  
Kazuta Fukumori ◽  
Yoichi Yano ◽  
Kota Takaki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Hepatic Arterial Infusion ◽  
Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Arterial Infusion ◽  
Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy ◽  
Advanced Hcc ◽  
Infusion Chemotherapy ◽  
Significant Difference

Given that the outcome of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) with cisplatin for intrahepatic advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is unclear, we aimed to compare prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) following HAIC with cisplatin versus sorafenib for intrahepatic advanced HCC using propensity score-matched analysis. We enrolled 348 patients with intrahepatic advanced HCC who received HAIC with cisplatin (n = 97) or sorafenib (n = 251) between June 2006 and March 2020. No significant difference was observed in OS between HAIC with cisplatin and sorafenib cohorts (median survival time [MST]: 13.9 vs. 12.7 months; p = 0.0989). To reduce confounding effects, 176 patients were selected using propensity score-matched analysis (n = 88 for each treatment). HAIC with cisplatin significantly prolonged OS compared with sorafenib (MST: 16.2 vs. 12.2 months; p = 0.0060). Following stratification according to the Child–Pugh classification, for both patients with class A (MST: 24.0 vs. 15.6 months; p = 0.0097) and class B (MST: 8.5 vs. 6.9 months; p = 0.0391), HAIC with cisplatin rather than sorafenib significantly prolonged OS. Our findings suggest that HAIC with cisplatin demonstrates longer prognostic effects than sorafenib in intrahepatic advanced HCC, regardless of the hepatic reserve.

Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy after sorafenib treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who are unfit for regorafenib.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 355-355
Author(s):  
Takeshi Terashima ◽  
Tatsuya Yamashita ◽  
Noboru Takata ◽  
Kuniaki Arai ◽  
Eishiro Mizukoshi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Hepatic Arterial Infusion ◽  
Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy ◽  
Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Arterial Infusion ◽  
Sorafenib Treatment ◽  
Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy ◽  
Infusion Chemotherapy

355 Background: The RESORCE trial proved survival benefit of regorafenib on advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) in the limiting cohort. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) as second-line treatment in patients with aHCC who are unfit for regorafenib. Methods: We studied consecutive 159 patients with aHCC treated with sorafenib in our institution from June 2009 to March 2018. We divided them into two groups according to the eligibility for RESORCE trial (Rego or non-Rego group) and investigated the efficacy of HAIC as post-sorafenib treatment. Moreover, we also analyzed the prognostic factors in each group. Results: When sorafenib treatment failed, 63 patients (39.6%) fulfilled key inclusion criteria of the RESORCE trial and were considered as fit for regorafenib treatment (Rego group). Among 96 remaining patients (non-Rego group), 34 patients (35.4%) were treated with HAIC after sorafenib. The objective response and the median progression-free survival of HAIC were 38.2% and 3.9 months, which were independent of the efficacy or treatment duration of sorafenib. The median survival of HAIC after sorafenib was 11.3 months which was significantly longer than that of 62 patients without HAIC (4.7 months; P = 0.023). Four factors, HAIC (HR 0.516), Child-Pugh A (HR 0.362), tumor size ≥35mm (HR 1.959), and AFP ≥200 (HR 1.728), were identified as independent prognostic factors after sorafenib in multivariate analysis. In Rego group, 14 patients were actually treated with regorafenib and their survival after sorafenib was longer than that of the patients without regorafenib and with HAIC (P < 0.01 and P < 0.01, respectively). In Rego group, regorafenib (HR 0.152), extrahepatic lesions (HR 2.160), and ≥10 intra-hepatic lesions (HR 2.099) were identified as prognostic factors after sorafenib in multivariate analysis. Conclusions: HAIC showed promising tumor response and patients’ outcome for the patients who are unfit for regorafenib. Further investigation is needed to compare HAIC with ramucirumab, cabozantinib or nivolumab.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document