4.7 Article

Sorafenib with or without everolimus in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): a randomized multicenter, multinational phase II trial (SAKK 77/08 and SASL 29)aEuro

Journal

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
Volume 27, Issue 5, Pages 856-861

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdw054

Keywords

hepatocellular carcinoma; sorafenib; everolimus; tyrosine kinase inhibitor

Categories

Funding

  1. Novartis Pharma Switzerland
  2. Novartis Pharma Hungary
  3. Bayer (Schweiz) AG
  4. State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sorafenib plus everolimus achieved numerically higher response rates in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with single-agent sorafenib; however, this did not translate into improved outcomes. As greater toxicity was seen with the combination therapy, further investigation of this sorafenib plus everolimus in unselected patients with HCC is unwarranted.Sorafenib (S), a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is the standard of care for first-line systemic treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Everolimus (E) is a potent inhibitor of mTOR, a pathway frequently activated in HCC. Preclinical data suggest that the combination S + E has additive effects compared with single-agent S. Patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC and Child-Pugh a parts per thousand currency sign7 liver dysfunction were randomized to receive daily S 800 mg alone or with E 5 mg until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was progression-free survival at 12 weeks (PFS12). The secondary end points included response rate, PFS, time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), duration of disease stabilization (DDS), safety, and quality-of-life (QoL) assessments. A total of 106 patients were randomized: 46 patients received S and 60 patients received S + E. Ninety-three patients were assessable for the primary end point and 105 patients for the safety analysis. The PFS12 rate was 70% [95% confidence interval (CI) 54-83] and 68% (95% CI 53-81) in patients randomized to S and S + E, respectively. The RECIST (mRECIST) response rate was 0% (23%) in the S arm and 10% (35%) in the S + E arm. Median PFS (6.6 versus 5.7 months), TTP (7.6 versus 6.3 months), DDS (6.7 versus 6.7 months), and OS (10 versus 12 months) were similar in the S and S + E arms, respectively. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 72% and 86% of patients in arm S and arm S + E, respectively. Patients had similar QoL scores over time, except for a greater worsening in physical well-being and mood in the arm S + E. No evidence was found that S + E improves the efficacy compared with S alone. Combining 5 mg E with full-dose S is feasible, but more toxic than S alone. Further testing of this drug combination in molecularly unselected HCCs appears unwarranted. NCT01005199.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available