4.7 Article

Regorafenib in patients with advanced Child-Pugh B hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicentre retrospective study

Journal

LIVER INTERNATIONAL
Volume 40, Issue 10, Pages 2544-2552

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/liv.14573

Keywords

Child-Pugh B; hepatocellular carcinoma; regorafenib

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction Regorafenib is an approved agent in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who progressed on sorafenib, but little is known about its clinical outcomes in Child-Pugh B patients. We aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of regorafenib in Child-Pugh B HCC patients. Methods This multicentre retrospective study included 59 patients with Child-Pugh B HCC who received regorafenib. Comparative analyses were performed with an independent cohort of Child-Pugh class A patients from the same registry (n = 440). Results The median age was 58 years (range, 19-83). All patients had progression on prior sorafenib. Regorafenib was given as 2nd line, and 3rd-4th line systemic therapy in 37 (62.7%) and 22 (37.3%) patients respectively. Compared to Child-Pugh A cohort, grade 3-4 AEs were more common in the Child-Pugh B cohort (27.1% vs 14.1%,P = .017). The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 1.8 and 4.6 months, respectively, and these were significantly poorer than the Child-Pugh A cohort (P = .008 andP < .001 respectively). Child-Pugh B patients with albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade 3 had a significantly higher frequency of increased bilirubin (P = .01 for any grade andP = .01 for grade 3-4) and showed significantly poorer OS (P = .021), compared to those with ALBI grade 1 or 2. Conclusion Regorafenib's poor clinical outcomes and increased frequency of severe adverse events lead us to discourage its use in the Child-Pugh B population. In particular, regorafenib should not be used in Child-Pugh B patients with ALBI grade 3.

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