4.7 Review

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Reasons for Phase III Failure and Novel Perspectives on Trial Design

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 20, 期 8, 页码 2072-2079

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0547

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. ICREA Funding Source: Custom

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major health problem. Most patients with HCC experience a recurrence after resection/ablation or are diagnosed at advanced stages. Sorafenib remains the only approved systemic drug for these patients. Molecular therapies targeting signaling cascades involved in hepatocarcinogenesis have been explored in phase III clinical trials. However, none of the drugs tested have shown positive results in the first-line (brivanib, sunitinib, erlotinib, and linifanib) or second-line (brivanib, everolimus) setting after sorafenib progression. Reasons for failure are heterogeneous and include lack of understanding of critical drivers of tumor progression/dissemination, liver toxicity, flaws in trial design, or marginal antitumoral potency. These trials are also challenging time to progression as a surrogate endpoint of survival. Trials ongoing testing drugs head-to-head versus sorafenib in all comers might have difficulties in achieving superior results in the first line. Novel trials are also designed testing drugs in biomarker-based subpopulations of patients with HCC. Most common mutations, however, are undruggable, such as p53 and CTNNB1. Two types of studies are proposed: (i) phase II pivotal proof-of-concept studies testing drugs blocking potential oncogenic addiction loops, such as the one testing MEK inhibitors in RAS(+) patients or amplification of FGF19 as a target; and (ii) phase II to III studies using biomarker-based trial enrichment for defining HCC subpopulations, such as the case of enriching for MET-positive tumors. These strategies have been deemed successful in breast, melanoma, and lung cancers, and are expected to change the landscape of trial design of HCC. (C) 2014 AACR.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据