Targeted and immune therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma: Predictions for 2019 and beyond

doi:10.3748/wjg.v25.i7.789

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 25, Issue 7

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (18800)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-5) series, Tables (1-8) series.

Item

Count

PDF

1710

WORD

422

HTML

12606

Figures (1-5)

679

Tables (1-8)

623

Sum=16040

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

1229

Download

1531

Sum=2760

Feb 21, 2019 (publication date) through Nov 9, 2025

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (129)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

- Full Article with Cover (PDF)
- Full Article (XML)

Minireviews

World J Gastroenterol. Feb 21, 2019; 25(7): 789-807
Published online Feb 21, 2019. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i7.789

Table 1 Phase III clinical trials of advanced stage hepatocellular carcinoma

Target population		Design	Trial name	Result	Presentation	Publication	1^st author
Advanced	First line	1 Sorafenib vs Sunitinib	SUN1170	Negative	ASCO 2011	JCO 2013[6]	Cheng AL
		2 Sorafenib +/- Erlotinib	SEARCH	Negative	ESMO 2012	JCO 2015[7]	Zhu AX
		3 Sorafenib vs Brivanib	BRISK-FL	Negative	AASLD 2012	JCO 2013[8]	Johnson PJ
		4 Sorafenib vs Linifanib	LiGHT	Negative	ASCO-GI 2013	JCO 2015[9]	Cainap C
		5 Sorafenib +/- Doxorubicin	CALGB 80802	Negative	ASCO-GI 2016
		6 Sorafenib +/- HAIC	SILIUS	Negative	EASL 2016	Lancet GH 2018[10]	Kudo M
		7 Sorafenib +/- Y90	SARAH	Negative	EASL 2017	Lancet-O 2017[11]	Vilgrain V
		8 Sorafenib +/- Y90	SIRveNIB	Negative	ASCO 2017	JCO 2018[12]	Chow P
		9 Sorafenib vs Lenvatinib	REFLECT	Positive	ASCO 2017	Lancet 2018[34]	Kudo M
		10 Sorafenib vs Nivolumab	CheckMate-459	Ongoing
		11 Sorafenib vs Durvalumab + Tremelimumab vs Durva	HIMALAYA	Ongoing
		12 Sorafenib vs Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab	Imbrave 150	Ongoing
		13 Sorafenib vs Tislelizumab		Ongoing
	Second line	1 Brivanib vs Placebo	BRISK-PS	Negative	EASL 2012	JCO 2013[13]	Llovet JM
		2 Everolimus vs Placebo	EVOLVE-1	Negative	ASCO-GI 2014	JAMA 2014[14]	Zhu AX
		3 Ramucirumab vs Placebo	REACH	Negative	ESMO 2014	Lancet-O 2015[15]	Zhu AX
		4 S-1 vs Placebo	S-CUBE	Negative	ASCO 2015	Lancet GH 2017[16]	Kudo M
		5 ADI-PEG 20 vs Placebo	NA	Negative	ASCO 2016	Ann Oncol 2018[17]	Abou-Alfa G
		6 Regorafenib vs Placebo	RESORCE	Positive	WCGC 2016	Lancet 2017[41]	Bruix J
		7 Tivantinib vs Placebo	METIV-HCC	Negative	ASCO 2017	Lancet-O 2018[18]	Rimassa L
		8 Tivantinib vs Placebo	JET-HCC	Negative	ESMO 2017
		9 DT vs Placebo	ReLive	Negative	ILCA 2017
		10 Cabozantinib vs Placebo	CELESTIAL	Positive	ASCO-GI 2018	NEJM 2018[45]	Abou-Alfe G
		11 Ramucirumab vs Placebo	REACH-2	Positive	ASCO 2018	Lancet-O 2019[30]	Zhu AX
		12 Pembrolizumab vs Placebo	KEYNOTE-240	Negative

HAIC: Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy; Doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles.

Full Size Table

Table 2 Randomized phase II, phase III clinical trials of early / intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma

Target population		Design	Trial name	Result	Presentation	Publication	1^st author
Early	Adjuvant (prevention of recurrence)	1 Vitamin K2 vs Placebo		Negative		Hepatology 2011[21]	Yoshida H
		2 Peretinoin vs Placebo	NIK-333	Negative	ASCO 2010	JG 2014[22]	Okita K
		3 Sorafenib vs Placebo	STORM	Negative	ASCO 2014	Lancet-O 2015[23]	Bruix J
		4 Peretinoin vs Placebo	NIK-333/K-333	Ongoing
	Improvement of RFA	1 RFA +/- LTLD	HEAT	Negative	ILCA 2013	CCR 2017[24]	Tak WY
	Improvement of RFA	2 RFA +/- LTLD	OPTIMA	Negative	ILCA 2013	CCR 2017[24]	Tak WY
Intermediate	Improvement of TACE	1 TACE +/- Sorafenib	Post-TACE	Negative	ASCO-GI 2010	EJC 2011[25]	Kudo M
		2 TACE +/- Sorafenib	SPACE (Ph II)	Negative	ASCO-GI 2012	J Hepatol 2016[26]	Lencioni R
		3 TACE +/- Brivanib	BRISK-TA	Negative	ILCA 2013	Hepatol 2014[27]	Kudo M
		4 TACE +/- Orantinib	ORIENTAL	Negative	EASL 2015	Lancet GH 2017[28]	Kudo M
		5 TACE +/- Sorafenib	TACE-2	Negative	ASCO 2016	Lancet GH 2017[29]	Meyer T
		6 TACE +/- Sorafenib	TACTICS (Ph II)	Positive	ASCO-GI 2018[30]		Kudo M

LTLD: Lyso-thermosensitive liposomal doxorubicin.

Full Size Table

Table 3 Results of the REFLECT trial[34]

	Lenvatinib (n = 478)	Sorafenib (n = 476)	HR, P-value
OS (M, 95% CI)	13.6 (12.1-14.9)	12.3 (10.4-13.9)	HR 0.92 (0.79-1.06)
PFS (M, 95% CI)	7.3 (5.6-7.5)	3.6 (3.6-3.7)	HR 0.64 (0.55-0.75) P < 0.0001
TTP (M, 95% CI)	7.4 (7.2-9.1)	3.7 (3.6-3.9)	HR 0.60 (0.51-0.71) P < 0.0001
Objective response (independent review, mRECIST)
CR	10 (2%)	4 (1%)
PR	184 (38%)	55 (12%)
SD	159 (33%)	219 (46%)
PD	79 (17%)	152 (32%)
ORR	194 (40.6%)	59 (12.4%)	P < 0.0001
DCR	353 (73.8%)	278 (58.4%)	P < 0.0001

OS: Overall survival; PFS: Progression-free survival; TTP: Time to progression; CR: Complete response; PR: Partial response; SD: Stable disease; PD: Progressive disease; ORR: Objective response rate; DCR: Disease control rate.

Full Size Table

Table 4 Results of the RESORCE trial[41]

	Regorafenib (n = 379)	Placebo (n = 194)	HR, P-value
OS (M, 95%CI)	10.6 (9.1-12.1)	7.8 (6.3-8.8)	HR 0.63 (95%CI 0.50-0.79) P < 0.0001
PFS (M, 95%CI)	3.1 (2.8-4.1)	10.6 (1.4-1.6)	HR 0.46 (95%CI 0.37-0.56) P < 0.0001
TTP (M, 95%CI)	3.2 (2.9-4.2)	10.6 (1.4-1.6)	HR 0.44 (95%CI 0.36-0.55) P < 0.0001
Objective response(investigator assessed, mRECIST)
CR	2 (1%)	0
PR	38 (10%)	8 (4%)
SD	206 (54%)	62 (32%)
PD	86 (23%)	108 (56%)
ORR	40 (11%)	8 (4%)	P = 0.0047
DCR	247 (65%)	70 (36%)	P < 0.0001

Full Size Table

Table 5 Results of the CERESTIAL trial[45]

	Cabozantinib (n = 470)	Placebo (n = 237)	HR, P-value
OS (M, 95%CI)	10.2 (9.1-12.0)	8.0 (6.8-9.4)	HR 0.76 (95%CI 0.63-0.92) P = 0.0049
PFS (M, 95%CI)	5.2 (4.0-5.5)	1.9 (1.9-1.9)	HR 0.44 (95%CI 0.36-0.52) P < 0.0001
Objective response (investigator assessed, RECIST 1.1)
CR (%)	0	0
PR (%)	4	0.4
SD (%)	60	33
PD (%)	21	55
NE (%)	15	11
ORR (%, 95CI)	4 (2.3-6.0)	0.4 (0.0-2.3)	P = 0.0086
DCR (%)	64	33.4

OS: Overall survival; PFS: Progression-free survival; TTP: Time to progression; CR: Complete response; PR: Partial response; SD: Stable disease; PD: Progressive disease; NE: Not evaluable; ORR: Objective response rate; DCR: Disease control rate.

Full Size Table

Table 6 Results of the REACH-2 trial[49]

	Ramucirumab (n = 197)	Placebo (n = 95)	HR, P-value
OS (M, 95%CI)	8.5	7.3	HR 0.710 (95%CI 0.531-0.949) P = 0.0199
PFS (M, 95%CI)	2.8	1.6	HR 0.452 (95%CI 0.339-0.603) P < 0.0001
Objective response (RECIST 1.1)
CR (n, %)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
PR (n, %)	9 (4.6)	1 (1.1)
SD (n, %)	109 (55.3)	36 (37.9)
PD (n,%)	66 (33.5)	48 (50.5)
NE (n, %)	13 (6.6)	10 (10.5)
ORR (%, 95CI)	9 (4.6)	1 (1.1)	P = 0.1697
DCR (%)	118 (59.9)	37 (38.9)	P = 0.0006

Full Size Table

Table 7 Results of TACTICS trial[30]

	TACE with sorafenib median (M)	TACE alone median (M)	HR (95% CI)	P value
PFS	25.2	13.5	0.59 (0.41-0.87)	0.006
TTUP	26.7	20.6	0.57 (0.36-0.92)	0.02
TTP	26.7	16.4	0.54 (0.35-0.83)	0.005
TTVI	31.3	4.0	0.26 (0.09-0.75)	0.005
TTEHS	15.7	6.9	0.21 (0.06-0.70)	0.006
TTSP	22.5	6.3	0.31 (0.15-0.63)	0.001

TACE: Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization; HR: Hazard ratio; PFS: Progression free survival; TTUP: Time to untreatable or unTACEable progression; TTP: Time to progression; TTVI: Time to vascular invasion; TTEHS: Time to extrahepatic spread; TTSP: Time to stage progression.

Full Size Table

Table 8 Results of immune checkpoint inhibitors and combination therapy

	Nivolumab[58]	Pembrolizumab[59]	Pembrolizumab plus Lenvatinib[67]	Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab¹[62]	SHR-1210 plus Apatinib[64]	Durvalumab plus Tremelimumab[65]
	(n = 214)	(n = 104)	(n = 26)	(n = 73)	(n = 18)	(n = 40)
ORR (%, 95%CI)	20 (15-26)²	17 (11-26)²	42.3 (23.4-63.1)³	34³	38.9 ³	25²
DCR (%, 95%CI)	64 (58-71)	62 (52-71)	100	75	83.3	57.5 (> 16 wk)
PFS (M, 95%CI)	4.0 (2.9-5.4)	4.9 (3.4-7.2)	9.7 (5.6-NE)	7.5 (0.4-23.9)	7.2 (2.6-NE)	NA
OS (M, 95%CI)	NR (9M, 74%)	12.9 (9.7-15.5)	NR	NR	NR	NA
DOR (M)	9.9 (8.3-NE)	≤ 9 (77%)	NE	NR	NE	NA

¹Independent Review Facility assessment;

²RECIST 1.1; ³modified RECIST; ORR: Objective response rate; DCR: Disease control rate; PFS: Progression free survival; OS: Overall survival; DOR: Duration of response; NR: Not reached; NE: Not estimable; NA: Not available.

Full Size Table

Citation: Kudo M. Targeted and immune therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma: Predictions for 2019 and beyond. World J Gastroenterol 2019; 25(7): 789-807
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v25/i7/789.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v25.i7.789