Copyright
©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Gastroenterol. Apr 28, 2020; 26(16): 1888-1900
Published online Apr 28, 2020. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i16.1888
Published online Apr 28, 2020. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v26.i16.1888
Study drug | Population | Design-intervention | Results |
Sunitinib (EGFR), Cheng et al[24], 2013 | n = 1074, BCLC B-C, ECOG 0-1, Child Pugh A/B | RCT Fase III. Non-inferiority. Sunitinib vs Sorafenib | Failed to reach its primary end-point. Higher rate of EAs |
Brivanib (VEGF, FGF), Johnson et al[25], 2013 | n = 1150, BCLC B-C, ECOG 0-1, Child Pugh A/B | RCT Fase III. Non-inferiority. Brivanib vs Sorafenib (Bristol) | Failed to reach its primary end-point. Higher rate of EAs |
Erlotinib (EGFR), Zhu et al[14], 2006 | n = 720, BCLC B-C, ECOG 0-1, Child Pugh A/B | RCT Fase III. Superiority, Erlotinib + Sorafenib vs Placebo + Sorafenib | OS similar, TTP similar, Similar EAs |
Linifanib (VEGF, PDGF), Cainap et al[27], 2015 | n = 1035, BCLC B-C, ECOG 0-1, Child Pugh A/B | RCT Fase III. Superiority, Linifanib vs Sorafenib | Failed to reach its primary end-point. TTP better for linifanib, Similar EAs |
Tigatuzumab, Bruix et al[30], 2017 | n = 162, BCLC B-C, ECOG 0-1, Child Pugh A/B | RCT Fase II, Tigatuzumab + Sorafenib vs Placebo + Soraf | Safety profile adequate but no better TTP and OS |
Dovitinib (VEGF, FGF, PDGF), Cheng et al[28], 2016 | n = 165, BCLC B-C, ECOG 0-1, Child Pugh A/B | RCT Fase II. Dovitinib vs Sorafenib | OS non superior, TTP similar, Higher rate of EAs |
Bevacizumab (Ab VEGF), Hubbard et al[29], 2016 | n = 17, BCLC B-C, ECOG 0-1, Child Pugh A/B | RCT Fase I/II, Bevacizumab + Sorafenib | Higher rate of EAs, Excessive toxicity |
Study drug | Population | Design-intervention | Results |
Regorafenib, Bruix et al[34], 2017, resorce | n = 553, BCLC B-C, ECOG 0-1, Child Pugh A, SOR-Tolerant | RCT phase III. Superiority. Regorafenib vs placebo | OS HR 0.63 (CI: 0.50-0.79), ORR 11%, DCR 65% (mRECIST) |
Cabozantinib, Abou-Alfa et al[47], Celestial | n = 707, BCLC B-C, ECOG 0-1, Child Pugh A, 1-2 prior systemic treatment, SOR-Tolerant/intolerant | RCT phase III. Superiority. Cabozantinib vs placebo | OS HR 0.76 (CI: 0.63-0.93), ORR 4%, DCR 64% (RECIST 1.1) |
Ramucirumab, Zhu et al[48], reach I-II | n = 542, BCLC B-C, ECOG 0-1, Child Pugh A, AFP ≥ 400 ng/mL, SOR-Tolerant/intolerant | RCT phase III. Superiority. Ramucirumab vs placebo | OS HR 0.69 (CI: 0.57-0.84), ORR 5%, DCR 60%, (RECIST 1.1) |
Study drug | Dose reduction - interruption | Discontinuation rate |
Sorafenib | 26% dose reduction (any AE), 44% drug interruption (any AE), most frequent AE leading to dose reductions: diarrhea, hand-foot skin reaction and rash | 11% |
Lenvatinib | 37% dose reduction (related-AE), 40% drug interruption (related-AE), Most frequent AE leading to dose reductions: not reported | 9% |
Regorafenib | 68% dose reduction or drug interruption (any AE), most frequent AE leading to dose reductions: diarrhea, hand-foot skin reaction | 10% |
Cabozantinib | 62% dose reduction or drug interruption (any AE), most frequent AE leading to dose reductions: diarrhea, hand-foot skin reaction | 16% |
Ramucirumab | 34% dose reduction or drug interruption (any AE), most frequent AE leading to dose reductions: fatigue, peripheral edema, hypertension and anorexia | 11% |
- Citation: Piñero F, Silva M, Iavarone M. Sequencing of systemic treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma: Second line competitors. World J Gastroenterol 2020; 26(16): 1888-1900
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v26/i16/1888.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v26.i16.1888