Skip to main content
Log in

Sequential Treatment of Sorafenib–Regorafenib Versus Sorafenib–Physician’s Choice: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Targeted Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 18 March 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

Regorafenib has been shown to improve clinical outcomes compared to placebo, becoming a standard second-line therapy for sorafenib-progressed and -tolerated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.

Objective

We performed a multicentre, retrospective study in Italy and Korea to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment sequence sorafenib–regorafenib compared with sorafenib and physician’s choice in a real-life setting.

Patients and Methods

A propensity score model was developed to control the results for baseline variable imbalances between the arm treated with sorafenib and regorafenib (S–R) and the arm treated with sorafenib and physician’s choice (S–P). Survival analysis was conducted on the matched population.

Results

After the application of propensity score matching, we analysed 99 patients in the arm treated with S–R and 99 patients in the arm treated with S–P. For the S–R group, the median overall survival was 22.2 months (95% CI 17.1–27.4), compared to 17.9 months (95% CI 15.1–50.0) for the S–P group. The results of the univariate analysis showed a 31% reduction of death risk for patients treated with S–R (p = 0.0382) compared to patients treated with S–P. Interaction tests highlighted the predictive role of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and extrahepatic spread.

Conclusion

This study provides additional proof of the superiority of the S–R treatment over the S–P treatment approach in advanced HCC patients from a real-life setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, Hilgard P, Gane E, Blanc JF, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(4):378–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cheng AL, Kang YK, Chen Z, et al. Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the asia-pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(1):25–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kudo M, Finn RS, Qin S, Han KH, Ikeda K, Piscaglia F, et al. Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2018;391:1163–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Finn RS, Qin S, Ikeda M, Galle PR, Ducreux M, Kim TY, et al. IMbrave150 Investigators. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(20):1894–905.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Llovet JM, Decaens T, Raoul JL, et al. Brivanib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who were intolerant to sorafenib or for whom sorafenib failed: results from the randomized phase III brisk-ps study. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(28):3509–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Zhu AX, Kudo M, Assenat E, et al. Effect of everolimus on survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after failure of sorafenib: the evolve-1 randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312(1):57–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhu AX, Park JO, Ryoo BY, et al. Ramucirumab versus placebo as second-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma following first-line therapy with sorafenib (reach): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(7):859–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Abou-Alfa GK, Qin S, Ryoo BY, et al. Phase III randomized study of second line adi-peg 20 plus best supportive care versus placebo plus best supportive care in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(6):1402–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rimassa L, Assenat E, Peck-Radosavljevic M, et al. Tivantinib for second-line treatment of met-high, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (METIV-HCC): a final analysis of a phase 3, randomised, placebo-controlled study. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19(5):682–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Bruix J, Qin S, Merle P, et al. Regorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment (RESORCE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2017;389(10064):56–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Abou-Alfa GK, Meyer T, Cheng AL, El-Khoueiry AB, Rimassa L, Ryoo BY, et al. Cabozantinib in patients with advanced and progressing hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(1):54–63.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhu AX, Kang YK, Yen CJ, Finn RS, Galle PR, Llovet JM, et al. REACH-2 study investigators. Ramucirumab after sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and increased α-fetoprotein concentrations (REACH-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20(2):282–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Yoo C, Byeon S, Bang Y, Cheon J, Kim JW, Kim JH, et al. Regorafenib in previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: impact of prior immunotherapy and adverse events. Liver Int. 2020;40(9):2263–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kim HD, Bang Y, Lee MA, Kim JW, Kim JH, Chon HJ, et al. Regorafenib in patients with advanced Child-Pugh B hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicentre retrospective study. Liver Int. 2020;40(10):2544–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. D’Agostino RB Jr. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med. 1998;17(19):2265–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Finn RS, Merle P, Granito A, Huang YH, Bodoky G, Pracht M, et al. Outcomes of sequential treatment with sorafenib followed by regorafenib for HCC: additional analyses from the phase III RESORCE trial. J Hepatol. 2018;69(2):353–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ross PJ, Ma YT, Palmer DH, Lythgoe MP, Merrick S, Samson A, et al. Real-world experience of regorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter United Kingdom study. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(4_suppl):499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Merle P, Lim HY, Finn RS, Ikeda M, Kudo M, Frenette CT, et al. Sequential treatment with sorafenib (SOR) followed by regorafenib (REG) in patients (pts) with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): interim analysis of the observational REFINE study. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(15_suppl):e16680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Casadei-Gardini A, Orsi G, Caputo F, Ercolani G. Developments in predictive biomarkers for hepatocellular carcinoma therapy. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2020;20(1):63–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Berhane S, Fox R, García-Fiñana M, Cucchetti A, Johnson P. Using prognostic and predictive clinical features to make personalised survival prediction in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients undergoing sorafenib treatment. Br J Cancer. 2019;121(2):117–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Labeur TA, Berhane S, Edeline J, Blanc JF, Bettinger D, Meyer T, et al. Improved survival prediction and comparison of prognostic models for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib. Liver Int. 2020;40(1):215–28.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Johnson PJ, Berhane S, Kagebayashi C, Satomura S, Teng M, Reeves HL, et al. Assessment of liver function in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a new evidence-based approach-the ALBI grade. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(6):550–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rovesti G, Orsi G, Kalliopi A, Vivaldi C, Marisi G, Faloppi L, et al. Impact of baseline characteristics on the overall survival of HCC patients treated with sorafenib: ten years of experience. Gastrointest Tumors. 2019;6(3–4):92–107.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Orsi G, Tovoli F, Dadduzio V, Vivaldi C, Brunetti O, Ielasi L, et al. Prognostic role of blood eosinophil count in patients with sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma. Target Oncol. 2020;15(6):773–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ramirez GA, Yacoub MR, Ripa M, Mannina D, Cariddi A, Saporiti N, et al. Eosinophils from physiology to disease: a comprehensive review. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:9095275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Casadei Gardini A, Scarpi E, Faloppi L, Scartozzi M, Silvestris N, Santini D, et al. Immune inflammation indicators and implication for immune modulation strategies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients receiving sorafenib. Oncotarget. 2016;7(41):67142–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bruix J, Cheng AL, Meinhardt G, Nakajima K, De Sanctis Y, Llovet J. Prognostic factors and predictors of sorafenib benefit in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: analysis of two phase III studies. J Hepatol. 2017;67(5):999–1008.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Casadei-Gardini.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No external funding was used in the preparation of this article.

Data availability

The dataset used during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflict of interest

Andrea Casadei Gardini reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eisai, MSD, Ipsen, IQVIA, lectures fees from Eisai, Ipsen, Merck Serono, Roche. Changhoon Yoo reports honoraria from BMS, MSD, Bayer, Eisai, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, and Servier, and research grants from Bayer, Ono, AstraZeneca and Servier. Yeonghak Bang, Sara Lonardi, Hyung-Don Kim, Caterina Vivaldi, Margherita Rimini, Giovanni Luca Frassineti, Sook Ryun Park, Mario Domenico Rizzato, Min-Hee Ryu, Francesca Salani, Ilario Giovanni Rapposelli, Baek-Yeol Ryoo, Zagonel Vittorina, Valentina Massa, Martina Valgiusti, Valentina Burgio, Mario Scartozzi andStefano Cascinu declare that they have no conflicts of interest that might be relevant to the contents of this article.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All patients who participated in the study gave informed consent. The National Data Inspectorate and the Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics approved the study. The study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Author contributions

Conception and design: ACG, YC. Development of methodology and acquired data: all authors. Statistical analysis and interpretation of data: ACG, YC. Writing, review and revision of the paper: all authors. Approved the final version: all authors. Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved: all authors.

Additional information

The original article has been update: Due to affiliation update.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 2005 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bang, Y., Yoo, C., Lonardi, S. et al. Sequential Treatment of Sorafenib–Regorafenib Versus Sorafenib–Physician’s Choice: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. Targ Oncol 16, 401–410 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11523-021-00797-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11523-021-00797-3

Navigation