Cargando…

Regorafenib versus Cabozantinib as a Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Anchored Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Efficacy and Safety

INTRODUCTION: The tyrosine kinase inhibitors regorafenib and cabozantinib remain the mainstay in second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). There is currently no clear evidence of superiority in efficacy or safety to guide choice between the two treatments. METHODS: We conduct...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Merle, Philippe, Kudo, Masatoshi, Krotneva, Stanimira, Ozgurdal, Kirhan, Su, Yun, Proskorovsky, Irina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: S. Karger AG 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10267565/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37325487
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000527403
_version_ 1785058954892541952
author Merle, Philippe
Kudo, Masatoshi
Krotneva, Stanimira
Ozgurdal, Kirhan
Su, Yun
Proskorovsky, Irina
author_facet Merle, Philippe
Kudo, Masatoshi
Krotneva, Stanimira
Ozgurdal, Kirhan
Su, Yun
Proskorovsky, Irina
author_sort Merle, Philippe
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The tyrosine kinase inhibitors regorafenib and cabozantinib remain the mainstay in second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). There is currently no clear evidence of superiority in efficacy or safety to guide choice between the two treatments. METHODS: We conducted an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison using individual patient data from the RESORCE trial of regorafenib and published aggregate data from the CELESTIAL trial of cabozantinib. Second-line HCC patients with prior sorafenib exposure of ≥3 months were included in the analyses. Hazard ratios (HRs) and restricted mean survival time (RMST) were estimated to quantify differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Safety outcomes compared were rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs), occurring in >10% of patients, and discontinuation or dose reduction due to treatment-related AEs. RESULTS: After matching adjustment for differences in baseline patient characteristics, regorafenib showed a favorable OS (HR, 0.80; 95% CI: 0.54, 1.20) and ∼3-month-longer RMST over cabozantinib (RMST difference, 2.76 months; 95% CI: −1.03, 6.54), although not statistically significant. For PFS, there was no numerical difference in HR (HR, 1.00; 95% CI: 0.68, 1.49) and no clinically meaningful difference based on RMST analyses (RMST difference, −0.59 months; 95% CI: −1.83, 0.65). Regorafenib showed a significantly lower incidence of discontinuation (risk difference, −9.2%; 95% CI: −17.7%, −0.6%) and dose reductions (−15.2%; 95% CI: −29.0%, −1.5%) due to treatment-related AEs (any grade). Regorafenib was also associated with a lower incidence (not statistically significant) of grade 3 or 4 diarrhea (risk difference, −7.1%; 95% CI: −14.7%, 0.4%) and fatigue (−6.3%; 95% CI: −14.6%, 2.0%). CONCLUSION: This indirect treatment comparison suggests, relative to cabozantinib, that regorafenib could be associated with favorable OS (not statistically significant), lower rates of dose reductions and discontinuation due to treatment-related AEs, and lower rates of severe diarrhea and fatigue.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10267565
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher S. Karger AG
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102675652023-06-15 Regorafenib versus Cabozantinib as a Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Anchored Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Efficacy and Safety Merle, Philippe Kudo, Masatoshi Krotneva, Stanimira Ozgurdal, Kirhan Su, Yun Proskorovsky, Irina Liver Cancer Research Article INTRODUCTION: The tyrosine kinase inhibitors regorafenib and cabozantinib remain the mainstay in second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). There is currently no clear evidence of superiority in efficacy or safety to guide choice between the two treatments. METHODS: We conducted an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison using individual patient data from the RESORCE trial of regorafenib and published aggregate data from the CELESTIAL trial of cabozantinib. Second-line HCC patients with prior sorafenib exposure of ≥3 months were included in the analyses. Hazard ratios (HRs) and restricted mean survival time (RMST) were estimated to quantify differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Safety outcomes compared were rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs), occurring in >10% of patients, and discontinuation or dose reduction due to treatment-related AEs. RESULTS: After matching adjustment for differences in baseline patient characteristics, regorafenib showed a favorable OS (HR, 0.80; 95% CI: 0.54, 1.20) and ∼3-month-longer RMST over cabozantinib (RMST difference, 2.76 months; 95% CI: −1.03, 6.54), although not statistically significant. For PFS, there was no numerical difference in HR (HR, 1.00; 95% CI: 0.68, 1.49) and no clinically meaningful difference based on RMST analyses (RMST difference, −0.59 months; 95% CI: −1.83, 0.65). Regorafenib showed a significantly lower incidence of discontinuation (risk difference, −9.2%; 95% CI: −17.7%, −0.6%) and dose reductions (−15.2%; 95% CI: −29.0%, −1.5%) due to treatment-related AEs (any grade). Regorafenib was also associated with a lower incidence (not statistically significant) of grade 3 or 4 diarrhea (risk difference, −7.1%; 95% CI: −14.7%, 0.4%) and fatigue (−6.3%; 95% CI: −14.6%, 2.0%). CONCLUSION: This indirect treatment comparison suggests, relative to cabozantinib, that regorafenib could be associated with favorable OS (not statistically significant), lower rates of dose reductions and discontinuation due to treatment-related AEs, and lower rates of severe diarrhea and fatigue. S. Karger AG 2022-10-07 /pmc/articles/PMC10267565/ /pubmed/37325487 http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000527403 Text en Copyright © 2022 by The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC). Usage and distribution for commercial purposes requires written permission.
spellingShingle Research Article
Merle, Philippe
Kudo, Masatoshi
Krotneva, Stanimira
Ozgurdal, Kirhan
Su, Yun
Proskorovsky, Irina
Regorafenib versus Cabozantinib as a Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Anchored Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Efficacy and Safety
title Regorafenib versus Cabozantinib as a Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Anchored Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Efficacy and Safety
title_full Regorafenib versus Cabozantinib as a Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Anchored Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Efficacy and Safety
title_fullStr Regorafenib versus Cabozantinib as a Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Anchored Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Efficacy and Safety
title_full_unstemmed Regorafenib versus Cabozantinib as a Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Anchored Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Efficacy and Safety
title_short Regorafenib versus Cabozantinib as a Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Anchored Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Efficacy and Safety
title_sort regorafenib versus cabozantinib as a second-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison of efficacy and safety
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10267565/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37325487
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000527403
work_keys_str_mv AT merlephilippe regorafenibversuscabozantinibasasecondlinetreatmentforadvancedhepatocellularcarcinomaananchoredmatchingadjustedindirectcomparisonofefficacyandsafety
AT kudomasatoshi regorafenibversuscabozantinibasasecondlinetreatmentforadvancedhepatocellularcarcinomaananchoredmatchingadjustedindirectcomparisonofefficacyandsafety
AT krotnevastanimira regorafenibversuscabozantinibasasecondlinetreatmentforadvancedhepatocellularcarcinomaananchoredmatchingadjustedindirectcomparisonofefficacyandsafety
AT ozgurdalkirhan regorafenibversuscabozantinibasasecondlinetreatmentforadvancedhepatocellularcarcinomaananchoredmatchingadjustedindirectcomparisonofefficacyandsafety
AT suyun regorafenibversuscabozantinibasasecondlinetreatmentforadvancedhepatocellularcarcinomaananchoredmatchingadjustedindirectcomparisonofefficacyandsafety
AT proskorovskyirina regorafenibversuscabozantinibasasecondlinetreatmentforadvancedhepatocellularcarcinomaananchoredmatchingadjustedindirectcomparisonofefficacyandsafety