Hepatectomy Versus Sorafenib in Advanced Nonmetastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Real-life Multicentric Weighted Comparison.
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 04 2022
01 04 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
27
1
2022
medline:
27
4
2022
entrez:
26
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of the study was to compare SURG vs SOR regarding the OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in a real-world clinical scenario. The treatment for advanced nonmetastatic HCC belonging to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C (BCLC C) is still controversial. BCLC C patients without extrahepatic spread and tumoral invasion of the main portal trunk were considered. Surgical patients were obtained from the HE.RC.O.LE.S. Register, whereas sorafenib patients were obtained from the ITA.LI.CA register The inverse probability weighting (IPW) method was adopted to balance the confounders between the 2 groups. Between 2008 and 2019, 478 patients were enrolled: 303 in SURG and 175 in SOR group. Eastern Cooperative Oncological Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS), presence of cirrhosis, steatosis, Child-Pugh grade, hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus, alcohol intake, collateral veins, bilobar disease, localization of the tumor thrombus, number of nodules, alpha-fetoprotein, age, and Charlson Comorbidity index were weighted by IPW to create two balanced pseudo-populations: SURG = 374 and SOR = 263. After IPW, 1-3-5 years OS was 83.6%, 68.1%, 55.9% for SURG, and 42.3%, 17.8%, 12.8% for SOR (P < 0.001). Similar trends were observed after subgrouping patients by ECOG-PS = 0 and ECOG-PS >0, and by the intrahepatic location of portal vein invasion. At Cox regression, sorafenib treatment (hazard ratio 4.436; 95% confidence interval 3.19-6.15; P < 0.001) and Charlson Index (hazard ratio 1.162; 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.27; P = 0.010) were the only independent predictors of mortality. PFS at 1-3-5 years were 65.9%, 40.3%, 24.3% for SURG and 21.6%, 3.5%, 2.9% for SOR (P = 0.007). In BCLC C patients without extrahepatic spread but with intrahepatic portal invasion, liver resection, if feasible, was followed by better OS and PFS compared with sorafenib.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the study was to compare SURG vs SOR regarding the OS and progression-free survival (PFS) in a real-world clinical scenario.
BACKGROUND DATA
The treatment for advanced nonmetastatic HCC belonging to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C (BCLC C) is still controversial.
METHODS
BCLC C patients without extrahepatic spread and tumoral invasion of the main portal trunk were considered. Surgical patients were obtained from the HE.RC.O.LE.S. Register, whereas sorafenib patients were obtained from the ITA.LI.CA register The inverse probability weighting (IPW) method was adopted to balance the confounders between the 2 groups.
RESULTS
Between 2008 and 2019, 478 patients were enrolled: 303 in SURG and 175 in SOR group. Eastern Cooperative Oncological Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS), presence of cirrhosis, steatosis, Child-Pugh grade, hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus, alcohol intake, collateral veins, bilobar disease, localization of the tumor thrombus, number of nodules, alpha-fetoprotein, age, and Charlson Comorbidity index were weighted by IPW to create two balanced pseudo-populations: SURG = 374 and SOR = 263. After IPW, 1-3-5 years OS was 83.6%, 68.1%, 55.9% for SURG, and 42.3%, 17.8%, 12.8% for SOR (P < 0.001). Similar trends were observed after subgrouping patients by ECOG-PS = 0 and ECOG-PS >0, and by the intrahepatic location of portal vein invasion. At Cox regression, sorafenib treatment (hazard ratio 4.436; 95% confidence interval 3.19-6.15; P < 0.001) and Charlson Index (hazard ratio 1.162; 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.27; P = 0.010) were the only independent predictors of mortality. PFS at 1-3-5 years were 65.9%, 40.3%, 24.3% for SURG and 21.6%, 3.5%, 2.9% for SOR (P = 0.007).
CONCLUSIONS
In BCLC C patients without extrahepatic spread but with intrahepatic portal invasion, liver resection, if feasible, was followed by better OS and PFS compared with sorafenib.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35081572
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005373
pii: 00000658-202204000-00019
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antineoplastic Agents
0
Phenylurea Compounds
0
Niacinamide
25X51I8RD4
Sorafenib
9ZOQ3TZI87
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
743-752Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interests.
Références
Gerbes A, Zoulim F, Tilg H, et al. Gut roundtable meeting paper: selected recent advances in hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut 2018; 67:380–388.
European Association for the Study of the Liver. Electronic address: easloffice@easloffice.eu, European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2018; 69:182–236.
Cheng A-L, Kang Y-K, 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; 10:25–34.
Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:378–390.
Iavarone M, Cabibbo G, Piscaglia F, et al. Field-practice study of sorafenib therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective multicenter study in Italy. Hepatology 2011; 54:2055–2063.
Torzilli G, Donadon M, Marconi M, et al. Hepatectomy for stage B and stage C hepatocellular carcinoma in the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer classification: results of a prospective analysis. Arch Surg 2008; 143:1082–1090.
Ishizawa T, Hasegawa K, Aoki T, et al. Neither multiple tumors nor portal hypertension are surgical contraindications for hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2008; 134:1908–1916.
Torzilli G, Belghiti J, Kokudo N, et al. A snapshot of the effective indications and results of surgery for hepatocellular carcinoma in tertiary referral centers: is it adherent to the EASL/AASLD recommendations?: an observational study of the HCC East-West study group. Ann Surg 2013; 257:929–937.
Kokudo T, Hasegawa K, Yamamoto S, et al. Surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma associated with hepatic vein tumor thrombosis. J Hepatol 2014; 61:583–588.
Yamamoto Y, Ikoma H, Morimura R, et al. Post-hepatectomy survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21:246–253.
Kokudo T, Hasegawa K, Matsuyama Y, et al. Survival benefit of liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma associated with portal vein invasion. J Hepatol 2016; 65:938–943.
Famularo S, Donadon M, Cipriani F, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma surgical and oncological trends in a national multicentric population: the HERCOLES experience. Updates Surg 2020; 72:399–411.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med 2007; 4:1623–1627.
Lencioni R, Llovet JM. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin Liver Dis 2010; 30:52–60.
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40:373–383.
Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 1982; 5:649–656.
Neeman E, Gresham G, Ovasapians N, et al. Comparing physician and nurse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) ratings as predictors of clinical outcomes in patients with cancer. Oncologist 2019; 24:e1460–e1466.
Shi J, Lai ECH, Li N, et al. Surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus. Ann Surg Oncol 2010; 17:2073–2080.
Strasberg SM, Belghiti J, Clavien P-A, et al. The Brisbane 2000 terminology of liver anatomy and resections. HPB 2000; 2:333–339.
Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg 2009; 250:187–196.
Newgard CD, Lewis RJ. Missing data: how to best account for what is not known. JAMA 2015; 314:940–941.
Kleinke K, Reinecke J, Salfrán D, et al. Applied Multiple Imputation: Advantages, Pitfalls, New Developments and Applications in R. Springer Nature. 2020. Available at: https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=eaLTDwAAQBAJ . Accessed January 2021.
Austin PC. The use of propensity score methods with survival or time-to-event outcomes: reporting measures of effect similar to those used in randomized experiments. Stat Med 2014; 33:1242–1258.
Austin PC, Schuster T. The performance of different propensity score methods for estimating absolute effects of treatments on survival outcomes: a simulation study. Stat Methods Med Res 2016; 25:2214–2237.
Giannini EG, Bucci L, Garuti F, et al. Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma need a personalized management: a lesson from clinical practice. Hepatology 2018; 67:1784–1796.
Govalan R, Lauzon M, Luu M, et al. Comparison of surgical resection and systemic treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma with vascular invasion: National Cancer Database analysis. Liver Cancer 2021; 10:407–418.
Famularo S, Di Sandro S, Giani A, et al. The impact of age and ageing on hepatocarcinoma surgery: short- and long-term outcomes in a multicentre propensity-matched cohort. Liver Int 2019; 39:894–904.
Diggs LP, Aversa JG, Wiemken TL, et al. Patient comorbidities drive high mortality rates associated with major liver resections irrespective of hospital volume. Am Surg 2020; 87:1163–1170.
Vitale A, Trevisani F, Farinati F, et al. Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in the precision medicine era: from treatment stage migration to therapeutic hierarchy. Hepatology 2020; 72:2206–2218.
Lencioni R, Kudo M, Ye S-L, et al. GIDEON (Global Investigation of therapeutic DEcisions in hepatocellular carcinoma and of its treatment with sorafeNib): second interim analysis. Int J Clin Pract 2014; 68:609–617.
Ganten TM, Stauber RE, Schott E, et al. Sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma-results of the observational INSIGHT study. Clin Cancer Res 2017; 23:5720–5728.
Tovoli F, Ielasi L, Casadei-Gardini A, et al. Management of adverse events with tailored sorafenib dosing prolongs survival of hepatocellular carcinoma patients. J Hepatol 2019; 71:1175–1183.
Marrero JA, Kudo M, Venook AP, et al. Observational registry of sorafenib use in clinical practice across Child-Pugh subgroups: the GIDEON study. J Hepatol 2016; 65:1140–1147.