Sorafenib and Metronomic Capecitabine in Child-Pugh B patients with advanced HCC: A real-life comparison with best supportive care.
Child-Pugh B
Hepatocellular carcinoma
Metronomic capecitabine
Sorafenib
Journal
Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver
ISSN: 1878-3562
Titre abrégé: Dig Liver Dis
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 100958385
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Feb 2024
09 Feb 2024
Historique:
received:
26
09
2023
revised:
29
12
2023
accepted:
23
01
2024
medline:
11
2
2024
pubmed:
11
2
2024
entrez:
10
2
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The efficacy of systemic therapy for unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) has not been proven in patients with Child-Pugh (C-P) B cirrhosis. Nevertheless, in real-world these patients are treated both with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and with metronomic capecitabine (MC). This study aimed to compare sorafenib and MC outcomes versus best supportive care (BSC) in C-P B patients. Between 2008 and 2020, among 774 C-P B patients with aHCC not amenable/responsive to locoregional treatments, 410 underwent sorafenib, 62 MC, and 302 BSC. The propensity score matching method was used to correct the baseline unbalanced prognostic factors. In the unmatched population, median OS was 9.7 months in patients treated with sorafenib, 8.0 with MC, and 3.9 months with BSC. In sorafenib vs. BSC-matched patients (135 couples), median OS was 7.3 (4.9-9.6) vs. 3.9 (2.6-5.2) months (p<0.001). ECOG-Performance Status, tumor size, macrovascular invasion, AFP, treatment-naive, and sorafenib were independent predictors of survival. In MC vs. BSC-matched patients (40 couples), median OS was 9.0 (0.2-17.8) vs.3.0 (2.2-3.8) months (p<0.001). Median OS did not differ (p = 0.283) in sorafenib vs. MC-matched patients (55 couples). C-P B patients with aHCC undergoing BSC have poor survival. Both Sorafenib and MC treatment improve their prognosis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
OBJECTIVE
The efficacy of systemic therapy for unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) has not been proven in patients with Child-Pugh (C-P) B cirrhosis. Nevertheless, in real-world these patients are treated both with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and with metronomic capecitabine (MC). This study aimed to compare sorafenib and MC outcomes versus best supportive care (BSC) in C-P B patients.
METHOD
METHODS
Between 2008 and 2020, among 774 C-P B patients with aHCC not amenable/responsive to locoregional treatments, 410 underwent sorafenib, 62 MC, and 302 BSC. The propensity score matching method was used to correct the baseline unbalanced prognostic factors.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In the unmatched population, median OS was 9.7 months in patients treated with sorafenib, 8.0 with MC, and 3.9 months with BSC. In sorafenib vs. BSC-matched patients (135 couples), median OS was 7.3 (4.9-9.6) vs. 3.9 (2.6-5.2) months (p<0.001). ECOG-Performance Status, tumor size, macrovascular invasion, AFP, treatment-naive, and sorafenib were independent predictors of survival. In MC vs. BSC-matched patients (40 couples), median OS was 9.0 (0.2-17.8) vs.3.0 (2.2-3.8) months (p<0.001). Median OS did not differ (p = 0.283) in sorafenib vs. MC-matched patients (55 couples).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
C-P B patients with aHCC undergoing BSC have poor survival. Both Sorafenib and MC treatment improve their prognosis.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38341377
pii: S1590-8658(24)00242-1
doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2024.01.199
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2024 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest GC declares consulting fees from Bayer, Roche, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, and AstraZeneca; FGF (advisory board, consulting fees): AbbVie, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, MSD, and Intercept; EGG (advisory board, consulting fees): Astra Zeneca, Eisai, MSD, and Roche; GR (lectures, advisory board, consulting fees): Gilead, Alfa Wasserman, Intercept, and Eisai; FT (research grant, advisory board, consulting fees): Astra Zeneca, AbbVie, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, MSD, and Roche. All other authors declare no conflict of interest.