Skip to content

Advertisement

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Safety assessment of sorafenib in Chinese patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: subgroup analysis of the GIDEON study

  • Sheng-Long Ye1Email author,
  • Jiamei Yang2,
  • Ping Bie3,
  • Shuijun Zhang4,
  • Xiaoping Chen5,
  • Fengyong Liu6,
  • Luming Liu7,
  • Jie Zhou8,
  • Kefeng Dou9,
  • Chunyi Hao10,
  • Guoliang Shao11,
  • Qiang Xia12,
  • Yajin Chen13,
  • Jijin Yang14,
  • Xiaxing Deng15,
  • Yunpeng Liu16,
  • Yunfei Yuan17,
  • Zhiren Fu18,
  • Keiko Nakajima19 and
  • Zhengguang Lv20
BMC Cancer201818:247

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4144-9

Received: 9 November 2016

Accepted: 19 February 2018

Published: 2 March 2018

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to investigate the safety of sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in Chinese patients.

Methods

A subgroup of 345 Chinese patients from the international database of the Global Investigation of therapeutic DEcisions in hepatocellular carcinoma and Of its treatment with sorafeNib (GIDEON) study was included in this analysis. Safety assessment measures were adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria version 3.0.

Results

Of 331 evaluable patients, 98% started sorafenib at 800 mg/day. The median treatment duration was 22 weeks (range, 0.1–116 weeks), and median overall survival (OS) was 322 days (10.7 months). Approximately 50% of patients had at least one adverse event, and 6% had grade 3–4 adverse events. Drug-related adverse events were experienced by 29% of patients, and 3.6% had grade 3–4 drug-related adverse events. Overall, 23% of patients (n = 77) experienced serious adverse events, among which only 1 event was drug-related (0.3%). No differences in overall adverse events, serious adverse events, and deaths were observed between Child-Pugh A and Child-Pugh B patients. The most frequent drug-related adverse events were dermatological/skin (24%), hand-foot skin reaction (20%), gastrointestinal (11%), and diarrhea (11%). The majority of adverse events occurred within 30 days of beginning sorafenib.

Conclusion

Sorafenib has satisfactory efficacy and safety in Chinese Child-Pugh A and B patients with unresectable HCC using the recommended dosage of 800 mg/day, and the safety of sorafenib is not affected by liver function. Prophylaxis for gastrointestinal adverse events may help to decrease dose interruptions or discontinuation.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov; Identifier: NCT00812175. Date of registration: December 19, 2008.

Background

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, and the incidence is increasing with 782,000 cases diagnosed worldwide in 2012 [1]. The incidence of HCC is highest in the East and South-East Asia, with China accounting for nearly half of all HCC cases and deaths globally [2]. In Asian countries, the main HCC treatment options include surgical resection, ablation, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), and radiation or chemotherapy based on liver function [3, 4]. Surgical resection may offer a 5-year survival up to 70% in patients with excellent liver function but for patients with advanced disease, surgical resection is an option for less than 20% of patients [5]. While TACE may provide a meaningful increase in overall survival (OS) for some patients with intermediate (unresectable) disease, many patients in the Asia-Pacific region present with advanced HCC for which most therapies do not provide a meaningful increase in OS [6].

Sorafenib (Nexavar®, a registered trademark of Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., China) is an oral multikinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and platelet-derived growth factor receptor that inhibits tumor-cell proliferation and tumor angiogenesis [7, 8]. A number of studies examining the safety and efficacy of sorafenib in HCC, both alone, and in combination with conventional TACE, have been conducted globally [913], and specifically in the Asia-Pacific region [1417]. The Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma Assessment Randomised Protocol (SHARP) trial, an international, multi-centered, phase III placebo-controlled study of 602 patients with advanced HCC, found that sorafenib significantly prolonged survival in patients with unresectable HCC, with an overall survival of 10.7 months compared to 7.9 months for placebo, with an acceptable safety profile [13]. The 2009 Asia-Pacific (AP) study showed that sorafenib was well tolerated and demonstrated a significant improvement in OS over placebo in the treatment of HCC in Asian patients [14].

The Global Investigation of therapeutic DEcisions in hepatocellular carcinoma and Of its treatment with sorafeNib (GIDEON) trial, a non-interventional surveillance study, evaluated the safety and efficacy of sorafenib in patients with unresectable HCC in real-world practice [18]. The GIDEON trial generated a large database of HCC patients (approximately 3000) across different disease subclasses and stages, in different regions. Two interim analyses [19, 20] reported global and regional differences in patient baseline characteristics, disease etiology, real-world practice patterns, and treatment outcomes. Data from China in the GIDEON database provides the ability to examine the effects of sorafenib in a Chinese population. Liu et al. [21] examined sorafenib and TACE in the GIDEON Chinese subgroup and found that sorafenib was usually administered in patients with tumor progression or poor liver function after TACE and that survival outcomes were still considered satisfactory. Ye et al. [22] also studied the GIDEON Chinese subgroup and reported that earlier administration of sorafenib may improve outcomes in patients with unresectable HCC and portal vein tumor thrombosis.

Sorafenib is typically administered at a dose of 400 mg twice a day; however, in practice dosing varies based on physician preference, Child-Pugh class, performance status, and comorbidities [23, 24]. Few studies have reported sorafenib efficacy and safety with respect to dosing and Child-Pugh class in HCC patients. Analysis of the GIDEON data indicated that the median overall survival (OS) was longer for Child-Pugh A patients (13.6 months) compared to Child-Pugh B patients (5.2 months), though the median time to progression (TTP) was similar (4.7 vs. 4.4 months, respectively) [25]. Though most patients received a starting dose of 800 mg/day, the median dose in Child-Pugh A and B patients was 680 mg/day and 721 mg/day respectively, and the median duration of administration in the 2 groups was 13.7 weeks vs. 8.6 weeks, respectively [20].

Daniele et al. [26] evaluated sorafenib dosing and safety in the European subset of GIDEON, and reported that the majority of patients were started on 800 mg/day, and that 800 and 400 mg/day doses had similar adverse event profiles. However, the incidence of adverse events (all grades), drug-related adverse events, and serious adverse events was lower in patients treated with 800 mg/day, with the exception of hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR), which was lower in the 400 mg/day group. Subgroup analysis of the AP trial indicated that sorafenib treatment improved outcomes of advanced HCC patients regardless of baseline status [27].

The purpose of the present analysis was to investigate the safety of sorafenib in Chinese patients with unresectable HCC in real-world practice. This analysis also evaluated dosing in China, as well as the safety and efficacy in patients with different Child-Pugh class.

Methods

Study design

Data from the GIDEON Chinese subgroup were analyzed retrospectively. All included patients provided signed informed consent to participate in the GIDEON trial. The protocol and documentation were approved by the relevant institutional review boards, ethics committees and health authorities (Supplemental Data).

Patients

Out of a total of 345 Chinese patients with unresectable HCC identified in the GIDEON trial database, 331 were eligible for the current analysis. Eligible patients had a radiographic, histologic or cytologic diagnosis of unresectable HCC and had a life expectancy of at least 8 weeks [18]. Exclusion criteria were consistent with the locally approved sorafenib (Nexavar) product information [18]. All patient treatment decisions were determined solely at the treating physicians’ discretion.

Sorafenib treatment

Indications for sorafenib were consistent with the local sorafenib package information. The dosage of sorafenib and duration of therapy were determined by treating physicians based on individual patient conditions. All included patients were treated with sorafenib at least once. The duration of observation was from the initiation of sorafenib to withdrawal from the study, final follow-up visit, or death. Patients were seen after initiating sorafenib, during therapy, and after completion of sorafenib therapy until withdrawal from the study, loss to follow-up, or death.

Data collection

Data collection for the GIDEON study has been previously described in detail [1820]. Patient information was collected using both paper and electronic case report forms. At first visit, detailed patient demographics, baseline disease characteristics, previous therapies and sorafenib starting dose were recorded. At each physician visit, the date of the visit, HCC evaluation findings, and patient condition (as previously described), sorafenib therapy information (i.e., current dose, dose adjustments, and clinical benefit), adverse events and serious adverse events, and concomitant use of other drugs and therapies for HCC were recorded. All patient information was protected, and comparisons of patient data were done anonymously.

Definitions of adverse events and serious adverse events

For the purposes of this study, an adverse event was defined as any unfavorable or unintended symptom, sign, or disease (including abnormal laboratory results or state of mind) associated with the use of sorafenib. Such effects may or may not be intervention-related, dose-related, route-related, patient-related, or caused by an interaction with another drug, which must be specified in recording the adverse events. A serious adverse event was defined as an adverse event resulting in any of the following at any dose: death, life-threatening condition (i.e., high risk of death), hospitalization (except for observation, convalescence, or planned surgery), persistent or evident disability (impaired daily life), birth defects/congenital malformation, or other important medical events determined by clinicians.

Study end points and safety and efficacy assessment

The primary objective of the current analysis was to evaluate the safety of sorafenib in patients with unresectable HCC in routine clinical practice. All adverse events and serious adverse events occurring in all patients at any time, related or non-related to sorafenib therapy, were recorded, including date of presence or absence of adverse events, adverse event grade, relationship between adverse events and sorafenib (treatment-related adverse events), and measures taken to relieve the adverse events and related outcomes. The clinical characteristics of adverse events and serious adverse events, and the time from beginning sorafenib to occurrence of the adverse event were recorded. Adverse events were graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria version 3.0 [28].

Dosage, duration of treatment, dose reductions/interruptions (plus reasoning), Child-Pugh class, ECOG-PS, and liver function were all documented at baseline and/or follow-up. Efficacy end points included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), and time to progression (TTP) as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors [29].

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed with SAS software version 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Adverse events analysis was conducted based on data from the safety population, and efficacy analysis was conducted on the intention-to-treat population. Patient demographic data and baseline characteristics were presented as mean and standard deviation for continuous variables, and by count and percentage for categorical variables. Safety data, including adverse events, serious adverse events, and death were presented as count and percentage according to Child-Pugh class at the start of therapy. Data regarding study drug administration were summarized as mean and standard deviation and median (range) for continuous data, and count and percentage for categorical data. The associations between baseline disease characteristics with OS, PFS, and TTP were assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

Patient characteristics at study entry

Of the 345 Chinese patients in the database, 14 patients were excluded: seven did not attend any evaluations after enrollment, four failed screening, and three were not treated with the study drug. Thus, data of 331 eligible patients who met the inclusion criteria were included as the safety population (Fig. 1).
Figure 1
Fig. 1

Flow diagram of patient disposition

Patients demographic and baseline characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The mean age of the safety population was 50.0 ± 11.5 years (range, 19–85 years), the majority of patients were male (92%) and less than 65 years of age (90%). Among all patients, 89% had hepatitis B infection, 33% had more than three liver lesions, 43% had HCC confined to the liver, 40.5% had extrahepatic HCC, 30% had portal vein thrombosis, and 22% had vascular invasion. Approximately 39% of patients were tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) stage at III, and 22% were stage IV. Based on the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging classification, 23% were class A or B, and 67% of were class C or D. Majority of patients, were Child-Pugh A (67%) and 12% were Child-Pugh B or C. Prior to sorafenib treatment, 34% patients received surgery and 52% received TACE.
Table 1

Characteristics of the safety population (N = 331)

Age (years)

50.0 ± 11.5

  < 65

297 (90)

 65–75

25 (7.6)

  ≥ 75

7 (2.1)

 Missing

2 (0.6)

Gender

 Male

305 (92)

 Female

26 (7.9)

Hepatitis B

 

 Yes

296 (89)

 No

6 (1.8)

 Othersa

36 (11)

Portal vein thrombosis

 Yes

98 (30)

 No

190 (57)

 Unknown

43 (13)

Number of liver lesions

 1–3

196 (59)

  > 3

112 (34)

HCC confined to liver, yes

142 (43)

Vascular invasion, yes

74 (22)

Extrahepatic spread, yes

134 (41)

TNM stage

 I or II

60 (18)

 III

129 (39)

 IV

72 (22)

 Missing or unknown

70 (21)

Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage

 A or B

76 (23)

 C or D

222 (67)

 Not evaluable

33 (10)

Child-Pugh class

 A

220 (67)

 B or C

38 (12)

 Not evaluable

73 (22)

Cancer of the Liver Italian Program score

 0

49 (15)

 1

51 (15)

 2

54 (16)

 3

51 (15)

 4–6

46 (14)

Prior surgery

111 (34)

Prior locoregional therapy

 None

89 (27)

 Percutaneous ethanol injection only

2 (0.6)

 Radiofrequency ablation only

16 (4.8)

 Transarterial chemoembolization only

172 (52)

 Concomitantb

50 (15)

 Others

2 (0.6)

Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or count (percentage). Percentages are presented to 2 significant figs

HCC hepatocellular carcinoma, TNM tumor node metastasis

aOthers include five hepatitis C, five alcohol use, 23 unknown, two other, and one other hepatobiliary disorders/findings

bConcomitant therapy refers to using at least two therapies for loco-regional anti-cancer treatment at baseline

Sorafenib administration

Sorafenib administration of the overall study population is summarized in Table 2. Completed dosing data of 319 patients was available for review.. The median treatment duration was 22.3 weeks (range, 0.1–116.1 weeks); 41% of patients had a treatment duration > 28 weeks and only 6.3% had a treatment duration of ≤4 weeks. Overall, 98% of patients received an initial dose of 800 mg/day, and mean daily dose was 776.2 ± 83.6 mg/day (median daily dose 800 mg). Seven patients (2.1%) had dose interruptions, and five of these (71%) were due to adverse events. Twenty-seven patients (8.2%) required dose modification, and of these 16 (59%) were modified due to adverse events. Thirteen patients (3.9%) had a dose increase, and 21 (6.3%) required a dose reduction (Additional file 1: Table S1).
Table 2

Sorafenib administration in the safety population (N = 331)

Duration of treatment

 Missing

12 (3.6)

  ≤ 4 weeks

21 (6.3)

  > 4 and ≤8 weeks

37 (11)

  > 8 and ≤12 weeks

51 (15)

  > 12 and ≤16 weeks

23 (6.9)

  > 16 and ≤20 weeks

17 (5.1)

  > 20 and ≤24 weeks

19 (5.7)

  > 24 and ≤28 weeks

15 (4.5)

  > 28 weeks

136 (41)

Treatment duration (weeks) for available patients

 Number

319

 Mean ± SD

29.54 ± 24.79

 Median (range)

22.30 (0.1 to 116.1)

Average daily dose (mg)

 Number

204

 Mean ± S D

776.2 ± 83.6

 Median (range)

800 (332 to 818)

Total dose (mg)

 Number

204

 Mean ± SD

133,512.3 ± 115,060.0

 Median (range)

198,350 (800 to 600,800)

Dose intensity (%)

 Number

204

 Mean ± SD

96.5 ± 11.8

 Median (range)

100 (26 to 102)

Actual days on study drug (excluding off days)

 Number

204

 Mean ± SD

171.4 ± 146.3

 Median (range)

127.5 (1 to 751)

Initial sorafenib dose level

 Number

331

 400 mg

4 (1.2)

 600 mg

1 (0.3)

 800 mg

326 (98)

Total subjects with dose interruptions ticked, yes

7 (2.1)

Total subjects with dose modification ticked, yes

27 (8.2)

Total subjects with dose increase, yes

13 (3.9)

Total subjects with dose reduction, yes

21 (6.3)

Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation, median (range) or count (percentage). Percentages are presented to 2 significant figures

Safety assessment

Safety data are reported in Tables 3, 4 and 5. Overall, 51% of patients experienced at least one treatment-emergent adverse event, and 6% were grade 3–4 adverse events. Drug-related adverse events were experienced by 29% of patients, and 3.6% had grade 3 or 4 events. Overall, 23% of patients (n = 77) experienced serious adverse events, and only one (0.3%) was drug-related (Table 3).
Table 3

Treatment-emergent adverse events by Child-Pugh class at start of therapy in the safety population

Adverse events

Total

(N = 331)

Child-Pugh A

(n = 246)

Child-Pugh B

(n = 48)

Child-Pugh C

(n = 2)

Not evaluable

(n = 35)

Treatment-emergent AE (all grades including deaths not documented as AE)

233 (70)

175 (71)

38 (79)

0 (0)

20 (57)

AEs resulting in permanent discontinuation

29 (8.8)

22 (8.9)

5 (10)

0 (0)

2 (5.7)

Treatment-emergent AE (all grades)

167 (51)

124 (50)

27 (56)

0 (0)

16 (46)

 Grade 3–4

20 (6.0)

14 (5.7)

4 (8.3)

0 (0)

20 (6.0)

 Grade 5

73 (22)

55 (22)

11 (23)

0 (0)

7 (20)

Drug-related AE (all grades)

95 (29)

67 (27)

17 (35)

0 (0)

11 (31)

 Grade 3–4

12 (3.6)

9 (3.7)

2 (4.2)

0 (0)

1 (2.9)

 Grade 5

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

Serious AE (all grades)

77 (23)

58 (24)

12 (25)

0 (0)

7 (20)

 Drug-related (all grades)

1 (0.3)

0 (0)

1 (2.1)

0 (0)

0 (0)

All deaths

166 (50)

127 (52)

27 (56)

0 (0)

12 (34)

 Treatment-emergent death

73 (22)

55 (22)

11 (23)

0 (0)

7 (20)

Data are presented as count (percentage). Percentages are presented to 2 significant figs

AE adverse event, SAE serious adverse event

Treatment-emergent deaths: death while on sorafenib and up to 30 days after last dose collected from all available sources

All deaths: all deaths from all sources where death information was collected including follow-up information

Table 4

Incidence of treatment-emergent drug-related adverse events by worst grade and Child-Pugh class at start of therapy

Drug-related adverse events

Child-Pugh A

Child-Pugh B

Child-Pugh C

(n = 246)

(n = 48)

(n = 2)

Any adverse event

67 (27)

17 (35)

0 (0)

 Cardiac, general

8 (3.3)

1 (2.1)

0 (0)

 Hypertension

7 (2.8)

1 (2.1)

0 (0)

 Hypotension

2 (0.8)

0 (0)

0 (0)

 Constitutional symptoms

2 (0.8)

0 (0)

0 (0)

 Fatigue

1 (0.4)

0 (0)

0 (0)

 Fever

1 (0.4)

0 (0)

0 (0)

 Dermatology/skin

58 (24)

12 (25)

0 (0)

 Alopecia

6 (2.4)

2 (4.2)

0 (0)

 Hand-foot skin reaction

51 (21)

7 (15)

0 (0)

 Rash/desquamation

8 (3.3)

3 (6.3)

0 (0)

 Ulceration

0 (0)

0 (0)

0 (0)

 Gastrointestinal

25 (10)

8 (17)

0 (0)

 Diarrhea

25 (10)

7 (15)

0 (0)

 Nausea

0 (0)

1 (2.1)

0 (0)

Data are presented as count (percentage). Percentages are presented to 2 significant figures

Table 5

Onset time for drug-related adverse events: diarrhea, hand-foot skin reaction, and liver dysfunction

Time of onset

Total

Child-Pugh A

Child-Pugh B

Not evaluable

Diarrhea

35/39

25/28

7/8

3/3

 0–30 days

12/13

8/8

4/5

0/0

 31–60 days

4/4

3/3

1/1

0/0

 61–90 days

5/5

4/4

0/0

1/1

  > 90 days

14/17

10/13

2/2

2/2

Hand-foot skin reaction

63/64

51/51

7/8

5/5

 0–30 days

37/38

29/29

5/6

3/3

 31–60 days

11/12

9/10

1/1

1/1

 61–90 days

5/5

5/5

0/0

0/0

  > 90 days

10/9

8/7

1/1

1/1

Liver dysfunction

0/46

0/30

0/9

0/7

 0–30 days

0/6

0/2

0/2

0/2

 31–60 days

0/2

0/1

0/1

0/0

 61–90 days

0/10

0/8

0/1

0/1

  > 90 days

0/28

0/19

0/5

0/4

Data are presented as represented as number of drug-related adverse events / number of adverse events

The incidence of adverse events and serious adverse events were broadly comparable between Child Pugh A and B patients. The majority of drug-related adverse events were grade 1 or 2 in Child-Pugh A and B patients, though the frequency of drug-related adverse events was greater in Child-Pugh B (35%) compared with Child-Pugh A (27%) patients (Table 3). The incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events by worst grade and Child-Pugh score at start of therapy are summarized in Additional file 1: Table S2.

The most frequent drug-related adverse events were comparable across Child-Pugh subgroups, and were consistent with those of the overall population (Table 4). Dermatological, HFSR, gastrointestinal, and diarrhea were the most frequently observed in both Child-Pugh A and B patients, with gastrointestinal adverse events slightly more frequent in Child-Pugh B than A patients (17% vs 10%).

The time to onset of all adverse events was within 30 days of starting sorafenib, then declined markedly (Fig. 2). However, the time to onset for specific adverse events varied (Table 5). Of 39 patients with diarrhea, 35 were drug-related. Onset of diarrhea most frequently occurred within 30 days, and after 90 days. Of 64 patients with HFSR, 63 were drug-related and the onset was typically within 30 days. Liver dysfunction occurred most frequently after 90 days with no drug-related cases reported.
Figure 2
Fig. 2

Time to adverse events onset after sorafenib administration in the safety population. a Child-Pugh class A (n = 246). b Child-Pugh class B (n = 38). c Child-Pugh class not evaluable (n = 35). Child-Pugh classes are those at baseline, minimum grade 1. AE: adverse events

Efficacy (intention-to-treat population)

Overall 378 patients were in interntion-to-treat population, there were 166 mortality events,222 progression events as defined by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria. The median OS was 322 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 270–382 days), the median PFS was 186 days (95% CI: 155–216 days), and median TTP was 274 days (95% CI: 209–463 days). The median OS was longer for Child-Pugh A patients compared to B (322 vs. 240 days), while the PFS time (183 vs. 208 days), and median TTP (214 days vs. not reached) were shorter for Child-Pugh A patients compared to Child-Pugh B patients (Fig. 3).
Figure 3
Fig. 3

Kaplan-Meier curve survival for patients with unresectable HCC based on Child-Pugh score in the intention-to-treat population. a Overall survival (OS); (b) progression-free survival (PFS); (c) time-to-progression for Child-Pugh A versus Child-Pugh B, Child-Pugh C as defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria

Discussion

The majority of this Chinese subgroup was male (92%), more than 65 years old (90%), and had hepatitis B (89%). This population consisted of 67% Child-Pugh A patients, and 67% were BCLC stage C or D compared to the overall GIDEON safety population, where 61% of patients were Child-Pugh A and 21% were Child-Pugh B. In real-life clinical practice, over 98% of patients received the recommended initial sorafenib dose of 800 mg/day, with a median duration of treatment of 22.3 weeks (range, 0.1–116.1 months). In comparison to the overall GIDEON safety population,, where only 72% of Child-Pugh A and 70% Child-Pugh B patients received an initial sorafenib dose of 800 mg [30].

Adverse events

About 50% of patients experienced at least one adverse event, with approximately 28% experiencing a drug-related adverse event. Majority of the drug-related adverse events were grade 1 or 2, which is consistent with what was reported in the GIDEON and Asia-Pacific phase III trials [13, 14]. The results are different from the SHARP trial in which 98% of sorafenib-treated patients had an adverse event, and 80% had a drug-related adverse event [23]. However, the incidence of serious adverse events was lower (23%) in the GIDEON Chinese subgroup compared with the serious adverse events incidence in the SHARP study (52%) [23].

In this subgroup, the most common drug-related adverse events were dermatology/skin, HFSR, gastrointestinal, and diarrhea which is similar to previous trials [14, 19, 23]. However, a very low percentage of patients reported having fatigue (0.4%) or rash (3.3% and 6.3% for patients with Child-Pugh A and Child-Pugh B, respectively), which differs from SHARP [23], AP [14], and GIDEON [19], where fatigue and rash/desquamation were some of the most commonly reported drug-related adverse events. In the AP study, the most common grade 3 and 4 drug-related adverse events in sorafenib-treated patients were HFSR, diarrhea, and fatigue, and fatigue was the most common in patients receiving placebo [27]. Al-Rajabi et al. [24] reported nausea in 70.8% of all patients, and diarrhea in 57.5%, and the percentages were similar between Child-Pugh A and B patients. In general, gastrointestinal distress (diarrhea) is a common adverse event associated with sorafenib, whether it is used for HCC or advanced renal cell carcinoma [31, 32]. Other studies of GIDEON Chinese subset have shown sorafenib is associated with adverse events regardless of prior surgery, the presence of portal vein tumor thrombosis [22], or with prior or concomitant TACE [21].

Influence of child-Pugh class on safety

Overall, adverse events were comparable between Child-Pugh A and B patients, including the most frequently occurring drug-related adverse events. However, the Chinese subgroup differed from the overall global GIDEON cohort with regard to drug-related adverse events with more events occurring in Child-Pugh B (35%) vs. Child-Pugh A (27%) patients.. Additionally, the percentage of Chinese patients experiencing drug-related adverse events was much lower than reported for the overall GIDEON cohort in the second interim analysis (63% for Child-Pugh B; 67% for Child Pugh A) [20]. Toxicity in terms of all-grade adverse events was lower in Child-Pugh A (50%) and B (56%) patients. In addition, there were no differences between Child-Pugh A and B patients with respect to the percentage of deaths and treatment-emergent deaths. A serious drug-related adverse event was only reported in one Child-Pugh B patient (0.3%), and none were reported in Child-Pugh A patients. The two Child-Pugh C patients had no adverse events, serious adverse events, or death; however, this number is too small to make meaningful comparisons.

Differences in patient baseline clinical characteristics, in initial sorafenib dose and administration, and in the concomitant locoregional therapy may have contributed to differences between this study and others. In the present study, initial sorafenib dose of 800 mg per day was the most common dosage, which is consistent with most studies. Adverse events were the main reason for dose interruptions and drug discontinuation in the present study, and in other studies. Reasons for dose modification included adverse events, disease progression, and concomitant treatments/procedures (Additional file 1: Table S1). Our results suggest that a longer duration of sorafenib treatment with the recommended daily dose of 800 mg may contribute to greater clinical benefit in terms of survival with an acceptable safety profile.

Influence of child-Pugh class on efficacy

In the present study the overall median OS was 322 days (10.7 months), compared with the median OS recorded in the Asia-pacific study (6.5 months for total AP population) [27]. It should be noted, however, that although our observed median OS was longer, in our population 22% and 41% of the patients had tumor burden, vascular invasion and extra-hepatic spread, respectively; as compared to 79% of the patients had either or both tumor burden in the Asian-pacific study. These comparisons suggest that patients with less advanced disease at the start of therapy may experience a greater survival benefit.

Final analysis of the GIDEON data showed the median OS was greater in Child-Pugh A patients (13.6 months, 95% CI: 12.8–14.7 months) than in B patients (5.2 months, 95% CI: 4.6–6.3 months) [25]. Consistent with the findings of a recent study by Al-Rajabi et al. [24], our population, with 11.5% Child-Pugh B patients, had a difference in median OS between Child-Pugh A and B (10.7 vs. 8 months, respectively). In the second interim analysis of the GIDEON data, most patients received the approved sorafenib dose of 800 mg/day, but the median duration of therapy was shorter in Child-Pugh B patients [20]. A recent European subgroup analysis of GIDEON data suggested that a higher starting dose may result in longer OS [26]. Liu et al. [21] reported that the Chinese subpopulation had more advanced HCC at study entry than the overall GIDEON population (BCLC C/D, 67% vs. 58%; TNM III/IV, 77% vs. 72%), but better underlying liver function (Child-Pugh B/C, 16% vs. 58%), and Chinese patients with the best liver function (Child-Pugh A) had a longer OS than GIDEON patients as a whole (13.6 months vs. 10.7 months), while those with worse liver function (Child-Pugh B) had a shorter OS (5.0 months vs. 8.0 months).

Limitations

This study has certain limitations, including the retrospective analysis of data which limits evaluation of causality. The descriptive results should be interpreted with caution as statistical analysis for significance was not performed. Data were collected from multiple tertiary care centers in China, and the findings may not translate fully to daily practice in primary care settings. Whether patients were given continuous or interrupted sorafenib dosing was not studied. In addition, only 1.2% of patients received an initial dose of 400 mg, and thus the safety and efficacy of this dose could not be studied. Furthermore, only 12% of patients were Child-Pugh B or C, and among them there were only two evaluable Child-Pugh C patients. Similarly, the percentages of patients receiving a 400 mg (1.2%) and 600 mg (0.3%) starting dose were too small to allow a meaningful comparison. Lastly, we did not collect data or study the influence of hepatitis B viral load.

Conclusions

This study has shown that sorafenib has acceptable efficacy and safety in Chinese Child-Pugh A and B patients with unresectable HCC using the recommended dosage of 800 mg/day, and that safety and the occurrence of adverse events are not affected by liver function. Different than seen in other phase III sorafenib trials, gastrointestinal adverse events were the most common drug-related adverse events in Chinese patients with unresectable HCC administered sorafenib. Taken together, these results suggest that sorafenib treatment is appropriate for Chinese patients with unresectable HCC.

Abbreviations

AE: 

adverse event

BCLC: 

Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer

CI: 

confidence interval

CT: 

computed tomography

ECOG-PS: 

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status

GIDEON: 

Global Investigation of therapeutic DEcisions in hepatocellular carcinoma and Of its treatment with sorafeNib

HCC: 

hepatocellular carcinoma

HFSR: 

hand-foot skin reaction

OS: 

overall survival

PFS: 

progression-free survival

SAE: 

serious adverse event

SD: 

standard deviation

SHARP: 

Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma Assessment Randomised Protocol trial

TACE: 

transarterial chemo-embolization

TNM: 

tumor-node-metastasis

TTP: 

time to progression

Declarations

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

This trial was funded by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd., China. Bayer played a role in data collection.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

Conception and study design: SLY, JMY, PB, SJZ, XPC, FYL, LML, JZ, KFD, CYH, GLS, QX, YJC, JJY, XXD, YPL, YFY, ZRF. Analysis of data: SLY, KN, ZGL. Data interpretation: SLY. In drafting the manuscript: SLY, KN, ZGL. Critically revising the manuscript: SLY. All authors have read and approved the final version of this manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the ethics committee of Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University (certification number: 2009–15). Written informed consent was obtained from all the patients involved.

The GIDEON study was an international prospective, open-label, multi-centered, non-interventional study of patients with unresectable HCC who had indications for systemic therapy and received sorafenib. All patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, were treated with sorafenib at least once. The duration of observation was from the initiation of sorafenib therapy to withdrawal from the study, last follow-up, or death. The GIDEON study protocol [NCT00812175] is available at: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00812175).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

This trial was financially supported by Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd., China.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Liver Cancer Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
(2)
Department of Special Treatment, Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Shanghai, China
(3)
Institute of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China
(4)
Department of General Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China
(5)
Department of Surgery, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China
(6)
Department of Interventional Radiology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China
(7)
Shanghai Cancer Center, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
(8)
Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Nanfang Hospital of Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China
(9)
Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Xijing Hospital, Xi’an, China
(10)
Department of Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery, Beijing Cancer Hospital, Peking University, Beijing, China
(11)
Department of Radiology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, China
(12)
Department of Liver Surgery, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
(13)
Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Second Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
(14)
Department of Nuclear Medicine, Changhai Hospital, Second Military Medical University, Shanghai, China
(15)
Department of General Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
(16)
Department of Medical Oncology, the First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
(17)
Department of Hepatobiliary, Cancer Center, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China
(18)
Department of Liver Transplantation, Shanghai Changzheng Hospital, Shanghai, China
(19)
Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Whippany, USA
(20)
Bayer Healthcare Company Ltd., Beijing, China

References

  1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M, Parkin DM, Forman D, Bray F. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer. 2015;136:E359–86.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:87–108.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Makuchi M, Kokudo N. Clinical practice guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma: the first evidence-based guidelines from Japan. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:828–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Qin S, Primary Liver Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Expert Panel of the Chinese Ministry of Health. Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of primary liver cancer (2011 edition). Chin Clin Oncol. 2012;1:10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Hung H. Treatment modalities for hepatocellular carcinoma. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 2005;5:131–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruix J, Sherman M. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2005;42:1208–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang YS, Adnane J, Trail PA, Levy J, Henderson A, Xue D, Bortolon E, Ichetovkin M, Chen C, McNabola A, et al. Sorafenib (BAY 43-9006) inhibits tumor growth and vascularization and induces tumor apoptosis and hypoxia in RCC xenograft models. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2007;59:561–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Raut CP, Boucher Y, Duda DG, Morgan JA, Quek R, Ancukiewicz M, Lahdenranta J, Eder JP, Demetri GD, Jain RK. Effects of sorafenib on intra-tumoral interstitial fluid pressure and circulating biomarkers in patients with refractory sarcomas (NCI protocol 6948). PLoS One. 2012;7:e26331.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Cabrera R, Pannu DS, Caridi J, Firpi RJ, Soldevila-Pico C, Morelli G, Clark V, Suman A, George TJ Jr, Nelson DR. The combination of sorafenib with transarterial chemoembolisation for hepatocellular carcinoma. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011;34:205–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Pawlik TM, Reyes DK, Cosgrove D, Kamel IR, Bhagat N, Geschwind JF. Phase II trial of sorafenib combined with concurrent transarterial chemoembolization with drug-eluting beads for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:3960–7.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Sieghart W, Pinter M, Reisegger M, Müller C, Ba-Ssalamah A, Lammer J, Peck-Radosavljevic M. Conventional transarterial chemoembolisation in combination with sorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a pilot study. Eur Radiol. 2012;22:1214–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Sansonno D, Lauletta G, Russi S, Conteduca V, Sansonno L, Dammacco F. Transarterial chemoembolization plus sorafenib: a sequential therapeutic scheme for HCV-related intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized clinical trial. Oncologist. 2012;17:359–66.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, Hilgard P, Gane E, Blanc JF, de Oliveira AC, Santoro A, Raoul JL, Forner A, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:378–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Cheng AL, Kang YK, Chen Z, Tsao CJ, Qin S, Kim JS, Luo R, Feng J, Ye S, Yang TS, 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.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kudo M, Imanaka K, Chida N, Nakachi K, Tak WY, Takayama T, Yoon JH, Hori T, Kumada H, Hayashi N, et al. Phase III study of sorafenib after transarterial chemoembolisation in Japanese and Korean patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:2117–27.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Park JW, Koh YH, Kim HB, Kim HY, An S, Choi JI, Woo SM, Nam BH. Phase II study of concurrent transarterial chemoembolization and sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2012;56:1336–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Han G, Yang J, Shao G, Teng G, Wang M, Yang J, Liu Z, Feng G, Yang R, Lu L, et al. Sorafenib in combination with transarterial chemoembolization in Chinese patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a subgroup interim analysis of the START trial. Future Oncol. 2013;9:403–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Lencioni R, Marrero J, Venook A, Ye SL, Kudo M. Design and rationale for the non-interventional global investigation of therapeutic decisions in hepatocellular carcinoma and of its treatment with sorafenib (GIDEON) study. Int J Clin Pract. 2010;64:1034–41.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Lencioni R, Kudo M, Ye SL, Bronowicki JP, Chen XP, Dagher L, Furuse J, Geschwind JF, Ladrón de Guevara L, Papandreou C, et al. First interim analysis of the GIDEON (global investigation of therapeutic DEcisions in hepatocellular carcinoma and of its treatment with sorafeNib) non-interventional study. Int J Clin Pract. 2012;66:675–83.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lencioni R, Kudo M, Ye SL, Bronowicki JP, Chen XP, Dagher L, Furuse J, Geschwind JF, de Guevara LL, Papandreou C, 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;68:609–17.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu F, Meng Z, Shao G, Wang J, Wang Z, Yang J, Yip CS, He D. Patterns of sorafenib and TACE treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in a Chinese population: subgroup analysis of the GIDEON study. Mol Biol Rep. 2017;44:149–58.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ye SL, Chen X, Yang J, Bie P, Zhang S, Liu F, Liu L, Zhou J, Dou K, Yip CS, Yang X. Evaluation of sorafenib in Chinese unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients with prior surgery and portal vein tumor thrombosis: a subset analysis of GIDEON study data. Tumour Biol 2017;39(3):1010428317695030.Google Scholar
  23. Bruix J, Raoul JL, Sherman M, Mazzaferro V, Bolondi L, Craxi A, Galle PR, Santoro A, Beaugrand M, Sangiovanni A, et al. Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: subanalyses of a phase III trial. J Hepatol. 2012;57:821–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Al-Rajabi R, Patel S, Ketchum NS, Jaime NA, Lu TW, Pollock BH, Mahalingam D. Comparative dosing and efficacy of sorafenib in hepatocellular cancer patients with varying liver dysfunction. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2015;6:259–67.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Marrero JA, Lencioni R, Ye SL, Masatoshi K, Bronowicki JP, Chen XP, Dagher L, Furuse J, Geshwind JF, de Guevara LL, et al. Final analysis of GIDEON (Global investigation of therapeutic decisions in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and of its treatment with Sorafenib (Sor) in >3000 sor-treated patients (pts): clinical findings in pts with liver dysfunction. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(15_suppl) 4126 [Abstract]. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2013.31.
  26. Daniele B. Impact of sorafenib dosing on outcome from the European patient subset of the GIDEON study. Future Oncol. 2015;9:1–10. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  27. Cheng AL, Guan Z, Chen Z, Tsao CJ, Qin S, Kim JS, Yang TS, Tak WY, Pan H, Yu S, et al. Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma according to baseline status: subset analyses of the phase III Sorafenib Asia-Pacific trial. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:1452–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Trotti A, Colevas AD, Setser A, Rusch V, Jaques D, Budach V, Langer C, Murphy B, Cumberlin R, Coleman CN, et al. CTCAE v3.0: development of a comprehensive grading system for the adverse effects of cancer treatment. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2003;13:176–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, Schwartz LH, Sargent D, Ford R, Dancey J, Arbuck S, Gwyther S, Mooney M, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:228–47.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Marrero JA, Kudo M, Venook AP, Ye SL, Bronowicki JP, Chen XP, Dagher L, Furuse J, Geschwind JH, de Guevara LL, Papandreou C, Takayama T, Sanyal AJ, Yoon SK, Nakajima K, Lehr R, Heldner S, Lencioni R. Observational registry of sorafenib use in clinical practice across child-Pugh subgroups: the GIDEON study. J Hepatol. 2016;65:1140–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Santoni M, Conti A, De Giorgi U, Iacovelli R, Pantano F, Burattini L, Muzzonigro G, Berardi R, Santini D, Cascinu S. Risk of gastrointestinal events with sorafenib, sunitinib and pazopanib in patients with solid tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials. Int J Cancer. 2014;135:763–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Brose MS, Frenette CT, Keefe SM, Stein SM. Management of sorafenib-related adverse events: a clinician's perspective. Semin Oncol. 2014;41(Suppl 2):S1–S16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement