학술논문

Lenvatinib versus Sorafenib as first‐line treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma: A multi‐institutional matched case‐control study.
Document Type
Article
Source
Hepatology Research. Dec2021, Vol. 51 Issue 12, p1229-1241. 13p.
Subject
*HEPATOCELLULAR carcinoma
*SORAFENIB
*OVERALL survival
*NEUTROPHIL lymphocyte ratio
*SURVIVAL rate
*PROPENSITY score matching
Language
ISSN
1386-6346
Abstract
Background: Advanced Hepatocarcinoma (HCC) is an important health problem worldwide. Recently, the REFLECT trial demonstrated the non‐inferiority of Lenvatinib compared to Sorafenib in I line setting, thus leading to the approval of new first‐line standard of care, along with Sorafenib. Aims and methods: With aim to evaluate the optimal choice between Sorafenib and Lenvatinib as primary treatment in clinical practice, we performed a multicentric analysis with the propensity score matching on 184 HCC patients. Results: The median overall survival (OS) were 15.2 and 10.5 months for Lenvatinib and Sorafenib arm, respectively. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 7.0 and 4.5 months for Lenvatinib and Sorafenib arm, respectively. Patients treated with Lenvatinib showed a 36% reduction of death risk (p = 0.0156), a 29% reduction of progression risk (p = 0.0446), a higher response rate (p < 0.00001) and a higher disease control rate (p = 0.002). Sorafenib showed to be correlated with more hand‐foot skin reaction and Lenvatinib with more hypertension and fatigue. We highlighted the prognostic role of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG‐PS), bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase and eosinophils for Sorafenib. Conversely, albumin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alkaline phosphatase and Neutrophil‐Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) resulted prognostic in Lenvatinib arm. Finally, we highlighted the positive predictive role of albumin > Normal Value (NV), ECOG > 0, NLR < 3, absence of Hepatitis C Virus positivity, and presence of portal vein thrombosis in favor of Lenvatinib arm. Eosinophil < 50 and ECOG > 0 negatively predicted the response to Sorafenib. Conclusion: SLenvatinib showed to better perform in a real‐word setting compared to Sorafenib. More researches are needed to validate the predictor factors of response to Lenvatinib rather than Sorafenib. Key points: Recently, the REFLECT trial demonstrated the non‐inferiority of Lenvatinib compared to Sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) I line setting, thus leading to the approval of new first‐line standard of careWith aim to evaluate the optimal choice between Sorafenib and Lenvatinib as primary treatment in clinical practice, we performed a multicentric analysis with the propensity score matching on 184 HCC patientsIn our analysis, Lenvatinib showed to better perform in a real‐word setting compared to Sorafenib. More researches are needed to validate the predictor factors of response to Lenvatinib rather than Sorafenib [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]