Catherine Frenette, MD:The 2 groups of lenvatinib [Lenvima] versus sorafenib [Nexavar] in the REFLECT trial were not stratified by AFP [alpha-fetoprotein] level. They were also not stratified by their underlying cause of liver disease. The patients in the lenvatinib group did have a slightly higher AFP than the patients in the sorafenib group. This may actually have resulted in a favorable imbalance in the positive for sorafenib. Additionally, hepatitis C patients were more frequent in the sorafenib group as compared with the lenvatinib group. This may have given a benefit to sorafenib. The reason for this discussion is that we recall, in the SHARP trial, when they broke out a subgroup of patients who were treated with sorafenib and had hepatitis C, had quite a longer median survival. In the SHARP trial, the overall survival [OS] in the subgroup was 10.7 months. In the hepatitis Ctreated population with sorafenib, there may have been a longer OS than would have been seen in patients who were stratified for that risk factor.
We have to remember toxicity profiles with these medications. We know that tyrosine kinase inhibitors have toxicities; that’s what we have to deal with regarding our patients. In the REFLECT trial, we saw more hypertension in the lenvatinib group of 42% compared with 30% in the sorafenib group; however, lenvatinib also had less hand-foot-skin reaction as compared with sorafenib. The lenvatinib group had 27% hand-foot-skin reaction compared with 52% in the sorafenib group. This was notable when we think about the grade 3 and 4 hand-foot-skin reaction, which is so particularly painful for our patients. In the lenvatinib group, only 3% of them had grade 3 to 4 hand-foot-skin reaction, compared with 11% of the sorafenib group. We also have to remember that lenvatinib has a higher rate of proteinuria. 25% of the patients on lenvatinib had some element of proteinuria, compare with 11% of the sorafenib patients. For our patients who are being treated with lenvatinib, we need to monitor their urine proteins and address that if it becomes an issue. The lenvatinib-treated group did have a higher rate of treatment-related, treatment-emergent adverse events57% versus 49% for sorafenib.
Serious adverse effects [SAE] were also higher in lenvatinib43% versus 30% with sorafenib. However, part of these higher rates of adverse events may have been accounted for because the lenvatinib-treated arm had a longer treatment of duration. The treatment of duration for lenvatinib was 5.7 months and in sorafenib was 3.7 months. So as the patients are treated longer, we expect to see more serious adverse events.
There’s not a lot of data for lenvatinib in patients with decompensated liver function as of yet. The REFLECT trial included predominantly Child-Pugh A patients. There were a few patients with Child-Pugh B who got into the trial, but again, it was really geared toward the Child-Pugh A patient. We now have 10 years of experience with sorafenib in conjunction with decompensated liver function. We know those patients need a dose reduction in many cases. They may not tolerate it at all and consequently have adverse side effects. We need to gain more experience with lenvatinib treating our decompensated patients. At this point, I would be cautious using lenvatinib for our decompensated patients until we get more data and experience.
Transcript edited for clarity.
A 77-Year-Old Male With Unresectable HCC and Extrahepatic Involvement
Durvalumab/Bevacizumab Shows Clinically Meaningful PFS Improvement in HCC
November 9th 2023The phase 3 EMERALD-1 trial has met its primary end point and continues to assess durvalumab combined with transarterial chemoembolization and bevacizumab for the secondary end point of overall survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
Read More
SD-101 and Checkpoint Blockade Shows Early Favorable Outcomes in UMLM
November 6th 2023Encouraging progression-free survival and ctDNA molecular response rates were seen with SD-101 delivered via pressure-enabled drug delivery plus intravenous checkpoint inhibitors in patients with metastatic uveal melanoma with liver metastases.
Read More
New Therapies to Improve Outcomes for Patients With Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma
October 28th 2023In an interview with Targeted Oncology, Rachna T. Shroff, MD, MS, FASCO, discussed new systemic therapies that are available or being developed to treat patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.
Read More
Liver Cancer Awareness Month: Understanding and Treating HCC
October 26th 2023October is Liver Cancer Awareness Month, and strides continue to be made in the realm of liver cancer diagnosis and treatment. Two experts, Joan Culpepper-Morgan, MD, and Susanne G. Warner, MD, shed light on some of the treatment options available in the space.
Read More