Background No effective systemic therapy exists for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. A preliminary study suggested that sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, the platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and Raf may be effective in hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods In this multicenter, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 602 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who had not received previous systemic treatment to receive either sorafenib (at a dose of 400 mg twice daily) or placebo. Primary outcomes were overall survival and the time to symptomatic progression. Secondary outcomes included the time to radiologic progression and safety. Results At the second planned interim analysis, 321 deaths had occurred, and the study was stopped. Median overall survival was 10.7 months in the sorafenib group and 7.9 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the sorafenib group, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.87; P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the median time to symptomatic progression (4.1 months vs. 4.9 months, respectively, P=0.77). The median time to radiologic progression was 5.5 months in the sorafenib group and 2.8 months in the placebo group (P<0.001). Seven patients in the sorafenib group (2%) and two patients in the placebo group (1%) had a partial response; no patients had a complete response. Diarrhea, weight loss, hand-foot skin reaction, and hypophosphatemia were more frequent in the sorafenib group. Conclusions In patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, median survival and the time to radiologic progression were nearly 3 months longer for patients treated with sorafenib than for those given placebo.

/pdf/sorafenib-in-advanced-hepatocellular-carcinoma-3xdq9sbovw.pdf

Sorafenib in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines : management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Since the publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) practice guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in 2005, new information has emerged that requires that the guidelines be updated. The full version of the new guidelines is available on the AASLD Web site at http://www.aasld.org/practiceguidelines/ Documents/Bookmarked%20Practice%20Guidelines/ HCCUpdate2010.pdf. Here, we briefly describe only new or changed recommendations.

/pdf/aasld-practice-guideline-management-of-hepatocellular-51bocalv0r.pdf

AASLD PRACTICE GUIDELINE Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Update

The endpoint in cancer research is overall survival. Nonetheless, other potential surrogate endpoints, such as response rate and time to progression, are currently used. Measurement of response rate in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has become a controversial issue. The World Health Organization (WHO) criteria underestimate the actual response rate; thus, they were amended in 2000 by a panel of experts convened by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) to take into account treatment-induced tumor necrosis. Applying these guidelines, there was an association between response rate and outcome prediction. More recently, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guideline was proposed as a method for measuring treatment response based on tumor shrinkage, which is a valuable measure of antitumor activity of cytotoxic drugs. This method was initially adopted by regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for drug approval. However, anatomic tumor response metrics can be misleading when applied to molecular-targeted therapies or locoregional therapies in HCC. In 2008, a group of experts convened by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) developed a set of guidelines aimed at providing a common framework for the design of clinical trials in HCC and adapted the concept of viable tumor-tumoral tissue showing uptake in arterial phase of contrast-enhanced radiologic imaging techniques-to formally amend RECIST. These amendments conformed the AASLD-JNCI (Journal of the National Cancer Institute) guidelines and are summarized and clarified in the current article. They are referred to herein as the modified RECIST assessment (mRECIST). Further studies are needed to confirm the accuracy of this measurement compared with conventional gold standards such as pathologic studies of explanted livers.

/pdf/modified-recist-mrecist-assessment-for-hepatocellular-1qgqyqzgrm.pdf

Modified RECIST (mRECIST) Assessment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

EASL–EORTC Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) define the use of surveillance, diagnosis, and therapeutic strategies recommended for patients with this type of cancer. This is the first European joint effort by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) to provide common guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma. These guidelines update the recommendations reported by the EASL panel of experts in HCC published in 2001 [1]. Several clinical and scientific advances have occurred during the past decade and, thus, a modern version of the document is urgently needed. The purpose of this document is to assist physicians, patients, health-care providers, and health-policy makers from Europe and worldwide in the decision-making process according to evidencebased data. Users of these guidelines should be aware that the recommendations are intended to guide clinical practice in circumstances where all possible resources and therapies are available. Thus, they should adapt the recommendations to their local regulations and/or team capacities, infrastructure, and cost– benefit strategies. Finally, this document sets out some recommendations that should be instrumental in advancing the research and knowledge of this disease and ultimately contribute to improve patient care. The EASL–EORTC CPG on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma provide recommendations based on the level of evidence and the strength of the data (the classification of evidence is adapted from National Cancer Institute [2]) (Table 1A) and the strength of recommendations following previously reported systems (GRADE systems) (Table 1B).

http://www.bclc.cat/download/easl-guidelines.pdf

EASL-EORTC Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma European Association for the Study of the Liver ⇑ , European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

The design of clinical trials in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is complex because many patients have concurrent liver disease, which can confound the assessment of clinical benefit. There is an urgent need for high-quality trials in this disease. An expert panel was convened by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases to develop guidelines that provide a common framework for designing trials to facilitate comparability of results. According to these guidelines, randomized phase 2 trials with a time-to-event primary endpoint, such as time to progression, are pivotal in clinical research on HCC. Survival remains the main endpoint to measure effectiveness in phase 3 studies, whereas time to recurrence is proposed as an appropriate endpoint in the adjuvant setting. Because progression-free survival and disease-free survival are composite endpoints, they are more vulnerable than others in HCC clinical studies and may not be able to capture clinical benefits. Selection of the target population should be based on the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system. New drugs should be tested in patients with well-preserved liver function (Child-Pugh A class). Patients assigned to the control arm should receive standard-of-care therapy, that is, chemoembolization for patients with intermediate-stage disease and sorafenib for patients with advanced-stage disease. Further research is needed to incorporate biomarkers and molecular imaging into clinical research in HCC. These surrogate markers may help to enrich study populations and maximize the cost-benefit ratio of trial execution. Design and conduct of phase 3 trials should be coordinated by centers with appropriate expertise in HCC.

Barnett S. Kramer

Papers

Design and Endpoints of Clinical Trials in Hepatocellular Carcinoma