Search

Purpose Selective internal radiation therapy or radioembolization (RE) shows efficacy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) limited to the liver. This study compared the safety and efficacy of RE and sorafenib in patients with locally advanced HCC. Patients and Methods SIRveNIB (selective internal radiation therapy v sorafenib), an open-label, investigator-initiated, phase III trial, compared yttrium-90 ( 90 Y) resin microspheres RE with sorafenib 800 mg/d in patients with locally advanced HCC in a two-tailed study designed for superiority/detriment. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 and stratified by center and presence of portal vein thrombosis. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Efficacy analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses in the treated population. Results A total of 360 patients were randomly assigned (RE, 182; sorafenib, 178) from 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. In the RE and sorafenib groups, 28.6% and 9.0%, respectively, failed to receive assigned therapy without significant cross-over to either group. Median OS was 8.8 and 10.0 months with RE and sorafenib, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4; P = .36). A total of 1,468 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were reported (RE, 437; sorafenib, 1,031). Significantly fewer patients in the RE than sorafenib group had grade ≥ 3 AEs (36 of 130 [27.7%]) v 82 of 162 [50.6%]; P < .001). The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs were ascites (five of 130 [3.8%] v four of 162 [2.5%] patients), abdominal pain (three [2.3%] v two [1.2%] patients), anemia (zero v four [2.5%] patients), and radiation hepatitis (two [1.5%] v zero [0%] patients). Fewer patients in the RE group (27 of 130 [20.8%]) than in the sorafenib group (57 of 162 [35.2%]) had serious AEs. Conclusion In patients with locally advanced HCC, OS did not differ significantly between RE and sorafenib. The improved toxicity profile of RE may inform treatment choice in selected patients.

Objectives: To examine the performance of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) global health status/quality of life (QoL) scale and two summary scores to detect changes in the QoL profile over time, according to changes in the individual scales., Study Design and Setting: Data came from 167 clinical trial patients with unresectable (advanced) hepatocellular carcinoma. The global health status/QoL scale of the questionnaire contained two items: overall health and overall QoL. Nordin and Hinz proposed summary scores for the questionnaire. A mixed-effect model was fitted to estimate trends in scores over time., Results: Predominantly the individual scale scores declined over time; however, the global health status/QoL score was stable [rate of change = -0.3 per month; 95% confidence interval (CI): -1.2, 0.6]. Nordin's summary score, which gave equal weight to the 15 questionnaire scales, and Hinz's summary score, which gave equal weight to the 30 questionnaire items, showed a statistically significant decline over time, 3.4 (95% CI: -4.5, -2.4) and 4.2 (95% CI: -5.3, -3.0) points per month, respectively., Conclusion: In contrast to the global health status/QoL scale, the summary scores proposed by Nordin and Hinz detected changes in subjects' QoL profile described by the EORTC QLQ-C30 individual scales., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)