Copyright
©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Hepatol. Jun 28, 2017; 9(18): 797-807
Published online Jun 28, 2017. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v9.i18.797
Published online Jun 28, 2017. doi: 10.4254/wjh.v9.i18.797
Ref. | n | Treatment | Results | |
Lai et al[25] | 60 | Doxorubin vs placebo | OS 10.6 wk vs 7.5 wk in favour of chemo | |
Gish et al[27] | Doxorubicin vs nolatrexed | OS 32.3 wk vs 22.3 wk in favour of doxorubicin | ||
Patt et al[35] | 37 | Capecitabine | RR 1%, OS 10.1 mo | |
Qin et al[44] | 371 | FOLFOX 4 vs doxorubicin | RR 8.15% vs 2.67% | All in favour of FOLFOX 4 |
DCR 52.17% vs 31.55% | ||||
PFS 2.93 m vs 1.7 m | ||||
OS 6.4 m vs 4.97 m | ||||
Shin et al[45] | Cisplatin, Capecitabine and Doxorubicin | RR 26% | ||
Lee et al[46] | Cisplatin/doxorubicin | RR 19% | ||
Zaanan et al[48] | 204 | GEMOX | RR 22% DCR 66% PFS 4.5 m | |
OS 11 m | ||||
Patrikidou et al[49] | 40 | GEMOX after antiangiogenics failed | Partial responses 20% | |
Stable disease 46% | ||||
OS 8.3 m | ||||
Yang et al[50] | Cisplatin/gemcitabine | RR 21% | ||
Kim et al[52] | Cisplatin/infusional FU/mitoxantrone | RR 27% but 71% severe neutropenia |
Ref. | n | Treatment | Results | |
Abou-Alfa et al[66] | Sorafenib | OS 9.2 m | ||
TTP 5.5 m | ||||
602 | Sorafenib vs placebo | |||
Cheng et al[67] | 226 | Sorafenib vs placebo | OS 6.5 m vs 4.2 m | |
TTP 2.8 m vs 1.4 m | ||||
Abou-Alfa et al[68] | Sorafenib vs doxorubicin | TTP 6.4 m vs 2.8 m | ||
PFS 6 m vs 2.7 m | ||||
OS 13.7 m vs 6.5 m | ||||
Assenat et al[70] | 94 | Sorafenib vs sorafenib/GEMOX | RR 9% vs 70% | In favour of the combination |
DCR 16% vs 77% | ||||
PFS 54% vs 61% | ||||
OS 13 m vs 13.5 m | ||||
Bruix et al[71] | 36 | Regorafenib second line | DCR in 26/36 patients | |
Partial response 1/36 | ||||
TTP 4.3 m | ||||
OS 13.8 m | ||||
LBA-03[72] | Regorafenib vs placebo | DCR 65.2% vs 36.1% | ||
PFS 3.1 m vs 1.5 m | ||||
OS 10.6 m vs 7.8 m | ||||
Verslype et al[73] | 41 | Cabozantinib | Partial response 5% | |
Stable disease 78% | ||||
PFS 4.4 m | ||||
OS 15.1 m | ||||
Exelixis[74,75] | 760 | Cabozantinib second line (after sorafenib) | Primary end point OS | |
Expected data in 2017 | ||||
Koyama et al[76] | 46 | Lenvatinib | DCR 78% | |
TTP 7.4 m | ||||
OS 18.7 m | ||||
Eli Lilly and Company[85] | Ramucirumab vs placebo | OS 9.2 m vs 7.6 m | ||
Qin et al[86] | 121 | Apatinib vs placebo | TTP 4.2 m vs 3.3 m | |
DCR 48.57% vs 37.25% | ||||
OS 9.7 m vs 9.8 m |
Authors | n | Phase | Treatment | Primary end-point |
Keynote-224 | 100 | II | Pembrolizumab | RR |
ongoing | II | Pembrolizumab | DCR | |
CheckMate-040 | I/II | Nivolumab | Safety | |
CheckMate-459 | 726 | III | Nivolumab vs Sorafenib | OS |
TTP |
- Citation: Cidon EU. Systemic treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: Past, present and future. World J Hepatol 2017; 9(18): 797-807
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5182/full/v9/i18/797.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v9.i18.797