Review
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
Table 1 Doxorubicin as first line treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma
Ref.nLine/treatmentRelevant data
Nagahama et al[21]147First line doxorubicinSevere cirrhosis, PS 2-3, tumour occupying > 50% liver do not respond to chemo
Olweny et al[22]14First line doxorubicinRR 79%
Sciarrino et al[23]First line doxorubicinRR 10%-20%
Chlebowski et al[24]
Table 2 Clinical trials with chemotherapy agents in hepatocellular carcinoma
Ref.nTreatmentResults
Lai et al[25]60Doxorubin vs placeboOS 10.6 wk vs 7.5 wk in favour of chemo
Gish et al[27]Doxorubicin vs nolatrexedOS 32.3 wk vs 22.3 wk in favour of doxorubicin
Patt et al[35]37CapecitabineRR 1%, OS 10.1 mo
Qin et al[44]371FOLFOX 4 vs doxorubicinRR 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 DoxorubicinRR 26%
Lee et al[46]Cisplatin/doxorubicinRR 19%
Zaanan et al[48]204GEMOXRR 22% DCR 66% PFS 4.5 m
OS 11 m
Patrikidou et al[49]40GEMOX after antiangiogenics failedPartial responses 20%
Stable disease 46%
OS 8.3 m
Yang et al[50]Cisplatin/gemcitabineRR 21%
Kim et al[52]Cisplatin/infusional FU/mitoxantroneRR 27% but 71% severe neutropenia
Table 3 Clinical trials with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in hepatocellular carcinoma
Ref.nTreatmentResults
Abou-Alfa et al[66]SorafenibOS 9.2 m
TTP 5.5 m
602Sorafenib vs placebo
Cheng et al[67]226Sorafenib vs placeboOS 6.5 m vs 4.2 m
TTP 2.8 m vs 1.4 m
Abou-Alfa et al[68]Sorafenib vs doxorubicinTTP 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]94Sorafenib vs sorafenib/GEMOXRR 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]36Regorafenib second lineDCR in 26/36 patients
Partial response 1/36
TTP 4.3 m
OS 13.8 m
LBA-03[72]Regorafenib vs placeboDCR 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]41CabozantinibPartial response 5%
Stable disease 78%
PFS 4.4 m
OS 15.1 m
Exelixis[74,75]760Cabozantinib second line (after sorafenib)Primary end point OS
Expected data in 2017
Koyama et al[76]46LenvatinibDCR 78%
TTP 7.4 m
OS 18.7 m
Eli Lilly and Company[85]Ramucirumab vs placeboOS 9.2 m vs 7.6 m
Qin et al[86]121Apatinib vs placeboTTP 4.2 m vs 3.3 m
DCR 48.57% vs 37.25%
OS 9.7 m vs 9.8 m
Table 4 Clinical trials with immunotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma
AuthorsnPhaseTreatmentPrimary end-point
Keynote-224100IIPembrolizumabRR
ongoingIIPembrolizumabDCR
CheckMate-040I/IINivolumabSafety
CheckMate-459726IIINivolumab vs SorafenibOS
TTP