The summaries are free for public
use. The Chronic Liver Disease
Foundation will continue to add and
archive summaries of articles deemed
relevant to CLDF by the Board of
Trustees and its Advisors.
Abstract Details
Comparative Efficacy of Cabozantinib and Regorafenib for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma
Adv Ther. 2020 Jun;37(6):2678-2695.doi: 10.1007/s12325-020-01378-y. Epub 2020 May 18.
Robin K Kelley1, Patrick Mollon2, Jean-Frédéric Blanc3, Bruno Daniele45, Thomas Yau6, Ann-Lii Cheng7, Velichka Valcheva2, Florence Marteau2, Ines Guerra8, Ghassan K Abou-Alfa910
Author information
1UCSF, Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA, USA. katie.kelley@ucsf.edu.
2Ipsen Pharma, Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
3Hôpital Haut-Lévêque, CHU de Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
4Azienda Ospedaliera G Rummo, Benevento, Italy.
5Ospedale del Mare, Naples, Italy.
6University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong.
7National Taiwan University Cancer Center, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China.
8IQVIA Ltd, London, UK.
9Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
10Weill Medical College at Cornell University, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
Background: No trials have compared cabozantinib and regorafenib for the second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
Objectives: Conduct a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) of the efficacy and safety of second-line cabozantinib and regorafenib in patients with advanced HCC and disease progression after prior sorafenib.
Methods: The CELESTIAL and RESORCE trials were used for indirect comparison of second-line cabozantinib and regorafenib in advanced HCC. Population-level data were available for RESORCE, individual patient data (IPD) for CELESTIAL. To align with RESORCE, the CELESTIAL population was limited to patients who received first-line sorafenib only. To minimize potential effect-modifying population differences, the CELESTIAL IPD were weighted to balance the distribution of clinically relevant baseline characteristics with those of RESORCE. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated for the matching-adjusted second-line CELESTIAL population and compared with those for RESORCE using weighted Kaplan-Meier curves and parametric modeling. Rates of grade 3/4 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) affecting > 5% of patients in any study arm were compared.