Front Oncol: Efficacy of lenvatinib vs. Sorafenib in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common liver cancer in the world and one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths
.
Sorafenib is the first drug approved in 2007 for patients with advanced HCC and is a multikinase inhibitor

.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common liver cancer in the world and one of the leading causes of cancer-related deaths

Using a 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, 322 patients (81 (25.

2%) using lenvatinib and 241 (74.

Using a 1:2 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, 322 patients (81 (25.

After PSM, 53 patients (75.

Efficacy evaluation

 Efficacy evaluation

Among patients undergoing radiological evaluation, 69.

6% of the lenvatinib group and 88% of the sorafenib group finally observed tumor progression

Among patients undergoing radiological evaluation, 69.

Prognosis

Prognosis

A total of 181 patients died (56.

2%) during the follow-up period, including 32 deaths (39.

A total of 181 patients died (56.

Multi-factor PFS related factors

Multi-factor PFS related factors

After PSM matching, subgroup analysis showed that in all subgroups, the PFS using lenvatinib was better than or equal to the use of sorafenib

.

After PSM matching, subgroup analysis showed that in all subgroups, the PFS using lenvatinib was better than or equal to the use of sorafenib

PFS subgroup analysis

PFS subgroup analysis

After PSM matching, the total TRAE ratio in the lenvatinib group was higher than that in the sorafenib group (82 vs 75.
9%, p=0.
362), but the difference was not statistically significant
.
The incidence of severe TRAE (≥3 grade) was similar in the two groups (11.
5 vs 12%)
.
In the lenvatinib group, 82% of patients had TRAE, of which more than 9% of the patients had a hand-foot-skin reaction (HFSR) in 26.
2% of patients, 22.
9% of patients had hypertension, 19.
7% of patients were fatigued, and 9.
6% of patients The appetite of patients has decreased
.
Seven patients (11.
5%) had severe TRAE ≥ grade 3 with lenvatinib, and 3 had HFSR
.
For the sorafenib group, the top 4 TRAEs in the sorafenib group were HFSR (33.
3%), diarrhea (25%), fatigue (13.
9%) and decreased appetite (9.
3%)
.
In the sorafenib group, 13 patients (12%) developed grade 3 TRAE and required treatment termination; similarly, HFSR was the most common TRAE (7 of 13 cases)
.

After PSM matching, the total TRAE ratio in the lenvatinib group was higher than that in the sorafenib group (82 vs 75.
9%, p=0.
362), but the difference was not statistically significant
.
The incidence of severe TRAE (≥3 grade) was similar in the two groups (11.
5 vs 12%)
.
In the lenvatinib group, 82% of patients had TRAE, of which more than 9% of the patients had a hand-foot-skin reaction (HFSR) in 26.
2% of patients, 22.
9% of patients had hypertension, 19.
7% of patients were fatigued, and 9.
6% of patients The appetite of patients has decreased
.
Seven patients (11.
5%) had severe TRAE ≥ grade 3 with lenvatinib, and 3 had HFSR
.
For the sorafenib group, the top 4 TRAEs in the sorafenib group were HFSR (33.
3%), diarrhea (25%), fatigue (13.
9%) and decreased appetite (9.
3%)
.
In the sorafenib group, 13 patients (12%) developed grade 3 TRAE and required treatment termination; similarly, HFSR was the most common TRAE (7 of 13 cases)
.

          Adverse events

          Adverse events Adverse events

To sum up, in real-world clinical practice, lenvatinib reduces the patient's risk of progression compared with sorafenib, and its safety is controllable
.

To sum up, in real-world clinical practice, lenvatinib reduces the patient's risk of progression compared with sorafenib, and its safety is controllable
.
In real-world clinical practice, lenvatinib reduces the patient's risk of progression compared with sorafenib, and its safety is controllable
.
In real-world clinical practice, lenvatinib reduces the patient's risk of progression compared with sorafenib, and its safety is controllable
.

Original source:

Original source:

Kuo YH, Lu SN, Chen YY, Kee KM, Yen YH, Hung CH, Hu TH, Chen CH and Wang JH (2021) Real-World Lenvatinib Versus Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.
Front.
Oncol.
11:737767.
doi: 10.
3389/fonc.
2021.
737767

Kuo YH, Lu SN, Chen YY, Kee KM, Yen YH, Hung CH, Hu TH, Chen CH and Wang JH (2021) Real-World Lenvatinib Versus Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.
Front.
Oncol.
11:737767.
doi: 10.
3389/fonc.
2021.
737767 leave a message here