Abstract:Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major threat to human health in China with high morbidity and mortality. Surgical resection and liver transplantation are the most promising treatments for HCC. The majority of patients, however, are not eligible for surgery due to advanced tumor, multifocal disease or poor liver reserve.1 Recently, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) improved survival compared with best supportive care in two individual clinical trials.2 Sorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor that targets both tumor cell proliferation and angiogenesis. The current standard of practice is to treat BCLC stage B HCC with TACE alone and more advanced (BCLC stage C) HCC with sorafenib only.1 However, TACE activates hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF)-1 responses to hypoxia, which may stimulate VEGF and promote angiogenesis. The observed angiogenesis is related to up-regulation of local angiogenic factors which in turn promote tumor regrowth, increasing the risk of metastases and a poor outcome. As a result, in order to maintain this effect, repeat TACE must be carried out in a short time. In contrast, sorafenib down-regulates angiogenesis and induces apoptosis. Combining TACE and sorafenib has the potential to extend the interval between TACE cycles, and allows nontumorous tissue to recover from the damage caused by previous TACE. Therefore, the optimal protocol for TACE combined with sorafenib is worth investigating. METHODS From February 2008 to March 2010, 155 of 758 Asian patients with HCC histologically confirmed or diagnosed according to internationally agreed criteria were enrolled into this single-center, open-label, prospective trial. Patients were either allocated to the sorafenib plus TACE group (47 patients) or the TACE alone group (108 patients) according to freewill principle. The first cycle of TACE was scheduled to be performed within 2 weeks of diagnosis. The hepatic segmental arteries feeding the tumor were superselectively catheterized. The emulsion was prepared with mixing iodized oil and epirubicin. Various amounts of the emulsion, up to a maximum of 40 ml were injected slowly under fluoroscopic monitoring according to the size of the tumor and the arterial blood flow. TACE was repeated every 4-6 weeks only when necessary which was confirmed by image review, and was terminated when adverse effects (AEs) were observed, or there was no response after 2-3 cycles of treatment or death. Sorafenib was started within 2 weeks of the first cycle of TACE in the study group. Sorafenib was administered continuously unless a serious post-embolization response or intolerable toxicities were observed. Temporary drug interruptions were permitted to manage drug-related toxicities. During the course of treatment, blood tests, liver function examination and α-fetoprotein (AFP) were reviewed every two weeks, and MRI and/or CT of the liver every 4-6 weeks were performed to assess treatment efficacy. The follow-up period for each patient was the time from the first TACE treatment to death or study close in March 2011. In addition, when performing survival analysis, the patients followed up for less than 1 year were not included. Patients with dose discontinuation due to AEs during the study and those who stopped further TACE due to no response were not excluded. CT / MRI enhanced scans were used for lesion evaluation, and serum AFP and markers of liver function were used as references. Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) was used to assess tumor response. Gender, age, liver function, tumor characteristics, medical history, Child-Pugh status, AFP, and BCLC stage were evaluated at baseline in the two groups, and all the indicators compared by t-test were negative. The primary endpoint of the study was 1-year survival rate and progression-free survival (PFS). TACE interval was studied as secondary endpoints. TACE re-treatment criteria were set as follows: imaging findings were reviewed every 4-6 weeks. TACE re-treatment was carried out within 1 week of image review, if dynamic contrast-enhanced CT or MRI examination results indicated novel lesions in the liver (including residual or novel lesions). The patients without evidence of recurrence or novel lesions were re-examined 4-6 weeks later. Patients with no response (continued progression found at more than two follow-up visits) to TACE were asked to abandon further TACE. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 17.0 (SPSS Inc., USA). Continuous variables were summarized as mean and standard deviation, and categorical variables as percentages. Between-group comparisons of parameters were performed using the Student's t-test for continuous variables and the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. PFS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS During a median follow-up of 74 weeks (range; 48-94 weeks), we obtained the survival data for 43 patients in the study group and 91 patients in the control group. 1-year survival in the study group and the control group was 40/43 (93.0%) and 52/91 (57.1%), respectively, with a marked difference between the two groups (P=0.027). PFS was assessed in 107 patients (39 in the study group and 68 patients in the control group). Compared with the control group, the study group showed an optimal trend in median PFS (36; 95% CI: 26.29-45.71 vs. 25; 95% CI: 18.94-31.06); however, this difference was not significant (P=0.101) (Figure 1). The TACE interval was significantly different between the study group (2.92 months) and the control group (2.05 months) (P <0.001).Figure 1.: HCC progression-free survival probability according to Kaplan-Meier analysis of the study and control groups.DISCUSSION Recently, the emphasis has been on combination therapy with TACE and sorafenib for HCC, and has included many large clinical trials such as Post-TACE and SPACE.3 In this study, patients with unresectable HCC were randomized to sorafenib or placebo starting 1 to 3 months after one to two embolizations. Median time- to-progression in the sorafenib arm was 5.4 months vs. 3.7 months in the placebo arm (P=0.252). Over the past two years, our center has evaluated 155 patients with advanced HCC to assess the efficacy of combination therapy with TACE and sorafenib, including patients receiving either combined therapy or TACE alone. It should be noted that we changed the TACE protocol in our study. Because of limitations in the objective conditions, we could not complete our study as a restricted designed, prospective randomized clinical trial. In our study, compared with TACE alone, a longer TACE interval in 1-year survivors was observed in patients who received combination therapy. Possible explanations for these results include: (1) Sorafenib can block the down- stream VEGF pathway and offset the rise in VEGF induced by TACE. (2) Revascularization is the main reason for washing off anticancer drugs injected into the tumor by TACE which leads to poor lipiodol deposits in the short-term after TACE. Sorafenib can slow down revascularization of the tumor, the anticancer drugs in the target area would remain in the tumor longer and the antitumor effect would be prolonged. (3) Sorafenib can promote tumor apoptosis, and is helpful in controlling intrahepatic micro-metastases. We also found a special factor which led to a longer TACE interval in patients treated with the combination therapy. Some patients (38%) in the study group were only treated with 2 to 3 cycles of TACE and abandoned further TACE procedures due to lack of response to TACE based on the imaging review. These patients were treated only with continuous sorafenib after abandoning further TACE procedures and some survived for more than 1 year. This suggested that sorafenib may be selected as a second-line treatment when TACE was not effective. We also indicated that the trend in PFS in the study group was superior to that in the control group, although the difference was not statistically significant. In summary, preliminary efficacy results for sorafenib combined with TACE are promising, as demonstrated by an excellent 1-year survival rate. We found that the combination treatment reduced the number of TACE treatments, and extended the interval between TACE cycles. The adverse effects caused by repeat TACE procedures can be avoided. Therefore, our results should have some reference value for optimizing the protocol of TACE combined with sorafenib in future trials.

Sorafenib and Metronomic Capecitabine in Child-Pugh B patients with advanced HCC: A real-life comparison with best supportive care

Sorafenib In Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Status And Future Perspectives

Expanding Sorafenib Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Beyond Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage C Patients: A National Study.

Predictors of survival in patients with established cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib

Combination of TACE and Sorafenib Improves Outcomes in BCLC Stages B/C of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Single Centre Experience

Outcomes of Patients with Child-Pugh B and Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Undergoing First-Line Systemic Treatment with Sorafenib, Lenvatinib, or Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab

High circulating endothelial progenitor levels associated with poor survival of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients receiving sorafenib combined with metronomic chemotherapy.

Clinical Value of Continuous Administration of Sorafenib in Combination with Modified Transarterial Chemoembolization in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Brivanib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: results from the randomized phase III BRISK-FL study.

Sorafenib for the Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer - a UK Audit

Sorafenib combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization or not in treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C

Effect and Safety of Sorafenib in Patients with Intermediate Hepatocellular Carcinoma Who Received Transarterial Chemoembolization: A Retrospective Comparative Study.

Comparison of Outcome of Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy and Sorafenib in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Refractory to Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization

Immunotherapy vs Best Supportive Care for Patients With Hepatocellular Cancer With Child-Pugh B Dysfunction

Tolerance of Sorafenib in the Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Safety and Efficacy of Sorafenib Therapy in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Final Outcome from the Chinese Patient Subset of the Gideon Study

Sorafenib in Treatment of Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a Systematic Review.

A Phase 2 Study of Galunisertib (TGF-β1 Receptor Type I Inhibitor) and Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Comparison of Treatment Safety and Patient Survival in Elderly Versus Nonelderly Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Receiving Sorafenib Combined with Transarterial Chemoembolization: a Propensity Score Matching Study.

Efficacy and Safety of Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma According to Baseline Status: Subset Analyses of the Phase III Sorafenib Asia-Pacific Trial.