P-86 Comparison of the Pharmacokinetics of Donafenib and Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: an Open-Label, Randomized, Parallel-Controlled, Multicentre Phase II/III Trial
S. Qin,F. Bi,J. Xu,C. Du,Q. Fan,L. Zhang,M. Tao,D. Jiang,S. Wang,Y. Chen,J. Sheng,X. Zhuang,J. Wu,B. Lv
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2020.04.168
IF: 51.769
2020-01-01
Annals of Oncology
Abstract:Donafenib is a deuterated derivative of sorafenib with improved efficacy and safety in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Here we assess the pharmacokinetic profile of donafenib as compared with sorafenib to support the clinical findings. In this open-label, randomized, parallel-controlled phase II/III trial (ZGDH3), patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC, a Child-Pugh liver function score ≤ 7, and no prior systemic therapy were enrolled from 37 clinical sites across China and randomized (1:1) to receive either oral donafenib (0.2 g) or sorafenib (0.4 g) twice daily (bid). The primary endpoint was overall survival. Pharmacokinetics, a secondary objective, was evaluated on Day 1 and Day 14. Plasma concentrations of prototypes and main metabolites were determined by a validated HPLC-MS/MS method. Pharmacokinetic parameters (PKP) were calculated by WinNonlin 7.0 with a non-compartmental model in the PKP set (i.e. patients having received assigned treatment, with at least one pharmacokinetic measurement available, and without major protocol violation). Between March 2016 and April 2018, a total of 668 patients were randomized to the donafenib and sorafenib groups (334 vs 334), among whom 16 and 4 were included in the PKP set, respectively. On Day 1, peak plasma concentration (C max) and area under the curve from time zero to 12 hour after dosing (AUC 0-12h) were lower with donafenib than sorafenib (median time to peak plasma concentration [T max], 3.00 vs 3.00 hours; mean C max, 1.58 ± 1.17 vs 2.78 ± 0.52 μg/mL; mean AUC 0-12h, 11.73 ± 8.48 vs 22.04 ± 5.96 h·μg/mL). However, on Day 14, donafenib reached a higher C max, trough plasma concentration (C trough), and area under the curve at steady state (AUC ss) than sorafenib (mean C max, 6.55 ± 2.47 vs 4.98 ± 2.68 μg/mL; mean C trough, 2.75 ± 1.11 vs 2.36 ± 1.21 μg/mL; mean AUC ss, 45.38 ± 15.37 vs 38.13 ± 15.71 h·μg/mL). The plasma concentration of M2 (pyridine N-oxide), the main active drug metabolite, was lower for donafenib than sorafenib on Day 1 (mean C max, 0.35 ± 0.48 vs 0.57 ± 0.30 μg/mL; mean AUC 0-12h, 2.48 ± 2.91 vs 4.79 ± 2.69 h·μg/mL) and higher on Day 14 (mean C max, 1.54 ± 0.91 vs 1.33 ± 0.79 μg/mL; mean AUC ss, 11.44 ± 6.47 vs 10.53 ± 6.56 h·μg/mL). Though based on a limited number of patients, the pharmacokinetic profile of donafenib is consistent with results from a previous phase I trial, and that of sorafenib is similar to previous reports. Donafenib (0.2 g bid) results in higher systemic exposure at the steady-state than sorafenib (0.4 g bid). The favourable pharmacokinetic property of donafenib supports its superiority over sorafenib as the first-line therapy for advanced HCC.