Efficacy and Safety of Regorafenib As a First-Line Agent Alone or in Combination with an Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a Retrospective Cohort Study

Jianfa Yu,Yi Bai,Zilin Cui,Chuanliang Cheng,Morten Ladekarl,Kai-Chi Cheng,Kai Siang Chan,Hooman Yarmohammadi,Jose L. Mauriz,Yamin Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/jgo-24-315
2024-01-01
Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology
Abstract:Background:The RESORCE-III trial demonstrated that advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who progressed on sorafenib and had second-line therapy with regorafenib improved overall survival compared with placebo. Later, immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with antiangiogenetic antibodies has evolved as the preferred first-line treatment for fit patients. We aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of regorafenib as a first-line agent alone or in combination with ICIs in patients with advanced HCC. Methods:We identified 50 patients with advanced HCC treated with regorafenib as a first-line agent. Two patients were lost to follow-up and excluded. Baseline factors, dosing, concomitant use of ICIs, toxicity and outcome of treatment were recorded from electronic medical records. Results:Twenty-six patients received regorafenib as monotherapy and twenty-two received regorafenib + ICI in combination. In the total cohort, the median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 7.7 months and the median overall survival (mOS) was 16.7 months (P=0.02). Objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) assessed by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 were 21% and 73%. In the regorafenib monotherapy group, mPFS was 5.9 months, and mOS was 13.9 months; in the combination group, mPFS was 7.8 months, and mOS was 23.6 months. ORR and DCR were 15% and 65% in the monotherapy group, and 27% and 82% in the combined treatment group, respectively. Conclusions:Regorafenib used in combination with ICIs had a mild safety profile and resulted in improved response and an almost doubling of mOS compared to monotherapy, warranting further prospective evaluation in a randomized study.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?