Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Subanalyses of a phase III trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) Assessment Randomized Protocol (SHARP) trial demonstrated that sorafenib improves overall survival and is safe for patients with advanced HCC. In this trial, 602 patients with well-preserved liver function (>95% Child-Pugh A) were randomized to receive either sorafenib 400mg or matching placebo orally b.i.d. on a continuous basis. Because HCC is a heterogeneous disease, baseline patient characteristics may affect individual responses to treatment. In a comprehensive series of exploratory subgroup analyses, data from the SHARP trial were analyzed to discern if baseline patient characteristics influenced the efficacy and safety of sorafenib. METHODS: Five subgroup domains were assessed: disease etiology, tumor burden, performance status, tumor stage, and prior therapy. Overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), disease control rate (DCR), and safety were assessed for subgroups within each domain. RESULTS: Subgroup analyses showed that sorafenib consistently improved median OS compared with placebo, as reflected by hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.50-0.85, similar to the complete cohort (HR=0.69). Sorafenib also consistently improved median TTP (HR, 0.40-0.64), except in HBV-positive patients (HR, 1.03), and DCR. Results are limited by small patient numbers in some subsets. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events included diarrhea, hand-foot skin reaction, and fatigue; the incidence of which did not differ appreciably among subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: These exploratory subgroup analyses showed that sorafenib consistently improved median OS and DCR compared with placebo in patients with advanced HCC, irrespective of disease etiology, baseline tumor burden, performance status, tumor stage, and prior therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".