Efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in the real-world treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: Results from a Canadian multicenter database (HCC CHORD).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
275 Background: The REFLECT trial establishedlenvatinib (LEN) as a first-line treatment option for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Compared to sorafenib (S), LEN has a higher objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) with a slightly different toxicity profile. The aim of this study was to gather data regarding the efficacy and safety of LEN when used in the real-world treatment of HCC. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine LEN use in HCC patients treated outside of Asia. Methods: HCC patients treated with LEN from 10 cancer centers in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Nova Scotia between July 2018 to July 2020 were included. Overall survival (OS), PFS, disease control rate (DCR) and ORR were retrospectively analyzed and compared across first- and second-to-fourth line use of LEN. ORR was determined radiographically according to the treating physician´s opinion in clinical notes and not RECIST 1.1 or mRECIST. Toxicities were also examined. Results: A total of 220 patients were included in this analysis. Median age was 67 years, 80% were men and 25.5% East Asian. The most frequent causes of liver disease were hepatitis C (37%) and B (26%). 62% of patients received any localized treatment before LEN, of those 26% had TACE, 15% TARE and 7.7% had liver transplant. Before starting LEN 29% of patients were ECOG 0 and 59% were ECOG 1. Most patients were Child-Pugh A (81%) and BCLC stage C (75.5%). Main portal vein invasion was present in 14% of the patients. Median follow-up was 4.5 months. A total of 173 patients (79%) received LEN as first line therapy and 47 patients (21%) were treated in second-to-fourth line. Of patients receiving LEN in first line, 22 (13%) started treatment with S, but switched to LEN before progression due to poor tolerance of S. ORR, DCR, PFS and OS are shown in the table. Toxicities occurred in 86% of patients and led to dose reductions in 76 (35%) patients and drug discontinuation in 53 (24%) patients. The most common side effects were fatigue (59%), hypertension (41%), decreased appetite (25%) and diarrhea (22%). Conclusions: Outcomes of HCC patients treated in Canada with LEN in the first line are comparable to those demonstrated in the REFLECT trial, despite the inclusion of Child-Pugh B and ECOG >1 patients. LEN use in second or later lines also showed similar outcomes, although more conclusions are difficult to draw due to the small numbers. LEN appears to be effective and safe in real world practice outside of Asia in first- and second-to-fourth line treatment of HCC. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".