Hepatology Communications (Aug 2020)

Primary Treatment with Molecular‐Targeted Agents for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score‐matching Analysis

  • Masahito Nakano,
  • Ryoko Kuromatsu,
  • Takashi Niizeki,
  • Shusuke Okamura,
  • Hideki Iwamoto,
  • Shigeo Shimose,
  • Tomotake Shirono,
  • Yu Noda,
  • Naoki Kamachi,
  • Hironori Koga,
  • Takuji Torimura,
  • The Kurume Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/hep4.1535
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 4, no. 8
pp. 1218 – 1228

Abstract

Read online

Sorafenib and lenvatinib, as molecular‐targeted agents, constitute effective primary treatment options for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the choice of optimal primary treatment agent remains controversial. Here, we aimed to assess the respective outcomes between these agents as primary treatment in patients with advanced HCC through use of propensity score–matching analysis (PSMA). We enrolled 670 consecutive patients who were diagnosed with advanced HCC and received sorafenib (n = 524) or lenvatinib (n = 146) as the primary treatment among 18 participating institutions between May 2009 and October 2019. To reduce confounding, we used PSMA regarding seven variables related to advanced HCC prognosis, resulting in the selection of 292 patients (n = 146 for each agent). Following PSMA, no significant difference was observed in the outcome of overall survival time between patients treated with sorafenib or lenvatinib (median survival time 15.3 or 14.9 months, respectively; P = 0.2358). Patients treated with lenvatinib exhibited significantly greater therapeutic effects (response rate: 5% and 31%; disease control rate: 46% and 69% for sorafenib and lenvatinib, respectively; P < 0.0001), but showed significantly lower probability of transition to secondary treatment (sorafenib, 60%; lenvatinib, 45%; P < 0.0269) and higher any adverse events rate (sorafenib, 86%; lenvatinib, 95%; P = 0.0207). Conclusion: As a primary molecular‐targeted agent–based treatment for advanced HCC, our findings suggested that sorafenib is generally appropriate as it offers significantly lower frequency of adverse events and higher probability of transition to secondary treatment, in consideration of the enhanced postprogression survival mediated by sequential treatment. Alternatively, lenvatinib affords a significantly higher therapeutic effect and should be used when immediate tumor reduction is required.