Lenvatinib Plus TACE Versus Sorafenib Plus TACE for HCC With PVTT

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fourth most common cancer in China, with a crude incidence rate of 26.67 per 100,000 population. Moreover, 357,800 new liver cancer cases are predicted to be diagnosed in China in 2020, and HCC is by far the most common subtype of primary liver cancer and is the second most frequent cause of cancer-related death in the country. Approximately 80% of liver cancers are attributed to chronic infection with hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus; other factors, including diabetes mellitus, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, alcohol consumption, and tobacco use, have also been found to be potential risk factors for liver cancer HCC has a high predilection for portal vein invasion, which occurs in 44-62% of living patients with HCC. Portal vein tumour thrombosis (PVTT) usually portends a worse prognosis, with a median survival time of only 2.7-4.0 months in untreated patients. Despite advancements in understanding the molecular aetiology of HCC, the outcomes for patients with this disease who develop PVTT remain unsatisfactory.

Several treatment strategies for patients with inoperable HCC who developed PVTT have been attempted, including first-line targeted therapy with sorafenib, transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE), TACE plus sorafenib, percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and radiotherapy. However, the prognosis of patients with HCC who are complicated by PVTT remains poor, and the optimal treatment modality for such patients has not been established to date.

Notably, sorafenib combined with TACE significantly improved the TTP over sorafenib alone, albeit for no more than 1 month; the median TTP was less than 3 months, and the median OS was not significantly prolonged.

In the recent phase III global multicentre REFLECT study, lenvatinib, the only other available first-line anti-angiogenic drug, did not improve overall survival (OS). However, lenvatinib as an oral multikinase inhibitor that targets VEGF receptors 1-3, FGF receptors 1-4, PDGF receptor α, RET and KIT, median time of PFS was 8.9 months (95% CI 7.4-9.2) for patients in the lenvatinib group compared to 3.7 months (95% CI 3.6-5.4) for patients in the sorafenib group. Lenvatinib also showed a greater objective response rate (ORR) than did sorafenib group. ORR was 40.6% (95% CI 36.2-45.0) for patients in the lenvatinib group compared to 12.4% (95% CI 9.4-15.4) for patients in the sorafenib group, and TTP was 7.4 (95% CI 7.2-9.1) VS 3.7 (95% CI 3.6-3.9). What's more, in the Chinese patients subgroup analysis showed an encouraging results, lenvatinib group not only showed significant improvement in PFS, TTP, ORR, but also in median OS time ( Lenvatinib group: 15 months VS sorafenib group 10.2 months). However, REFLECT didn't enrolled patients who had tumors invading the maint portal vein.

However, the mechanism of sorafenib combined with TACE was unknown, and clinical data of TACE plus lenvatinib for HCC had not been reported until now. As our preliminary experimental results showed that lenvatinib combined with TACE show a 91.7% clinical benefit in 11 cases HCC with PVTT (7 PR cases, 4 SD cases) , the median TTP was 6.5 months, during the preliminary experimental trail hadn't observed any fatal adverse event occurred.

In addition to these supporting data, lenvatinib plus TACE showed a potential benefit to HCC with PVTT patients. This study was to explore lenvatinib plus TACE versus sorafenib plus TACE for HCC with PVTT: efficacy and safety. Biomarkers expression of VEGFR, FGFR, PDGF-α, IL-2,etc would be detected to find the difference between the two groups, finally to analyze the relationship between clinical outcomes and biomarkers' expression.