Transarterial Radioembolization Versus Atezolizumab-Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Time to Deterioration in Quality of Life.
Atezolizumab
Bevacizumab
EORTC QLQ-C30
Hepatocellular Carcinoma
IMbrave150
Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison
SARAH
SIR-Spheres
Sorafenib
Transarterial Radioembolization
Journal
Advances in therapy
ISSN: 1865-8652
Titre abrégé: Adv Ther
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8611864
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2022
05 2022
Historique:
received:
03
01
2022
accepted:
15
02
2022
pubmed:
14
3
2022
medline:
4
5
2022
entrez:
13
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Given the relatively short life expectancy of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), quality of life (QOL) plays a significant role in treatment selection. This analysis aimed to compare time to deterioration (TTD) in QOL with transarterial radioembolization (TARE) and atezolizumab-bevacizumab, as well as sorafenib, in advanced and unresectable HCC. Patient-level data from SARAH (TARE using SIR-Spheres Four potential effect modifiers were identified and used for adjustment: cause of disease (viral/non-viral), macrovascular invasion, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, and alpha-fetoprotein level. The MAIC included 217 patients from SARAH (TARE = 94; sorafenib = 123). Median TTD in QOL was 11.23 and 8.64 months for atezolizumab-bevacizumab and TARE, respectively (HR = 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-1.50; p = 0.725). A sensitivity analysis was conducted adjusting for cause of disease defined as hepatitis B/hepatitis C/non-viral: median TTD in QOL was higher for TARE compared with atezolizumab-bevacizumab (19.88 vs 11.23 months; HR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.36-1.19; p = 0.163). Sorafenib resulted in the shortest TTD in QOL, with statistically significant differences in both base case and sensitivity analyses. TARE using SIR-Spheres may achieve similar TTD in QOL compared with atezolizumab-bevacizumab, as the analyses found no statistically significant differences between these two interventions. Both TARE using SIR-Spheres and atezolizumab-bevacizumab seem to be more efficacious than sorafenib in maintaining QOL. For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as physicians treating hepatocellular carcinoma, the quality of life that different treatments can offer represents an increasingly important aspect to consider when choosing treatments. Transarterial radioembolization and atezolizumab–bevacizumab are two potential treatments for advanced and unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, but no clinical trials have directly compared the outcomes of these two therapeutic options. With the data available (patient-level data from a clinical trial of transarterial radioembolization using SIR-Spheres
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as physicians treating hepatocellular carcinoma, the quality of life that different treatments can offer represents an increasingly important aspect to consider when choosing treatments. Transarterial radioembolization and atezolizumab–bevacizumab are two potential treatments for advanced and unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, but no clinical trials have directly compared the outcomes of these two therapeutic options. With the data available (patient-level data from a clinical trial of transarterial radioembolization using SIR-Spheres
Identifiants
pubmed: 35279814
doi: 10.1007/s12325-022-02099-0
pii: 10.1007/s12325-022-02099-0
pmc: PMC9056454
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized
0
Yttrium Radioisotopes
0
Yttrium-90
1K8M7UR6O1
Bevacizumab
2S9ZZM9Q9V
atezolizumab
52CMI0WC3Y
Sorafenib
9ZOQ3TZI87
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Pagination
2035-2051Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
IH Conference. Constitution of the World Health Organization 1946. Bull World Health Organ. 2002;80(12):983–4.
Salvador-Carulla L, Lucas R, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Miret M. Use of the terms “wellbeing” and “quality of life” in health sciences: a conceptual framework. Eur J Psychiatry. 2014;28:50–65. http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0213-61632014000100005&nrm=iso .
Aning JJ, Wassersug RJ, Goldenberg SL. Patient preference and the impact of decision-making aids on prostate cancer treatment choices and post-intervention regret. Curr Oncol. 2012;19(Suppl 3):S37–44. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.19.1287 .
doi: 10.3747/co.19.1287
pubmed: 23355792
pmcid: 3553561
Pauwels K, Huys I, Casteels M, Denier Y, Vandebroek M, Simoens S. What does society value about cancer medicines? A discrete choice experiment in the Belgian population. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2019;17(6):895–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-019-00504-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s40258-019-00504-4
pubmed: 31359269
pmcid: 6885509
Schmidt K, Damm K, Vogel A, et al. Therapy preferences of patients with lung and colon cancer: a discrete choice experiment. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2017;11:1647–56. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S138863 .
doi: 10.2147/PPA.S138863
pubmed: 29033552
pmcid: 5630067
Ciruelos EM, Díaz MN, Isla MD, et al. Patient preference for oral chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic breast and lung cancer. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2019;28(6): e13164. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.13164 .
doi: 10.1111/ecc.13164
Bridges JFP, Mohamed AF, Finnern HW, Woehl A, Hauber AB. Patients’ preferences for treatment outcomes for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a conjoint analysis. Lung Cancer. 2012;77(1):224–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lungcan.2012.01.016 .
doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2012.01.016
pubmed: 22369719
Uemura H, Matsubara N, Kimura G, et al. Patient preferences for treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer in Japan: a discrete-choice experiment. BMC Urol. 2016;16(1):63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-016-0182-2 .
doi: 10.1186/s12894-016-0182-2
pubmed: 27814714
pmcid: 5095997
Srinivas S, Mohamed AF, Appukkuttan S, et al. Patient and caregiver benefit-risk preferences for nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment. Cancer Med. 2020;9(18):6586–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3321 .
doi: 10.1002/cam4.3321
pubmed: 32725755
pmcid: 7520320
Lo SH, Sharma R, Costentin CE, et al. Patient preferences for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treatment: a multicountry stated preference study. Future Oncol. 2021;17:4275–87. https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2021-0697 .
doi: 10.2217/fon-2021-0697
pubmed: 34313150
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492 .
doi: 10.3322/caac.21492
pubmed: 30207593
The Global Cancer Observatory (International Agency for Research on Cancer—World Health Organization). All cancers. 2020. https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/cancers/39-All-cancers-fact-sheet.pdf . Accessed July 13, 2021.
EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2018;69(1):182–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.019 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.03.019
Vilgrain V, Pereira H, Assenat E, et al. Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(12):1624–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30683-6 .
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30683-6
pubmed: 29107679
Chow PKH, Gandhi M, Tan S-B, et al. SIRveNIB: selective internal radiation therapy versus sorafenib in Asia-Pacific patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(19):1913–21. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.76.0892 .
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.0892
pubmed: 29498924
Venerito M, Pech M, Canbay A, et al. NEMESIS: noninferiority, individual-patient metaanalysis of selective internal radiation therapy with (90)Y resin microspheres versus sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(12):1736–42. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.120.242933 .
doi: 10.2967/jnumed.120.242933
pubmed: 32358087
Pereira H, Bouattour M, Dioguardi Burgio M, et al. Health-related quality of life in locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated by either radioembolisation or sorafenib (SARAH trial). Eur J Cancer. 2021;154:46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2021.05.032 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2021.05.032
pubmed: 34243077
Finn RS, Qin S, Ikeda M, et al. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(20):1894–905. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1915745 .
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1915745
pubmed: 32402160
Chowdhury S, Oudard S, Uemura H, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of health-related quality of life and adverse events of apalutamide versus enzalutamide in non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Adv Ther. 2020;37(1):512–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-019-01157-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-01157-4
pubmed: 31813087
Chowdhury S, Oudard S, Uemura H, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of the efficacy of apalutamide and enzalutamide with ADT in the treatment of non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Adv Ther. 2020;37(1):501–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-019-01156-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-01156-5
pubmed: 31813086
Kelley RK, Mollon P, Blanc J-F, et al. Comparative efficacy of cabozantinib and regorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Adv Ther. 2020;37(6):2678–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-020-01378-y .
doi: 10.1007/s12325-020-01378-y
pubmed: 32424805
pmcid: 7467441
Song J, Ma Q, Gao W, et al. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of blinatumomab vs. inotuzumab ozogamicin for adults with relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Adv Ther. 2019;36(4):950–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-019-0873-7 .
doi: 10.1007/s12325-019-0873-7
pubmed: 30758745
pmcid: 6824351
Phillippo DM, Ades AE, Dias S, Palmer S, Abrams KR, Welton NJ. NICE DSU technical support document 18: methods for population-adjusted indirect comparisons in submissions to NICE; 2016. http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/Populationadjusted-ICs-TSD(3026862).htm . Accessed Apr 22, 2021
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. 2020. https://www.r-project.org/ . Access Dec 1, 2020
Guyot P, Ades AE, Ouwens MJNM, Welton NJ. Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan–Meier survival curves. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-9 .
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-9
pubmed: 22297116
pmcid: 3313891
Signorovitch JE, Wu EQ, Yu AP, et al. Comparative effectiveness without head-to-head trials: a method for matching-adjusted indirect comparisons applied to psoriasis treatment with adalimumab or etanercept. Pharmacoeconomics. 2010;28(10):935–45. https://doi.org/10.2165/11538370-000000000-00000 .
doi: 10.2165/11538370-000000000-00000
pubmed: 20831302
Di Maio M, Leighl NB, Gallo C, et al. Quality of life analysis of TORCH, a randomized trial testing first-line erlotinib followed by second-line cisplatin/gemcitabine chemotherapy in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2012;7(12):1830–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTO.0b013e318275b327 .
doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e318275b327
pubmed: 23154555
Patil S, Figlin RA, Hutson TE, et al. Q-TWiST analysis to estimate overall benefit for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated in a phase III trial of sunitinib vs interferon-α. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(10):1587–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.149 .
doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.149
pubmed: 22568998
pmcid: 3349250
Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A. A new endpoint for the assessment of adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1986;4(12):1772–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1986.4.12.1772 .
doi: 10.1200/JCO.1986.4.12.1772
pubmed: 3783203
Tremblay G, Chandiwana D, Dolph M, Hearnden J, Forsythe A, Monaco M. Matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparison of ribociclib and palbociclib in HR+, HER2- advanced breast cancer. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:1319–27. https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S163478 .
doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S163478
pubmed: 29861642
pmcid: 5968783
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. 2013. https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword . Accessed April 22, 2021.
Costentin CE, Ferrone CR, Arellano RS, Ganguli S, Hong TS, Zhu AX. Hepatocellular carcinoma with macrovascular invasion: defining the optimal treatment strategy. Liver Cancer. 2017;6(4):360–74. https://doi.org/10.1159/000481315 .
doi: 10.1159/000481315
pubmed: 29234639
pmcid: 5704715
Anota A, Hamidou Z, Paget-Bailly S, et al. Time to health-related quality of life score deterioration as a modality of longitudinal analysis for health-related quality of life studies in oncology: do we need RECIST for quality of life to achieve standardization? Qual Life Res. 2015;24(1):5–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0583-6 .
doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0583-6
pubmed: 24277234
Skaltsa K, Casamayor M, Ivanescu C. PRM26—time to deterioration (TTD) in health related quality of life (HRQOL) in NSCLC patients: a review of definitions. Value Health. 2018;21:S360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2150 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.09.2150
Weisel K, Ludwig H, Rieth A, Lebioda A, Goldschmidt H. Health-related quality of life of carfilzomib- and daratumumab-based therapies in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, based on German benefit assessment data. Qual Life Res. 2020;29(1):69–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02307-5 .
doi: 10.1007/s11136-019-02307-5
pubmed: 31552577
Hemstock M, Amadi A, Kupas K, et al. Indirect treatment comparison of nivolumab versus placebo for the adjuvant treatment of melanoma. Eur J Cancer. 2020;132:176–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2020.03.011 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2020.03.011
pubmed: 32380428
Ludwig H, Pönisch W, Knop S, et al. Quality of life in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma during ixazomib-thalidomide-dexamethasone induction and ixazomib maintenance therapy and comparison to the general population. Leuk Lymphoma. 2020;61(2):377–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/10428194.2019.1666381 .
doi: 10.1080/10428194.2019.1666381
pubmed: 31556753
Lenz H-J, Argiles G, Yoshino T, et al. Health-related quality of life in the phase III LUME-colon 1 study: comparison and interpretation of results from EORTC QLQ-C30 analyses. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2019;18(4):269-279.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clcc.2019.08.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.clcc.2019.08.005
pubmed: 31628043
pmcid: 7505163
Al-Batran S-E, Van Cutsem E, Oh SC, et al. Quality-of-life and performance status results from the phase III RAINBOW study of ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with previously treated gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2016;27(4):673–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv625 .
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv625
pubmed: 26747859
pmcid: 4803452
Harrington KJ, Ferris RL, Blumenschein G Jr, et al. Nivolumab versus standard, single-agent therapy of investigator’s choice in recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (CheckMate 141): health-related quality-of-life results from a randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(8):1104–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30421-7 .
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30421-7
pubmed: 28651929
pmcid: 6461049
Cocks K, King MT, Velikova G, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for interpreting change scores for the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(11):1713–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2012.02.059 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.02.059
pubmed: 22418017
Hamidou Z, Dabakuyo TS, Mercier M, et al. Time to deterioration in quality of life score as a modality of longitudinal analysis in patients with breast cancer. Oncologist. 2011;16(10):1458–68. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0085 .
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0085
pubmed: 21948650
pmcid: 3228064
Anota A, Boulin M, Dabakuyo-Yonli S, et al. An explorative study to assess the association between health-related quality of life and the recommended phase II dose in a phase I trial: idarubicin-loaded beads for chemoembolisation of hepatocellular carcinoma. BMJ Open. 2016;6(6):e010696. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010696 .
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010696
pubmed: 27342239
pmcid: 4932346
Bruix J, Cheng A-L, Meinhardt G, Nakajima K, De Sanctis Y, Llovet J. Prognostic factors and predictors of sorafenib benefit in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: analysis of two phase III studies. J Hepatol. 2017;67(5):999–1008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2017.06.026 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2017.06.026
pubmed: 28687477
Fayers P, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Curran D, Bottomley A. The EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual, 3rd ed.; 2001. http://www.eortc.be/qol/files/scmanualqlq-c30.pdf . Accessed Apr 22, 2021