3 421

Cited 0 times in

Sorafenib versus cytotoxic chemotherapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective, single-institution study.

Authors
 Soohyeon Lee  ;  Sang Hyun Yoon  ;  Jun Yong Park  ;  Do Young Kim  ;  Sang Hoon Ahn  ;  Kwang-Hyub Han  ;  Hye Jin Choi 
Citation
 INVESTIGATIONAL NEW DRUGS, Vol.30(3) : 1150-1157, 2012 
Journal Title
INVESTIGATIONAL NEW DRUGS
ISSN
 0167-6997 
Issue Date
2012
MeSH
Adult ; Aged ; Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use* ; Benzenesulfonates/therapeutic use* ; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular/drug therapy* ; Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic ; Cytotoxins/therapeutic use* ; Disease-Free Survival ; Female ; Humans ; Liver Neoplasms/drug therapy* ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Niacinamide/analogs & derivatives ; Phenylurea Compounds ; Protein Kinase Inhibitors/therapeutic use* ; Pyridines/therapeutic use* ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome
Keywords
Hepatocelluar carcinoma ; Sorafenib ; Cytotoxic chemotherapy
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior to the 2008 advent of sorafenib, traditional cytotoxic agents were the therapeutic mainstay for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We thus undertook a clinical study of sorafinib and conventional cytotoxic therapy for HCC, comparing efficacy and safety.

METHODS: From January, 2002 to December, 2009, 173 patients with unresectable HCC were reviewed retrospectively. Among them, 44 (25.4%) had been treated with sorafenib, and the remainder had received cytotoxic therapy (CTX). We evaluated objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity profiles.

RESULTS: Median OS of sorafinib was 23.0 weeks (95% CI, 8.1-37.9) vs 43.6 weeks (95% CI, 34.0-53.2) for CTX. Likewise, median PFS was 11.1 weeks (95% CI, 6.5-15.8) vs 12.4 weeks (95% CI, 8.1-16.7) for sorafenib and CTX, respectively. Neither parameter differed significantly (OS, p = 0.105; PFS, p = 0.496). ORR and disease control rate for sorafenib were 2.3% and 52.3% vs 6.2% and 43.4% for CTX. CTX-treated patients experienced more Grade 3/4 neutropenia (19.7% vs 0% for sorafenib), while sorafenib therapy was more often linked to dermatologic toxicities (all grades), such as hand-foot skin reaction, rash, and pruritus.

CONCLUSION: Although sorafenib has become the treatment of choice for advanced HCC, there are still unsettled issues regarding the optimal use of sorafenib. Our analysis indicates that conventional CTX can be another option of treatment for advanced HCC. To improve clinical outcomes, further prospective investigations which define the role of CTX are needed.
Full Text
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10637-011-9634-4
DOI
21249514
Appears in Collections:
1. College of Medicine (의과대학) > Dept. of Internal Medicine (내과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Kim, Do Young(김도영)
Ahn, Sang Hoon(안상훈) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3629-4624
Yoon, Sang Hyun(윤상현)
Lee, Soo Hyeon(이수현)
Choi, Hye Jin(최혜진) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5917-1400
Han, Kwang-Hyub(한광협) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3960-6539
URI
https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/90570
사서에게 알리기
  feedback

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse

Links