Advertisement

Objective response by mRECIST as a predictor and potential surrogate end-point of overall survival in advanced HCC

Published:January 25, 2017DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2017.01.012

      Background & Aims

      The Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) was developed to overcome the limitations of standard RECIST criteria in response assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to investigate whether objective response by mRECIST accurately predicted overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced HCC treated with systemic targeted therapies and also to preliminarily assess this end-point as a potential surrogate of OS.

      Methods

      Individual patient data from the BRISK-PS randomized phase III trial comparing brivanib vs. placebo (the first to prospectively incorporate mRECIST) were used to analyze objective response as a predictor of OS in a time-dependent covariate analysis. Patients with available imaging scans during follow-up were included (n = 334; 85% of those randomized). Moreover, a correlation of the survival probability in deciles vs. the observed objective response was performed to evaluate its suitability as a surrogate end-point.

      Results

      Objective response was observed in 11.5% and 1.9% of patients treated with brivanib and placebo respectively, and was associated with a better survival (median OS 15.0 vs. 9.4 months, p <0.001). In addition, objective response had an independent prognostic value (HR = 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26–0.91, p = 0.025) along with known prognostic factors. Finally, objective response showed promising results as a surrogate of OS in this trial (R = −0.92; 95% CI, −1 to −0.73, p <0.001). It was an early indicator of the treatment effect (median time to objective response was 1.4 months).

      Conclusions

      Objective response by mRECIST in advanced HCC predicts OS and thus can be considered as a candidate surrogate end-point. Further studies are needed to support this finding.

      Lay summary

      There is a need to identify surrogate end-points for overall survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We studied patients from the phase III BRISK trial, comparing brivanib treatment with placebo after sorafenib progression. We demonstrate that objective response is an independent predictor of survival and qualifies as a potential surrogate end-point for overall survival in this patient population.

      Clinical trial number

      NCT00825955.

      Graphical abstract

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Hepatology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      Author names in bold designate shared co-first authorship

      1. EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma.
        J Hepatol. 2012; 56: 908-943
        • Llovet J.M.
        • Real M.I.
        • Montaña X.
        • Planas R.
        • Coll S.
        • Aponte J.
        • et al.
        Arterial embolisation or chemoembolisation vs. symptomatic treatment in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2002; 359: 1734-1739
        • Llovet J.M.
        • Ricci S.
        • Mazzaferro V.
        • Hilgard P.
        • Gane E.
        • Blanc J.-F.
        • et al.
        Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.
        N Engl J Med. 2008; 359: 378-390
        • Jiang T.
        • Zhu A.X.
        • Sahani D.V.
        • Thomas M.B.
        • Zhu A.X.
        • Jemal A.
        • et al.
        Established and novel imaging biomarkers for assessing response to therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma.
        J Hepatol. 2013; 58: 169-177
        • Llovet J.M.
        • Di Bisceglie A.M.
        • Bruix J.
        • Kramer B.S.
        • Lencioni R.
        • Zhu A.X.
        • et al.
        Design and endpoints of clinical trials in hepatocellular carcinoma.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008; 100: 698-711
        • Sala M.
        • Llovet J.M.
        • Vilana R.
        • Bianchi L.
        • Solé M.
        • Ayuso C.
        • et al.
        Initial response to percutaneous ablation predicts survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
        Hepatology. 2004; 40: 1352-1360
        • Bruix J.
        • Sherman M.
        • Llovet J.M.
        • Beaugrand M.
        • Lencioni R.
        • Burroughs A.K.
        • et al.
        Clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL conference. European Association for the Study of the Liver.
        J Hepatol. 2001; 35: 421-430
        • Lencioni R.
        • Llovet J.
        Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma.
        Semin Liver Dis. 2010; 30: 052-60
        • Vincenzi B.
        • Di Maio M.
        • Silletta M.
        • D’Onofrio L.
        • Spoto C.
        • Piccirillo M.C.
        • et al.
        Prognostic relevance of objective response according to EASL criteria and mRECIST criteria in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with loco-regional therapies: a literature-based meta-analysis.
        PLoS One. 2015; 10 (e0133488)
        • Gillmore R.
        • Stuart S.
        • Kirkwood A.
        • Hameeduddin A.
        • Woodward N.
        • Burroughs A.K.
        • et al.
        EASL and mRECIST responses are independent prognostic factors for survival in hepatocellular cancer patients treated with transarterial embolization.
        J Hepatol. 2011; 55: 1309-1316
        • Prajapati H.J.
        • Spivey J.R.
        • Hanish S.I.
        • El-rayes B.F.
        • Kauh J.S.
        • Chen Z.
        • et al.
        MRECIST and EASL responses at early time point by contrast-enhanced dynamic MRI predict survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated by doxorubicin drug-eluting beads transarterial chemoembolization (DEB TACE).
        Ann Oncol. 2013; 24: 965-973
        • Jung E.S.
        • Kim J.H.J.S.
        • Yoon E.L.
        • Lee H.J.
        • Lee S.J.
        • Suh S.J.
        • et al.
        Comparison of the methods for tumor response assessment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing transarterial chemoembolization.
        J Hepatol. 2013; 58: 1181-1187
        • Kim B.K.
        • Kim S.U.
        • Kim K.A.
        • Chung Y.E.
        • Kim M.
        • Park M.
        • et al.
        Complete response at first chemoembolization is still the most robust predictor for favorable outcome in hepatocellular carcinoma.
        J Hepatol. 2015; 62: 4-10
        • Edeline J.
        • Boucher E.
        • Rolland Y.
        • Vauléon E.
        • Pracht M.
        • Perrin C.
        • et al.
        Comparison of tumor response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and modified RECIST in patients treated with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma.
        Cancer. 2012; 118: 147-156
        • Ronot M.
        • Bouattour M.
        • Wassermann J.
        • Bruno O.
        • Dreyer C.
        • Larroque B.
        • et al.
        Alternative Response Criteria (Choi, European association for the study of the liver, and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST]) vs. RECIST 1.1 in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib.
        Oncologist. 2014; 19: 394-402
        • Takada J.
        • Hidaka H.
        • Nakazawa T.
        • Kondo M.
        • Numata K.
        • Tanaka K.
        • et al.
        Modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors is superior to response evaluation criteria in solid tumors for assessment of responses to sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.
        BMC Res Notes. 2015; 8: 609
        • Ogasawara S.
        • Kanai F.
        • Ooka Y.
        • Motoyama T.
        • Suzuki E.
        • Tawada A.
        • et al.
        Initial response to sorafenib by using enhancement criteria in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.
        Hepatol Int. 2013; 7: 703-713
        • Llovet J.M.
        • Decaens T.
        • Raoul J.L.
        • Boucher E.
        • Kudo M.
        • Chang C.
        • et al.
        Brivanib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who were intolerant to sorafenib or for whom sorafenib failed: results from the randomized phase III BRISK-PS study.
        J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31: 3509-3516
        • Anderson J.R.
        • Cain K.C.
        • Gelber R.D.
        Analysis of survival by tumor response.
        J Clin Oncol. 1983; 1: 710-719
        • Memon K.
        • Kulik L.
        • Lewandowski R.J.
        • Wang E.
        • Riaz A.
        • Ryu R.K.
        • et al.
        Radiographic response to locoregional therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma predicts patient survival times.
        Gastroenterology. 2011; 141 (e1–e2): 526-535
        • Johnson P.J.
        • Qin S.
        • Park J.W.
        • Poon R.T.
        • Raoul J.L.
        • Philip P.A.
        • et al.
        Brivanib vs. sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: results from the randomized phase III BRISK-FL study.
        J Clin Oncol. 2013; 31: 3517-3524
        • Kawaoka T.
        • Aikata H.
        • Murakami E.
        • Nakahara T.
        • Naeshiro N.
        • Tanaka M.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of the mRECIST and α-fetoprotein ratio for stratification of the prognosis of advanced-hepatocellular-carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib.
        Oncology. 2012; 83: 192-200
        • Spira D.
        • Fenchel M.
        • Lauer U.M.
        • Claussen C.D.
        • Gregor M.
        • Bitzer M.
        • et al.
        Comparison of different tumor response criteria in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after systemic therapy with the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib.
        Acad Radiol. 2011; 18: 89-96
        • Choi H.
        • Charnsangavej C.
        • Faria S.C.
        • Macapinlac H.A.
        • Burgess M.A.
        • Patel S.R.
        • et al.
        Correlation of computed tomography and positron emission tomography in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor treated at a single institution with imatinib mesylate: proposal of new computed tomography response criteria.
        J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 1753-1759
        • Hodi F.S.
        • Hwu W.-J.
        • Kefford R.
        • Weber J.S.
        • Daud A.
        • Hamid O.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of immune-related response criteria and RECIST v1.1 in patients with advanced melanoma treated with pembrolizumab.
        J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34: 1510-1517
        • Booth C.M.
        • Tannock I.
        Reflections on medical oncology: 25 years of clinical trials–where have we come and where are we going?.
        J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 6-8
        • Wilson M.K.
        • Karakasis K.
        • Oza A.M.
        Outcomes and endpoints in trials of cancer treatment: the past, present, and future.
        Lancet Oncol. 2015; 16: e32-e42
        • Le Tourneau C.
        • Paoletti X.
        • Coquan E.
        • Sablin M.P.
        • Zoubir M.
        • Tannock I.F.
        Critical evaluation of disease stabilization as a measure of activity of systemic therapy: Lessons from trials with arms in which patients do not receive active treatment.
        J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32: 260-263
        • Solomon B.J.
        • Mok T.
        • Kim D.-W.
        • Wu Y.-L.
        • Nakagawa K.
        • Mekhail T.
        • et al.
        First-line crizotinib vs. chemotherapy in ALK-positive lung cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2014; 371: 2167-2177
        • Robert C.
        • Long G.V.
        • Brady B.
        • Dutriaux C.
        • Maio M.
        • Mortier L.
        • et al.
        Nivolumab in previously untreated melanoma without BRAF mutation.
        N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 320-330
        • Zhu A.X.
        • Park J.O.
        • Ryoo B.-Y.
        • Yen C.-J.
        • Poon R.
        • Pastorelli D.
        • et al.
        Ramucirumab vs. placebo as second-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma following first-line therapy with sorafenib (REACH): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial.
        Lancet Oncol. 2015; : 859-870
        • Johnson J.R.
        • Williams G.
        • Pazdur R.
        End points and United States Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugs.
        J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21: 1404-1411
        • Kim C.
        • Prasad V.
        Strength of validation for surrogate end points used in the US food and drug administration’s approval of oncology drugs.
        Mayo Clin Proc. 2016; 91: 713-725
        • Llovet J.M.
        • Hernandez-Gea V.
        Hepatocellular carcinoma: reasons for phase III failure and novel perspectives on trial design.
        Clin Cancer Res. 2014; 20: 2072-2079
        • Bruix J.
        • Qin S.
        • Merle P.
        • Granito A.
        • Huang Y.-H.
        • Bodoky G.
        • et al.
        Regorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment (RESORCE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.
        Lancet. 2017; 389: 56-66
        • Zhao F.
        Surrogate end points and their validation in oncology clinical trials.
        J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34: 1436-1437
        • Buyse M.
        • Molenberghs G.
        Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments.
        Biometrics. 1998; 54: 1014-1029
        • Blumenthal G.M.
        • Karuri S.W.
        • Zhang H.
        • Zhang L.
        • Khozin S.
        • Kazandjian D.
        • et al.
        Overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival with targeted and standard therapies in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: US Food and Drug Administration trial-level and patient-level analyses.
        J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33: 1008-1014
        • Tang P.A.
        • Bentzen S.M.
        • Chen E.X.
        • Siu L.L.
        Surrogate end points for median overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: literature-based analysis from 39 randomized controlled trials of first-line chemotherapy.
        J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 4562-4568
        • Zer A.
        • Prince R.M.
        • Amir E.
        • Abdul Razak A.
        Evolution of randomized trials in advanced/metastatic soft tissue sarcoma: endpoint selection, surrogacy, and quality of reporting.
        J Clin Oncol. 2016; : 1-8

      Linked Article