4.6 Article

The efficacy and safety of lenvatinib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in a real-world setting

Journal

HEPATOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
Volume 13, Issue 2, Pages 199-204

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12072-019-09929-4

Keywords

Lenvatinib; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Clinical practice; Efficacy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/purposeLenvatinib (an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (GF) receptors 1-3, fibroblast GF receptors 1-4, platelet-derived GF receptor , rearranged during transfection, and stem cell factor receptor) was non-inferior to sorafenib in a phase 3 (REFLECT) trial of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. This study examined the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in a real-world setting.MethodsThis was a retrospective, multicenter, observational study. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were based on the phase 3 trial, and participants were observed for at least 12weeks. Therapeutic effect was determined using the modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (m-RECIST) at the 8th week. Patients received oral lenvatinib 12mg/day (body weight>60kg) or 8mg/day (body weight<60kg). Dose interruptions followed by reductions for lenvatinib-related toxicities were permitted. Grades of adverse events (AEs) complied with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0.ResultsAll 16 patients included in this study had prior treatment history, and a median 3.9years had passed since the first treatment. Fatigue, hypertension, and proteinuria were the most frequent AEs, and were higher than Grade 2. AEs could be controlled by appropriate dose reduction, interruption, and symptomatic treatment according to the protocol. In the m-RECIST evaluation at the 8th week, 0, 6, 8, and 1 patients had achieved complete response, partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease, respectively. The objective response rate was 40%.ConclusionLenvatinib treatment could be accomplished with safety and good response in a real-world setting.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available