Tislelizumab vs sorafenib in first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: impact on health-related quality of life in RATIONALE-301 study
R. Finn, Masatoshi Kudo, Gisoo Barnes, Tim Meyer, F. Boisserie, R. Abdrashitov, Yaxi Chen, Songzi Li, Andrew X. Zhu, Shukui Qin, Arndt Vogel
{"title":"Tislelizumab vs sorafenib in first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: impact on health-related quality of life in RATIONALE-301 study","authors":"R. Finn, Masatoshi Kudo, Gisoo Barnes, Tim Meyer, F. Boisserie, R. Abdrashitov, Yaxi Chen, Songzi Li, Andrew X. Zhu, Shukui Qin, Arndt Vogel","doi":"10.1159/000537966","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: RATIONALE-301 (NCT03412773) was a global, phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of tislelizumab with sorafenib as first-line (1L) treatment in adult patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that met its primary endpoint of noninferiority in overall survival (OS). This analysis compared health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) outcomes between the arms.\nMethods: Systemic therapy–naive adults with HCC were randomized 1:1 to receive tislelizumab n = 342) or sorafenib (n = 332). HRQOL was assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-HCC18, and EQ-5D-5L. At cycles 4 and 6, a mixed model for repeated measures was performed using key prespecified patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoints of the QLQ-C30 and the QLQ-HCC18. Time to deterioration was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method using the PRO endpoints.\nResults: At cycles 4 and 6, patients in the tislelizumab arm had better HRQOL outcomes than the patients in the sorafenib arm per mean-change differences in GHS/QOL, QLQ-C30 physical functioning and fatigue, and QLQ-HCC18 symptom index; however, no differences for pain were observed. Patients in the tislelizumab arm had lower risk of deterioration in GHS/QOL (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.94), QLQ-C30 physical functioning (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33-0.64) and fatigue (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.63), QLQ-HCC18 symptom index (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34-0.81), and HCC-specific fatigue (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46-0.80). For pain, both arms had similar risk of deterioration (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.56-1.09). At cycle 4 and 6, patients in the tislelizumab arm maintained in EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale, whereas scores decreased for the patients in the sorafenib arm. \n\nConclusion: Patients with 1L HCC treated with tislelizumab had better HRQOL outcomes compared with patients treated with sorafenib, particularly in fatigue and physical functioning. These results, along with favorable safety profile, better response rate, and OS noninferiority, support tislelizumab as a potential 1L treatment option for unresectable HCC.\n","PeriodicalId":11,"journal":{"name":"ACS Chemical Biology","volume":"10 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Chemical Biology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000537966","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: RATIONALE-301 (NCT03412773) was a global, phase 3 study comparing the efficacy and safety of tislelizumab with sorafenib as first-line (1L) treatment in adult patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that met its primary endpoint of noninferiority in overall survival (OS). This analysis compared health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) outcomes between the arms.
Methods: Systemic therapy–naive adults with HCC were randomized 1:1 to receive tislelizumab n = 342) or sorafenib (n = 332). HRQOL was assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-HCC18, and EQ-5D-5L. At cycles 4 and 6, a mixed model for repeated measures was performed using key prespecified patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoints of the QLQ-C30 and the QLQ-HCC18. Time to deterioration was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier method using the PRO endpoints.
Results: At cycles 4 and 6, patients in the tislelizumab arm had better HRQOL outcomes than the patients in the sorafenib arm per mean-change differences in GHS/QOL, QLQ-C30 physical functioning and fatigue, and QLQ-HCC18 symptom index; however, no differences for pain were observed. Patients in the tislelizumab arm had lower risk of deterioration in GHS/QOL (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.94), QLQ-C30 physical functioning (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33-0.64) and fatigue (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.37-0.63), QLQ-HCC18 symptom index (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34-0.81), and HCC-specific fatigue (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46-0.80). For pain, both arms had similar risk of deterioration (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.56-1.09). At cycle 4 and 6, patients in the tislelizumab arm maintained in EQ-5D-5L visual analog scale, whereas scores decreased for the patients in the sorafenib arm.
Conclusion: Patients with 1L HCC treated with tislelizumab had better HRQOL outcomes compared with patients treated with sorafenib, particularly in fatigue and physical functioning. These results, along with favorable safety profile, better response rate, and OS noninferiority, support tislelizumab as a potential 1L treatment option for unresectable HCC.
期刊介绍:
ACS Chemical Biology provides an international forum for the rapid communication of research that broadly embraces the interface between chemistry and biology.
The journal also serves as a forum to facilitate the communication between biologists and chemists that will translate into new research opportunities and discoveries. Results will be published in which molecular reasoning has been used to probe questions through in vitro investigations, cell biological methods, or organismic studies.
We welcome mechanistic studies on proteins, nucleic acids, sugars, lipids, and nonbiological polymers. The journal serves a large scientific community, exploring cellular function from both chemical and biological perspectives. It is understood that submitted work is based upon original results and has not been published previously.