Tislelizumab vs sorafenib in first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: impact on health-related quality of life in RATIONALE-301 study

IF 11.6 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Liver Cancer Pub Date : 2024-02-21 DOI:10.1159/000537966
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":18156,"journal":{"name":"Liver Cancer","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":11.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Liver Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000537966","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在 RATIONALE-301 研究中,Tislelizumab 与索拉非尼在不可切除肝细胞癌一线治疗中的对比:对健康相关生活质量的影响
简介RATIONALE-301(NCT03412773)是一项全球性3期研究,比较了tislelizumab与索拉非尼作为不可切除肝细胞癌(HCC)成年患者一线(1L)治疗的疗效和安全性,该研究的主要终点是总生存期(OS)的非劣效性。本分析比较了两组患者的健康相关生活质量(HRQOL)结果:全身治疗无效的成人 HCC 患者按 1:1 随机分配接受替赛利珠单抗(n = 342)或索拉非尼(n = 332)治疗。HRQOL 采用 EORTC QLQ-C30、QLQ-HCC18 和 EQ-5D-5L 进行评估。在第4和第6周期,使用QLQ-C30和QLQ-HCC18的关键预设患者报告结局(PRO)终点进行重复测量混合模型。使用PRO终点,以Kaplan-Meier法分析病情恶化的时间:在第4周期和第6周期,按GHS/QOL、QLQ-C30身体功能和疲劳以及QLQ-HCC18症状指数的平均变化差异计算,替斯利珠单抗治疗组患者的HRQOL结果优于索拉非尼治疗组患者;但在疼痛方面未观察到差异。替斯利珠单抗治疗组患者的GHS/QOL(HR,0.68;95% CI,0.49-0.94)、QLQ-C30身体功能(HR,0.46;95% CI,0.33-0.64)和疲劳(HR,0.48;95% CI,0.37-0.63)、QLQ-HCC18 症状指数(HR,0.53;95% CI,0.34-0.81)和 HCC 特异性疲劳(HR,0.60;95% CI,0.46-0.80)。在疼痛方面,两组患者的病情恶化风险相似(HR,0.78;95% CI,0.56-1.09)。在第4周期和第6周期,替赛利珠单抗治疗组患者的EQ-5D-5L视觉模拟评分保持不变,而索拉非尼治疗组患者的评分则有所下降。结论与接受索拉非尼治疗的患者相比,接受替斯利珠单抗治疗的1L HCC患者的HRQOL结果更好,尤其是在疲劳和身体功能方面。这些结果以及良好的安全性、较好的反应率和OS非劣效性,都支持将替斯利珠单抗作为治疗不可切除HCC的潜在1L治疗方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Liver Cancer
Liver Cancer Medicine-Oncology
CiteScore
20.80
自引率
7.20%
发文量
53
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Liver Cancer is a journal that serves the international community of researchers and clinicians by providing a platform for research results related to the causes, mechanisms, and therapy of liver cancer. It focuses on molecular carcinogenesis, prevention, surveillance, diagnosis, and treatment, including molecular targeted therapy. The journal publishes clinical and translational research in the field of liver cancer in both humans and experimental models. It publishes original and review articles and has an Impact Factor of 13.8. The journal is indexed and abstracted in various platforms including PubMed, PubMed Central, Web of Science, Science Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded, Google Scholar, DOAJ, Chemical Abstracts Service, Scopus, Embase, Pathway Studio, and WorldCat.
期刊最新文献
Nivolumab plus Ipilimumab: A Novel First-Line Combination Immunotherapy for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Neratinib Alone or in Combination with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors with or without mTOR Inhibitors in Patients with Fibrolamellar Carcinoma Erratum. Prognostic Efficacy of the Albumin-Bilirubin Score and Treatment Outcomes in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Large-Scale, Multi-Center Real-World Database Study LI-RADS category can be a post-surgical prognostic factor for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in patients with liver cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1