Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Comparing the effectiveness and safety of Sorafenib plus TACE with Apatinib plus TACE for treating patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicentre propensity score matching study

Cancer Imaging volume 23, Article number: 52 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

Local combined systemic therapy has been an important method for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus Sorafenib versus TACE plus Apatinib for treating patients with unresectable HCC.

Methods

The clinical data of patients with unresectable HCC who were treated with TACE plus Sorafenib or TACE plus Apatinib at 5 Chinese medical centers between January 2016 and December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to reduce the bias from confounding factors.

Results

A total of 380 patients were enrolled, of whom 129 cases were treated with TACE plus Sorafenib and 251 cases with TACE plus Apatinib. After the 1:1 PSM, 116 pairs of patients were involved in this study. The results showed that the PFS and OS in the TACE-Sorafenib group were significantly longer than those in the TACE-Apatinib group (PFS: 16.79 ± 6.45 vs. 14.76 ± 6.98 months, P = 0.049; OS: 20.66 ± 6.98 vs. 17.69 ± 6.72 months, P = 0.013). However, the ORR in the TACE-Apatinib group was markedly higher than that in the TACE-Sorafenib group (70.69% vs. 56.03%, P = 0.021). There were more patients with adverse events (AEs) in the TACE-Apatinib group than those in the TACE-Sorafenib group before dose adjustment (87 vs. 63, P = 0.001); however, the number of patients who suffered from AEs was not significantly different between the two groups after the dose adjustment (62 vs. 55, P = 0.148). No treatment-related death was found in the two groups. Subgroup analysis revealed that patients with unresectable HCC could better benefit from regular doses than reduced doses (Sorafenib, 22.59 vs. 18.02, P < 0.001; Apatinib, 19.75 vs. 16.86, P = 0.005).

Conclusion

TACE plus either Sorafenib or Apatinib could effectively treat patients with unresectable HCC, the safety of TACE plus Sorafenib was better. and the ORR of TACE plus Apatinib was higher.

Introduction

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common malignant tumors in the digestive system, and surgical resection is the preferred treatment for HCC. However, early diagnosis of HCC is still a main challenge, and only a very low percentage of patients could be treated by surgical resection, while their prognosis is extremely poor and the survival time is very short [1, 2]. The sensitivity of HCC to intravenous chemotherapy is very poor, which could involve various adverse events (AEs) [3]. Compared with systemic chemotherapy, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) could directly increase the drug concentration in local tumor tissues, thereby exerting the killing effects more effectively; in addition, TACE could block the tumor blood flow, induce necrosis and apoptosis of tumor cells, and effectively control tumor progression. Therefore, TACE could be one of the options for patients who are not treated surgically [4,5,6,7]. The expressions of various factors, including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and matrix metallopeptidase 9 (MMP-9), are upregulated in the ischemic and hypoxic environments, following TACE, which could be one of the mechanisms inducing tumor recurrence and metastasis [8, 9]. Previous studies have demonstrated that VEGF could stimulate the generation of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) by endothelial cells [8, 10]; therefore, anti-tumor drugs targeting VEGF signaling pathway have significant effects on tumor-feeding arteries [11]. Thus, the combination of VEGF inhibitors following TACE could, theoretically, regulate the expressions of cancer-promoting factors, e.g. VEGF and MMP-9, inhibit angiogenesis of tumors, and eventually reduce the possibility of tumor recurrence and metastasis.

Sorafenib is a small-molecule multi-kinase inhibitor that is clinically used for the treatment of HCC. It inhibits kinases such as Raf kinase, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), and platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR)-β tyrosinek inases. It also inhibits tumor-cell proliferation and angiogenesis and increases the rate of apoptosis in a wide range of tumor models [12, 13]. Clinical studies have demonstrated that molecular targeted therapies have not only specific anti-tumor effects, but also lower systemic side effects than conventional chemotherapeutic drugs [14]. A clinical study on HCC patients conducted by Cheng et al. [15] showed that Sorafenib could significantly improve the overall survival (OS) of HCC patients. Studies performed in other countries (except for China) also revealed that Sorafenib could improve the survival time of patients with intermediate and advanced HCC. However, there are certain limitations in the clinical application of Sorafenib in China due to several causes, including being clinically cost-effective.

Apatinib is a novel small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that was independently developed by Chinese scholars. The major target of Apatinib is the VEGFR-2/kinase insert domain receptor (KDR), selectively inhibiting the activities of VEGFR-2, as well as blocking the signal transduction of the binding of VEGF to receptors, effectively inhibiting the cellular processes (proliferation and migration of endothelial and tumor epithelial cells), thereby inhibiting tumor angiogenesis and exerting anti-tumor effects [16, 17]. The phase II clinical trials [18] on treating HCC by Apatinib showed that the time to tumor progression was significantly longer than in the SHARP trial(4.2 m vs 2.8 m),A phase III clinical study on sorafenib as a first-line treatment for patients with HCC [19]. Other clinical studies also demonstrated that treatment with Apatinib could remarkably increase the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR), while the incidence of AEs was reduced [20, 21]. Therefore, TACE plus Apatinib could exert more comprehensive anti-tumor effects, thereby providing a new choice for improving the clinical efficacy, particularly for HCC. As no prospective or retrospective study comparing TACE plus Sorafenib with TACE plus Apatinib has been conducted yet, the present study aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of TACE plus Sorafenib versus TACE plus Apatinib for treating advanced HCC patients.

Patients and methods

Study design

In this multi-center retrospective study, all patients who were diagnosed with HCC and were treated with TACE plus Sorafenib or TACE plus Apatinib at 5 Chinese medical centers in Anhui province (the First Affiliated Hospital of University of Science and Technology of China, the First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College, the First Affiliated Hospital of Wannan Medical College, Anqing Municipal Hospital, and the Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University) between January 2016 and December 2020 were included. This study was approved by the Ethics Committees of all the above-mentioned medical centers, and it was performed according to the Declaration of Helsinki. As this was a retrospective study, informed consent was waived by the Ethics Committees. All patients’ data were kept confidential. The inclusion criteria were as follows: 1) patients who were clinically diagnosed with primary HCC; 2) patients in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B/C; 3) Child–Pugh class A/B; 4) the existence of complete imaging data (computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)) before surgery and during follow-up; 3) the East Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) score of 0 or 1; 6) patients without contraindication to TACE, and those who received targeted therapy after TACE; and 7) the duration of undergoing targeted therapy and expected survival time would be > 3 months. The exclusion criteria were as follows: 1) patients who had been treated with other therapeutic methods, including systemic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and radiofrequency ablation (RFA); 2) patients with other severe diseases (Combined with other tumors, or cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, etc.); 3) patients with severe coagulation disorders (Patients with prothrombin time > 18 s or a tendency to bleed); and 4) patients who suspended the therapy for more than 1 month or changed the targeted therapeutic drugs within 1 month during follow-up.

Treatment

TACE was performed by experienced interventional radiologists who had at least 5 years of experience in TACE. The modified Seldinger technique was adopted to puncture the right femoral artery, and a 5F femoral artery sheath was placed. A 5F-RH catheter was delivered to the celiac trunk under the guiding of 0.032 in super-smooth guidewire for angiography, which clarified the tumor site and blood supply, as well as the existence of hepatic arterioportal fistulas and hepatic arteriovenous fistulas. Afterward, the coaxial microtube method was adopted for the delivery of the microcatheter, and chemotherapeutic drugs (e.g., 3–20 mg Lipiodol, 20–40 mg Epirubicin, and 150 mg Oxaliplatin) were injected into the tumor-feeding arteries according to the sizes of tumors. After the tumor vascular bed was saturated and the blood flow in portal vein branches adjacent to the tumor were slowed down, then, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) particles (150–350 or 350–560 μm, and 560–710 μm) were infused slowly until the blood flow was completely blocked. The sizes of PVA particles were selected according to the superselective catheterization of hepatic artery and sizes of tumors.

Administration of Apatinib or Sorafenib

Regarding patients in the TACE-Apatinib group and TACE-Sorafenib group, Apatinib with the initial dose of 500 mg/d or Sorafenib with the initial dose of 400 mg/bid was orally administered at 3–5 days after TACE, respectively. If grade 3–4 drug-related AEs occurred, according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (ver. 4.0; CTCAE 4.0), the doses of oral Apatinib and Sorafenib were adjusted to 250 mg/d and 200 mg/bid, respectively, or the Apatinib and Sorafenib treatments could be discontinued for several days. When AEs improved, the patients were suggested to restore the previous doses until disease progression, death, or one of the following items requiring treatment to be discontinued: AEs requiring discontinuation of treatment, ECOG-PS score worsened to 4 points, deterioration of liver function, or a patient’s clinical requirements.

Follow-up

Follow-up was undertaken for all patients at 1 month after TACE, and repeated TACE could be performed according to the conditions of lesions, with the interval of 1.5–2 months. Patients with complete response (CR) were followed up every 3 months, in which evaluation of liver function, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) screening, and contrast-enhanced CT or MRI were carried out. For patients who used Sorafenib or Apatinib, the liver and renal functions, blood circulation, and coagulation function were assessed every month. Patients were treated with continuous targeted therapy until intolerable AEs occurred, or tumor progressed, and patients could not benefit from the treatment according to clinical decisions. All patients were followed up until December 30, 2021.

Tumor responses and safety evaluation

Regarding patients in the two groups, the tumor responses were evaluated every 8 weeks, according to the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) and contrast-enhanced CT(loversol) or MR(Primovist) images. A complete response (CR) was defined as the disappearance of any arterial enhancement in the target tumor, a partial response (PR) was defined as over 30% decrease in the sum of the diameters of viable lesions, progressive disease (PD) was defined as over 20% increase in the sum of the diameters of viable lesions, and a stable disease (SD) was defined as any cases with nonPR or nonPD. An objective response rate (ORR) was defined as the percentage of patients achieving either CR or PR, and disease control rate (DCR) as the percentage of patients achieving CR, PR, or SD. The tumor response of the target lesion was independently evaluated by two Senior radiologists (over 10 years of experience in radiology,) who were blinded to each other's conclusions.Disagreements were resolved by discussion until consensus could be achieved. The best overall response during the treatment was considered as the final response. The treatment-related AEs were classified according to the CTCAE 4.0. The vital signs and AEs were monitored throughout the study. The safety evaluation was mainly based on the occurrence, frequency, and severity of AEs. The safety was evaluated by the vital signs, results of physical examinations, data of clinical examinations, results of laboratorial examinations, and AEs. The safety of the two groups (TACE-Sorafenib and TACE-Apatinib groups) was evaluated, which included the proportion of patients who discontinued targeted therapy and patients who received a reduced dosage due to AEs.

Statistical analysis

The SPSS 22.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used to carry out statistical analysis. A logistic regression model was utilized to calculate the propensity scores of the patients, in which the propensity score matching (PSM) was accordingly performed. The covariates included in the analysis were gender, age, viral hepatitis, Child–Pugh score, serum AFP level, BCLC stage, ECOG-PS score, number of nodules, tumor size, liver function, vascular invasion, extrahepatic metastasis, frequency of undergoing TACE, and history of anti-tumor therapy. The 1:1 nearest neighbor matching was adopted. The Fisher’s exact test or χ2 test, as well as the Student’s t-test were utilized to compare differences in the above-mentioned characteristics between the two groups. The Kaplan–Meier method was adopted to estimate the rates of progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Patients’ demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline

Totally, 484 patients with unresectable HCC met the inclusion criteria, of whom 104 cases were excluded according to the exclusion criteria. Finally, the data of 380 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 129 cases were treated with TACE plus Sorafenib and 251 with TACE plus Apatinib. After the PSM, 116 pairs of patients were matched (shown in Fig. 1). The serum FAP level, the number of nodules, tumor size, liver function, extrahepatic metastasis, and history of anti-tumor therapy were all significantly different between the two groups before PSM analysis. In the PSM cohort,, the baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups (shown in Table 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Patient recruitment flowchart

Full size image
Table 1 The baseline characteristics between the two groups before and after PSM analysis
Full size table

Therapeutic effects

Among 116 patients who were treated with TACE plus Sorafenib, CR, PR, SD, and PD were observed in 6, 59, 37, and 14 patients after 8 weeks, respectively, according to the mRECIST criteria. The ORR and DCR were 56.03% and 87.93%, respectively. Among 116 patients who were treated with TACE plus Apatinib, CR, PR, SD, and DP were observed in 9, 73, 26, and 8 patients, respectively. The ORR and DCR were 70.69% and 93.10%, respectively. The ORR was significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.021), while the DCR was not significantly different (shown in Table 2).

Table 2 Comparison of the short-term effects between the two groups
Full size table

PFS and OS

The follow-up period ranged from 3.5 to 37.3 months, with a mean of 17.3 months. The median OS time was 18.8 months (95% confidence interval, 16.0–22.4 months).The median PFS was 16.79 ± 6.45 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 16.09–18.51 months) in the TACE-Sorafenib group, which was significantly longer than that in the TACE-Apatinib group (14.76 ± 6.98 months; 95% CI: 13.53–15.87 months) (P = 0.049, Fig. 2). The median OS was 17.69 ± 6.72 months (95%CI: 15.91–18.49 months) and 20.66 ± 6.98 months (95%CI: 19.17–21.63 months) in the TACE-Apatinib and TACE-Sorafenib groups, respectively. The 1- and 2-year survival rates were 93.97% and 23.28% in the TACE-Sorafenib group, and 87.93% and 18.97% in the TACE-Apatinib group, and the difference was statistically significant between the two groups (P = 0.013, Fig. 3).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Kaplan–Meier curves of time to progression for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who received the treatment of TACE–apatinib or TACE-Sorafenib after propensity score matching

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Kaplan–Meier curves of time to overall survival for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who received the treatment of TACE–apatinib or TACE-Sorafenib after propensity score matching

Full size image

Comparison of treatment effectiveness

Among 116 patients in the TACE-Apatinib group, the dose of Apatinib was not adjusted in 60 (60/116, 51.72%) patients during the treatment, in which the maintenance dose was 500 mg/d; however, the dose of Apatinib was adjusted in 56 (56/116, 48.28%) patients, mainly due to the occurrence of hand-foot syndrome (HFS) (25/56, 44.64%), abdominal pain (5/56, 8.93%), and hematological toxicity (5/56, 8.93%). Eight of the patients were found with drug discontinuation, due to proteinuria (7/8, 87.5%) and gastrointestinal bleeding (1/8, 12.5%). Among 116 patients in the TACE-Sorafenib group, the dose of Sorafenib was not adjusted in 79 (79/116, 68.10%) patients during the treatment, in which the maintenance dose was 800 mg/d; however, the dose of Sorafenib was adjusted in 37 patients, mainly due to the occurrence of HFS (19/37, 51.35%) and proteinuria (8/37, 21.62%), while there was no patient with drug discontinuation. There were more patients with AEs in the TACE-Apatinib group than those in the TACE-Sorafenib group before dose adjustment (87 vs. 63; χ2 = 10.86, P = 0.001); however, the difference in the incidence of AEs was not statistically significant between the two groups after the dose adjustment (62 vs. 55, χ2 = 0.845, P = 0.358). The incidence of AEs was significantly different in the TACE-Apatinib group before and after the dose adjustment (χ2 = 11.72, P < 0.01), while there was no significant difference in the TACE-Sorafenib group before and after the dose adjustment (χ2 = 1.104, P = 0.293) (shown in Table 3).

Table 3 Adverse events in the normal-dose and the reduced-dose after propensity score matching in the TACE–apatinib group and TACE-Sorafenib group
Full size table

Subgroup analysis with or without dose adjustment

Subgroup analysis was performed to further explore the influences of different dosages of drugs on the survival time of patients. The results showed that for either TACE-Sorafenib or TACE-Apatinib, the survival time of patients was significantly longer when treated with the regular dose than the reduced dose (Apatinib, 19.75 vs. 16.86, P = 0.005, Fig. 4A; Sorafenib, 22.59 vs. 18.02, P < 0.001, Fig. 4B). The survival time of patients treated with Sorafenib and Apatinib was not significantly different between the regular dose subgroup (22.59 vs. 19.75, P = 0.118, Fig. 4C) and the reduced dose subgroup (18.02 vs. 16.86, P = 0.242, Fig. 4D).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Kaplan–Meier survival curves. A OS between normal-dose and reduced-dose subgroup in the TACE-apatinib; B OS between normal-dose and reduced-dose subgroup in the TACE-sorafenib; C OS in the normal-dose subgroup between TACE–apatinib and TACE-Sorafenib; D OS in the reduced-dose subgroup between TACE–apatinib and TACE-Sorafenib

Full size image

Discussion

In recent years, the incidence of HCC has increased gradually in China, accounting for about 50% of HCC patients in the world. About 70–85% of patients are at intermediate or advanced stage during diagnosis, and thus, they have already lost the chance of surgical treatment [22]. According to the BCLC staging and treatment guidelines for HCC, as well as the Chinese standards for diagnosis and treatment of primary HCC, TACE-based combination therapies are the standard treatments for patients with intermediate or advanced HCC [23, 24]. TACE mainly reduces or blocks the tumor-feeding arteries to induce the hypoxia and necrosis in multicellular tumor spheroids; however, TACE could also simultaneously induce VEGF expression, resulting in elevating VEGF expression in residual tumors, thereby promoting the metastasis and cancer recurrence [25, 26]. Therefore, inhibiting the VEGFs could block or reduce tumor angiogenesis, and inhibit the recurrence and metastasis of cancer cells. The VEGF family of growth factors and its receptors constitute the most important signaling pathways in tumor angiogenesis; therefore, TACE in combination with VEGF inhibitors could be used for further treatment of patients with intermediate or advanced HCC.

Sorafenib is the first agent that could improve the survival of patients with advanced HCC. Numerous clinical studies have reported promising clinical efficacy of Sorafenib for HCC patients, especially for patients with intermediate or advanced HCC [15, 27]. Multiple phase II/III clinical trials have already demonstrated that Apatinib possesses different clinical efficacies for various solid tumors, including gastric cancer, breast cancer, and primary HCC [28, 29]. However, to date, only few studies have compared the efficacy of TACE plus Sorafenib with that of TACE plus Apatinib for patients with intermediate or advanced HCC, and the clinical data are therefore limited.

In the present retrospective study, a total of 232 patients who had received TACE treatment were assigned into the TACE-Sorafenib group and TACE-Apatinib group. The short-term efficacy after 8 weeks of treatment was evaluated according to the mRECIST criteria. The results showed that the ORR was 70.69% in the TACE-Apatinib group, which was significantly higher than 56.03% in the TACE-Sorafenib group (P = 0.021); however, the DCR was not significantly different between the two groups (93.10% vs. 87.93%, P = 0.179). We speculated that the higher ORR in the TACE-Apatinib group could be associated with the fact that the affinity of Apatinib to VEGFR is tenfold of the affinity of Sorafenib to VEGFR, which could exert the effects through the VEGF pathway, inhibit the intracellular adenosine triphosphoric acid binding site of the VEGFR-2, reduce the tumor microvessel density, and promote the cell apoptosis [30, 31]. These could also be the causes of undergoing rapid transformational therapy in 3 patients in the TACE-Apatinib group that could be discovered during the screening process.

The patients’ median PFS was 17.01 and 14.76 months in the TACE-Sorafenib and TACE-Apatinib groups, respectively, both of which were longer than 3 months that was reported by Liu et al. for patients with unresectable HCC who were treated with TACE alone[3]. In addition, there was a significant difference in PFS between the TACE-Sorafenib and TACE-Apatinib groups. At the end of the follow-up, the median OS in the TACE-Sorafenib group was significantly longer than that in the TACE-Apatinib group (20.66 ± 6.98 vs. 17.69 ± 6.72 months, P = 0.013). The findings of the present study were in agreement with those reported previously [32], which demonstrated that both treatments could provide short-term and long-term effectiveness for patients with advanced HCC. The above-mentioned results indicated that combination of targeted therapy with TACE could result in higher ORR and DCR, and increase patients’ PFS. Besides, the higher effectiveness of TACE-Sorafenib compared with TACE-Apatinib for patients with advanced HCC was proved.

In the present study, AEs in the TACE-Apatinib group mainly included proteinuria, hypertension, weakness, and HFS, which were in agreement with previous studies [33,34,35]. Besides, AEs in the TACE-Sorafenib group mainly included diarrhea and poor appetite, which were similar to the findings reported by the SHARP trial [27]. No AE-related death was found in the two groups. However, the incidence of AEs was significantly lower in the TACE-Sorafenib group than that in the TACE-Apatinib group (χ2 = 11.72, P = 0.001). After the dose adjustment according to the grade 3–4 AEs, the incidence of AEs was not significantly different between the two groups (χ2 = 2.09, P = 0.148), while the incidence of AEs in the TACE-Apatinib group was significantly lower after the dose adjustment than before the dose adjustment (χ2 = 11.72, P < 0.001). The higher incidence of AEs in the TACE-Apatinib group than that in the TACE-Sorafenib group in patients with intermediate or advanced HCC could be associated with the higher activities of Apatinib [36], and the AEs could be associated with the inhibition of VEGF signaling pathway.

Subgroup analysis showed that the survival time of patients was not significantly different between the TACE-Sorafenib and TACE-Apatinib groups when the regular doses were administered (22.59 vs. 19.75, P = 0.118), and the survival time was not significantly different between the two groups after the dose reduction (18.02 vs. 16.86, P = 0.242). The survival time of patients treated with regular doses of drugs was significantly longer than that of treated with reduced doses of drugs (Apatinib, 19.75 vs. 16.86, P = 0.005; Sorafenib, 22.59 vs. 18.02, P < 0.001), suggesting that both Sorafenib and Apatinib possess certain treatment efficacies for patients with intermediate or advanced HCC. However, treatments are commonly limited by serious AEs, which could make it impossible to perform standard treatments, and consequently deprive patients from significant treatment benefits. Concerning a significantly higher incidence of AEs and patients requiring dose adjustment in the TACE-Apatinib group than that in the TACE-Sorafenib group, we speculated that the causes of the significantly longer OS in the TACE-Sorafenib group than the TACE-Apatinib group could be associated with the higher tolerance of Sorafenib, which allowed to the majority of patients to receive a standard treatment.

Conclusion

In summary, TACE plus either Sorafenib or Apatinib could effectively treat patients with intermediate or advanced HCC, and the safety of TACE plus Sorafenib was higher. As the ORR of TACE plus Apatinib was higher, Apatinib treatment could exert more potential benefits, especially for improving the ORR of advanced HCC patients, and therefore provide opportunity for patients to receive rapid transformational therapy. However, This study also has certain shortcomings. First, the number of patients enrolled is not large enough and belongs to a retrospective study, further prospective, multi-center, randomized controlled studies are required to verify our findings.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

AEs:

Adverse events

VEGF:

Vascular endothelial growth factor

MMP:

Matrix metallopeptidase

MMPs:

Matrix metalloproteinases

VEGFR:

Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor

PDGFR:

Platelet-derived growth factor receptor

OS:

Overall survival

KDR:

Kinase insert domain receptor

ORR:

Objective response rate

DCR:

Disease control rate

PVA:

Polyviny alcohol

AFP:

Alpha-fetoprotein

mRECIST:

Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors

MRI:

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

CTCAE:

Common Terminology Criteria Adverse Events

PSM:

Propensity score matching

PFS:

Progression-free survival

HCC:

Hepatocellular carcinoma

TACE:

Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization

PSM:

Propensity score matching

ECOG PS:

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status

MVI:

Microvascular invasion

References

  1. Kariyama K, Wakuta A, Nishimura M, et al. Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation for Intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Oncology (Basel). 2015;89(Suppl 2):19–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Guan YS, Liu Y. Interventional treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2006;5(4):495–500.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Zhen L, Chen J, Yong F, et al. The efficacy and safety of Apatinib treatment for patients with unresectable or relapsed liver cancer: a retrospective study. J Cancer. 2018;9(16):2773–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Wu B, Zhou J, Ling G, et al. CalliSpheres drug-eluting beads versus lipiodol transarterial chemoembolization in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a short-term efficacy and safety study. World J Surg Oncol. 2018;16(1):69.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen J, Zhang Y, Cai H, Yang Y, Fei DY. Comparison of the effects of postoperative prophylactic transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) and transhepatic arterial infusion (TAI) after hepatectomy for primary liver cancer. J BUON. 2018;23:629–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Yin L, Li H, Li AJ, Lau WY, Pan ZY, Lai EC, Wu MC, Zhou WP. Partial hepatectomy VS. transcatheter arterial chemoembolization for resectable multiple hepatocellular carcinoma beyond Milan Criteria: a RCT. J Hepatol. 2014;61(1):82–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tak WY, Lin SM, Wang Y, et al. Phase III HEAT Study Adding Lyso-Thermosensitive Liposomal Doxorubicin to Radiofrequency Ablation in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Lesions. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(1):73–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wang X, Xiu P, Wang F, et al. P18 peptide, a functional frag⁃ment of pigment epithelial⁃derived factor, inhibits angiogenesis in hepatocellular carcinoma via modulating VEGF/VEGFR2 signalling pathway. Oncol Rep. 2017;38(2):755–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Colombo J, Maciel JM, Ferreira LC, et al. Effects of mela⁃tonin on HIF⁃1α and VEGF expression and on the invasive prop⁃ erties of hepatocarcinoma cells. Oncol Lett. 2016;12(1):231–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Deryugina EI, Quigley JP. Tumor angiogenesis: MMP-mediated induction of intravasation- and metastasis-sustaining neovas⁃ culature. Matrix Biol. 2015;44(46):94–112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hato T, Zhu AX, Duda DG. Rationally combining anti-VEGF therapy with checkpoint inhibitors in hepatocellular carcinoma. Immunotherapy. 2016;8(3):299–313.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Wilhelm SM. BAY 43–9006 exhibits broad spectrum oral antitumor activity and targets the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway and receptor tyrosine kinases involved in tumor progression and angiogenesis. Can Res. 2004;64(19):7099–109.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Wilhelm S, Carter C, Lynch M, et al. Discovery and development of sorafenib: a multikinase inhibitor for treating cancer. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006;5(10):835–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Shin JW, Chung YH. Molecular targeted therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: current and future. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(37):6144–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Cheng AL, Kang YK, Chen Z, et al. Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(1):25–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Peng H, Zhang Q, Li J, et al. Apatinib inhibits VEGF signaling and promotes apoptosis in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Oncotarget. 2016;7(13):17220–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Peng S, Zhang Y, Peng H, et al. Intracellular autocrine VEGF signaling promotes EBDC cell proliferation, which can be inhibited by Apatinib. Cancer Lett. 2016;373:193–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Qin S. Apatinib in Chinese patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase II randomized, open-label trial. Asco Meet Abstracts. 2014;(Abstract No:4019).

  19. Cheng A. Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase III randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:25–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yang XJ, Hou ZY, Zhu KY, et al. Drug-Related Hypertension Associated with the Efficacy of Apatinib on Hepatocellular Carcinoma [Corrigendum]. Cancer Manage Res. 2020;12:4169–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. WC Yu, KZ Zhang, et al. Efficacy and Safety of apatinib in patients with intermediate/advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective observation study. Med. 2018;97(3):e9704.

  22. El-Serag HB, Rudolph KL. Hepatocellular carcinoma: epidemiology and molecular carcinogenesis. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:2557–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Labeur TA, Takkenberg RB, Klümpen HJ, et al. Reason of Discontinuation After Transarterial Chemoembolization Influences Survival in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2019;42:230–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yu JI, Park HC, Jung SH, et al. Combination treatment with transarterial chemoembolization, radiotherapy, and hyperthermia (CERT) for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis: final results of a prospective phase II trial. Oncotarget. 2017;8:52651–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Li J, Qin S, Xu J, et al. Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Trial of Apatinib in Patients With Chemotherapy-Refractory Advanced or Metastatic Adenocarcinoma of the Stomach or Gastroesophageal Junction. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1448–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Li J, Qin S, Xu J, et al. Apatinib for chemotherapy-refractory advanced metastatic gastric cancer: results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm, phase II trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(26):3219–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(4):378–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Qin S. Apatinib in Chinese patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase II randomized, open- label trial. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:228–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Qiu L, Qin SK, Gu SZ, et al. Apatinib as second-line therapy in Chinese patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(15):4507–4507.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Shlomai A, Leshno M, Goldstein DA, et al. Regorafenib treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib—A cost-effectiveness analysis. PLoS one. 2018;13(11):e0207132.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Yang S, Geng Z, Ma K, et al. Efficacy of topical recombi-nant human epidermal growth factor for treatment of diabetic foot ulcer: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2016;15(2):120–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Wang Y, Gou Q, Xu R, et al. Efficacy and safety of sorafenib versus apatinib in the treatment of intermediate and advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a comparative retrospective study. Onco Targets Ther. 2018;11:3407–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Hou Z, Zhu K, Yang X, et al. Apatinib as first-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase II clinical trial. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(17):1047–1047.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Kong Y, Sun L, Hou Z, et al. Apatinib is effective for treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncotarget. 2017;8(62):105596–605.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Sun HC, Zhu XD, Zhou J, et al. Adjuvant apatinib treatment after resection of hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis: a phase II trial. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(20):1301–1301.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Roviello G, Ravelli A, et al. Apatinib: a novel receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor for the treatment of gastric cancer. Cancer Lett. 2016;372(2):187–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Nil.

Funding

This study was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (NO.WK9110000061).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Liang Yin and Kai-Cai Liu contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Interventional Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230001, Anhui, China

    Liang Yin, Wei-Fu Lv, Dong Lu & Xian-Hai Zhu

  2. Infection Hospital, The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC, Division of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230000, Anhui, China

    Kai-Cai Liu

  3. Department of Interventional Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical University, Bengbu, 233004, Anhui, China

    Yu-Lin Tan

  4. Department of Interventional Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Wannan Medical College, Wuhu, 241002, Anhui, China

    Guo-Xiang Wang

  5. Department of Interventional Radiology, Anqing Municipal Hospital, Anqing, 246003, Anhui, China

    Jia-Ying Dai

  6. Department of Interventional Ultrasound, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, 230000, China

    Bo Jiang

Authors
  1. Liang Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kai-Cai Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wei-Fu Lv
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dong Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yu-Lin Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Guo-Xiang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jia-Ying Dai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Xian-Hai Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Bo Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study concepts: Liang Yin, Kai-Cai Liu and Wei-Fu Lv. Study design: Liang Yin, Kai-Cai Liu and Wei-Fu Lv. Data acquisition: Liang Yin, Kai-Cai Liu, Wei-Fu Lv, Dong Lu, Yu-Lin Tan, Guo-Xiang Wang, Jia-Yin Dai, Xian-Hai Zhu and Bo Jiang. Data analysis and interpretation: Liang Yin, Kai-Cai Liu, Wei-Fu Lv, Dong Lu, Yu-Lin Tan, Xian-Hai Zhu, Bo Jiang and Shao-Bao Xu. Statistical analysis: Yu-Lin Tan, Guo-Xiang Wang, Jia-Yin Dai and Xian-Hai Zhu. Manuscript preparation: Liang Yin, Kai-Cai Liu and Wei-Fu Lv. Manuscript editing: Liang Yin, Kai-Cai Liu and Wei-Fu Lv. Manuscript review and approval: Liang Yin, Kai-Cai Liu, Wei-Fu Lv, Dong Lu, Yu-Lin Tan, Guo-Xiang Wang, Jia-Yin Dai, Xian-Hai Zhu, Bo Jiang. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wei-Fu Lv.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethics committee approval was received from The First Affiliated Hospital of USTC for a waiver of patient consent (NO.2021-RF-114).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Nil.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yin, L., Liu, KC., Lv, WF. et al. Comparing the effectiveness and safety of Sorafenib plus TACE with Apatinib plus TACE for treating patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicentre propensity score matching study. Cancer Imaging 23, 52 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-023-00574-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-023-00574-7

Keywords

Cancer Imaging

ISSN: 1470-7330

Contact us