Abstract
Introduction
Regorafenib remains the standard and widely used second‐line strategy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). There is still a lack of large‐scale multicenter real‐world evidence concerning the concurrent use of regorafenib with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). This study aims to evaluate whether combining regorafenib with ICI provides greater clinical benefit than regorafenib monotherapy as second‐line therapy for advanced HCC under real‐world circumstances.
Patients and Methods
The study included 208 patients from five medical facilities. One hundred forty‐three patients received regorafenib plus ICI combination therapy, while 65 patients received regorafenib monotherapy. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was employed.
Results
The regorafenib plus ICI group demonstrated significantly higher objective response rate (24.3% vs. 10.3%, after PSM, p = 0.030) and disease control rate (79.4% vs. 50.0%, after PSM, p < 0.001) compared to the regorafenib monotherapy group based on mRECIST criteria. Median progression‐free survival (7.9 vs. 3.2 months, after PSM, p < 0.001) and overall survival (25.6 vs. 16.4 months, p = 0.010, after PSM) were also considerably longer in the regorafenib plus ICI group. The incidence of Grades 3–4 treatment‐related adverse events (TRAEs) was marginally greater in the regorafenib plus ICI group than in the regorafenib group (23.8% vs. 20.0%, p = 0.546). Notably, there were no instances of treatment‐related mortality or emergence of new TRAEs in any treatment group.
Conclusion
The combination of regorafenib and ICI shows potential as a viable second‐line treatment for advanced HCC, exhibiting favorable efficacy while maintaining a tolerable safety profile in contrast to regorafenib monotherapy.
Keywords: hepatocellular carcinoma, immune checkpoint inhibitor, multicenter, regorafenib, second‐line therapy
Regorafenib+ICI was more effective than regorafenib in second line for advanced HCC. Combining with ICI did not yield a significant increase in TRAEs.
1. INTRODUCTION
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continues to be a significant public health concern, ranking as the third leading cause of cancer‐related mortality globally. 1 HCC is often asymptomatic at the early stage, leading to the majority of patients being diagnosed at the advanced stage with a poor prognosis. 2 Systemic therapy, represented by multikinase inhibitors sorafenib and lenvatinib, has been widely recognized as the recommended treatment for advanced HCC. 3 , 4 The advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) significantly altered the therapeutic landscape for cancer. The combination of atezolizumab, a programmed death ligand 1 (PD‐L1) inhibitor, and bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), demonstrated significantly greater efficacy over sorafenib, highlighting the enormous potential of combination therapy. 5 Despite these advances in systemic therapy, achieving complete response in HCC remains rare, necessitating a switch to second‐line treatment upon disease progression.
At present, multikinase inhibitors regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab have been approved for patients with advanced HCC who progressed on sorafenib by the US Food and Drug Administration (US FDA). The median overall survival (OS) of monotherapy in previous Phase 3 trials ranged from 9.2 to 10.6 months. 6 , 7 , 8 The efficacy of monotherapy approaches for advanced HCC in second‐line scenarios appears to be limited, highlighting the urgent demand for more effective second‐line systemic therapies for HCC.
Regorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor with a broader spectrum of inhibited targets associated with angiogenesis, tumor proliferation, spread, and metastasis. 9 Regorafenib can normalize tumor vasculature and alleviate immune suppression in the tumor microenvironment, thereby enhancing the antitumor efficacy when combined with ICI. 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 In Phase Ib study, the combination of regorafenib and pembrolizumab (a PD‐1 inhibitor) demonstrated significant antitumor activity and tolerable safety as the first‐line therapy for advanced HCC, achieving a disease control rate (DCR) of 88%. 15 Several Phase I/II clinical trials are in progress, investigating regorafenib with ICI in both first‐line and second‐line settings. Moreover, considering that multikinase inhibitors sorafenib and lenvatinib both have been widely used in first‐line clinical practice and their combinations with ICI have also been extensively explored, 16 it is important to evaluate the second‐line treatment profile in real‐world scenarios. In this case, we conducted this multicenter, real‐world, retrospective study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combination of regorafenib with ICI compared to regorafenib monotherapy.
2. PATIENTS AND METHODS
2.1. Patients
This study included patients with advanced HCC who received regorafenib plus ICI or regorafenib monotherapy after disease progression between November 2018 and October 2022 at five medical centers in China.
This study was carried out in adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the ethics committee of all participating hospitals (approval number: B2023‐223‐01). The requirement for informed consent was waived. In addition, this study has been registered with the unique identification number: ChiCTR2400079560, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=214883.
Patients were included according to the following criteria: (1) HCC was diagnosed by histology or clinically confirmed in accordance with international guidelines 17 , 18 ; (2) age over 18 years old; (3) received at least one cycle of regorafenib plus ICI or regorafenib monotherapy subsequent to disease progression on first‐line systemic treatment; (4) received either sorafenib/lenvatinib monotherapy or sorafenib/lenvatinib combined with ICI as first‐line systemic treatment; (5) had at least one measurable lesion by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors for HCC (mRECIST). 19
Exclusion criteria were applied to patients who (1) had a concurrent malignant tumor other than HCC; (2) had severe medical comorbidities including cardiac, pulmonary, or renal dysfunction; (3) had incomplete follow‐up records.
2.2. Data collection
Baseline characteristics were retrieved from medical record systems within 30 days prior to the initiation of regorafenib treatment. If multiple data points were accessible, the nearest one to the regorafenib start date was chosen. Clinical, laboratory, and radiological data were obtained from medical record systems, including age, gender, BCLC stage, ECOG performance status, hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), Child‐Pugh class, alpha‐fetoprotein (AFP) level, tumor size, tumor number, extrahepatic metastasis, previous treatment procedures, biochemical indices, and so on. All dynamic computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) analyses were based on independent assessments by two experienced radiologists.
2.3. Treatments and follow‐up
Regorafenib was initially administered orally once daily at a dosage of 80–160 mg depending on patient's tolerance, for the first 3 weeks of each 4‐week cycle. Treatment interruptions and dose reductions were allowed to manage toxicity. ICIs were prescribed intravenously to 143 patients in regorafenib plus ICI group every 3 weeks according to the standard drug instructions, including atezolizumab, camrelizumab, durvalumab, pembrolizumab, sintilimab, tislelizumab, and toripalimab. Follow‐up was conducted every 3–6 weeks until loss to follow‐up or death. Treatment continued until disease progression as defined by mRECIST, clinical progression (defined as an ECOG performance score ≥3 or symptomatic deterioration), death, or unacceptable toxicity. This study was censored on January 31, 2023.
2.4. Outcomes
Tumor responses were assessed based on CT or MR according to mRECIST. 19 The objective response rate (ORR) was defined as the proportion of patients achieving complete response (CR) and partial response (PR). DCR was defined as the proportion of patients with CR, PR, and stable disease (SD). Progression‐free survival (PFS) was defined as the time from the initiation of regorafenib until the date when tumor progression or death was confirmed. OS was defined as the time from the initiation of regorafenib until death. 8 Treatment‐related adverse events (TRAEs) were recorded according to the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI‐CTCAE), version 5.0. 20
2.5. Statistical analysis
Quantitative data were presented as median value (interquartile range [IQR]), and categorical data was expressed as number (percentage). The chi‐squared test or Fisher's exact test was used to compare categorical data. Independent‐sample t‐test or Mann–Whitney U‐test was used to compare quantitative data (baseline characteristics). Propensity score matching (PSM) with a ratio of 1:2 was performed using nearest neighbor algorithm. 21 Survival curves were analyzed by the Kaplan–Meier method using the log‐rank test. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to determine the independent factors significantly associated with PFS and OS. A backward stepwise regression method was employed to select the best combination of variables from the univariate analysis for the multivariate analysis model. In subgroup analysis, the Cox regression model was applied to compare PFS and OS between the two groups across different variables. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.2.2.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Study population and baseline characteristics
A total of 208 patients were included in the final analysis (Figure 1). One hundred forty‐three patients received regorafenib plus ICI combination therapy, and 65 patients received regorafenib monotherapy. Baseline characteristics revealed imbalances between groups, mainly in terms of BCLC stage, first‐line treatment profile, and regorafenib initial dose. Specifically, the regorafenib plus ICI group had the worse BCLC stage (p = 0.021) and a higher proportion of patients who received ICI in the first‐line treatment (p < 0.001) compared with the regorafenib monotherapy group. After PSM, no statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups (Table 1).
FIGURE 1.
Flowchart of patient screening. HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; ICI, immune checkpoint inhibitors.
TABLE 1.
Baseline characteristics of patients at initiation of second‐line therapy before and after PSM.
| Characteristic | Before PSM | p value | After PSM | p value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regorafenib + ICI | Regorafenib | Regorafenib + ICI | Regorafenib | |||
| (n = 143) | (n = 65) | (n = 107) | (n = 58) | |||
| Sex, male | 122 (85.3) | 57 (87.7) | 0.646 | 89 (83.2) | 51 (87.9) | 0.416 |
| Age, years | 52 (44–61) | 51 (43–63) | 0.554 | 53 (44–61) | 52 (44–61) | 0.893 |
| ECOG performance status | ||||||
| 0 | 101 (70.6) | 47 (72.3) | 0.804 | 74 (69.2) | 42 (72.4) | 0.662 |
| 1 | 42 (29.6) | 18 (27.7) | 33 (30.8) | 16 (27.6) | ||
| HBsAg‐positive | 125 (87.4) | 59 (90.8) | 0.482 | 97 (90.7) | 54 (93.1) | 0.772 |
| Antiviral drugs | ||||||
| Entecavir | 93 (65.0) | 45 (69.2) | 0.784 | 73 (68.2) | 42 (72.4) | 0.728 |
| Tenofovir | 32 (22.4) | 14 (21.5) | 24 (22.4) | 12 (20.7) | ||
| Child‐Pugh class | ||||||
| A | 123 (86.0) | 58 (89.2) | 0.522 | 94 (87.9) | 51 (87.9) | 0.988 |
| B | 20 (14.0) | 7 (10.8) | 13 (12.1) | 7 (12.1) | ||
| BCLC stage | ||||||
| B | 32 (22.4) | 26 (40.0) | 0.013* | 32 (29.9) | 19 (32.8) | 0.705 |
| C | 106 (74.1) | 39 (60.0) | 75 (70.1) | 39 (67.2) | ||
| Tumor size >5 cm | 64 (44.8) | 31 (47.7) | 0.693 | 48 (44.9) | 28 (48.3) | 0.674 |
| Tumor number >3 | 88 (61.5) | 48 (73.8) | 0.084 | 71 (66.4) | 42 (72.4) | 0.424 |
| Macrovascular invasion | 47 (32.9) | 18 (27.7) | 0.437 | 36 (33.6) | 18 (58.1) | 0.733 |
| Extrahepatic metastasis | 82 (57.3) | 30 (46.2) | 0.120 | 56 (52.3) | 30 (51.7) | 0.940 |
| ALT (U/L) | 35.1 (23.7–50.7) | 36.1 (25.4–59.6) | 0.529 | 35.3 (24.4–47.9) | 36.7 (25.7–64.4) | 0.358 |
| Total bilirubin (μmol/L) | 15.1 (11.1–19.9) | 15.3 (10.2–20.4) | 0.833 | 14.7 (11.0–19.0) | 14.7 (9.9–20.4) | 0.917 |
| Albumin (g/L) | 41.3 (36.4–44.5) | 40.3 (37.3–44.0) | 0.826 | 41.6 (37.0–44.5) | 41.1 (37.3–44.2) | 0.711 |
| ALBI grade | ||||||
| Grade 1 | 88 (61.5) | 38 (58.5) | 0.596 | 67 (62.6) | 36 (62.1) | >0.999 |
| Grade 2 | 52 (36.4) | 27 (41.5) | 39 (36.4) | 22 (37.9) | ||
| Grade 3 | 3 (2.1) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.9) | 0 (0) | ||
| AFP (ng/mL) | 333 (14.8–6526) | 990.0 (50.6–7097.0) | 0.261 | 281 (12.2–5281.0) | 1717.0 (108.9–9088.0) | 0.074 |
| PIVKA‐II (mAU/ml) | 2060.2 (246.3–10650.0) | 2542.4 (491.0–10571.2) | 0.565 | 3799.1 (676.1–12523.2) | 3545.5 (1049.6–11732.2) | 0.733 |
| First‐line multikinase inhibitor | ||||||
| Sorafenib | 61 (42.7) | 43 (66.2) | 0.002* | 56 (52.3) | 36 (62.1) | 0.229 |
| Lenvatinib | 82 (57.3) | 22 (33.8) | 51 (47.7) | 22 (37.9) | ||
| First‐line treatment with ICI | 93 (65.0) | 25 (38.4) | <0.001* | 60 (56.0) | 25 (43.1) | 0.111 |
| Duration of first‐line treatment, months | 7.1 (3.2–11.7) | 6.5 (3.2–10.7) | 0.793 | 6.4 (3.3–10.8) | 7.0 (3.3–11.5) | 0.70 |
| Regorafenib initial dose | ||||||
| 80 mg | 63 (44.1) | 21 (32.3) | 0.016* | 43 (40.2) | 21 (36.2) | 0.123 |
| 120 mg | 39 (27.3) | 12 (18.5) | 30 (28.0) | 10 (17.2) | ||
| 160 mg | 41 (28.7) | 32 (49.2) | 34 (31.8) | 27 (46.6) | ||
| Locoregional treatment in second‐line treatment | 72 (50.3) | 28 (43.1) | 0.331 | 58 (54.2) | 26 (44.8) | 0.250 |
Note: Data are n (%) or median (IQR), unless otherwise specified. Statistical significance indicated in bold (p<0.05).
Abbreviations: ALT, alanine transaminase; ALBI, albumin–bilirubin; AFP, α‐fetoprotein; BCLC, Barcelona clinic liver cancer; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; ICI, immune checkpoint inhibitors; PIVKA‐II, protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist‐II; PSM, propensity score matching.
3.2. Tumor response
The regorafenib plus ICI group demonstrated significantly higher ORR (23.8% vs. 9.2%, before PSM, p = 0.014; 24.3% vs. 10.3%, after PSM, p = 0.030) and DCR (74.8% vs. 53.8%, before PSM, P = 0.003; 79.4% vs. 50.0%, after PSM, P < 0.001) compared to the regorafenib monotherapy group based on mRECIST. In detail, two patients in the regorafenib plus ICI group versus no patients in the regorafenib group achieved CR before PSM. The regorafenib plus ICI group exhibited a higher proportion of PR and rather less disease progression (PD) compared to the regorafenib monotherapy group, both before and after PSM (Table 2).
TABLE 2.
Tumor response before and after PSM by mRECIST.
| Before PSM | p value | After PSM | p value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regorafenib + ICI | Regorafenib | Regorafenib + ICI | Regorafenib | |||
| (n = 143) | (n = 65) | (n = 107) | (n = 58) | |||
| Best overall response | ||||||
| Complete response (CR) | 2 (1.4) | 0 (0) | 1 | 1 (1.0) | 0 (0) | 1 |
| Partial response (PR) | 32 (22.4) | 6 (9.2) | 0.023* | 25 (23.4) | 6 (10.3) | 0.041* |
| Stable disease (SD) | 73 (51.0) | 29 (44.6) | 0.390 | 59 (55.1) | 23 (39.7) | 0.058 |
| Progressive disease (PD) | 36 (25.2) | 28 (43.1) | 0.010* | 22 (20.6) | 27 (46.6) | 0.001* |
| Not evaluable | 0 (0) | 2 (3.1) | 0.097 | 0 (0) | 2 (3.4) | 0.122 |
| Objective response | 34 (23.8) | 6 (9.2) | 0.014* | 26 (24.3) | 6 (10.3) | 0.030* |
| Disease control | 107 (74.8) | 35 (53.8) | 0.003* | 85 (79.4) | 29 (50.0) | <0.001* |
Note: Data are presented as number (percentage). Objective response = CR + PR; disease control = CR + PR + SD. Statistical significance indicated in bold (p<0.05).
Abbreviations: ICI, immune checkpoint inhibitors; mRESICT, modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors; PSM, propensity score matching.
3.3. Survival analysis
The median follow‐up duration was 13.5 months (95% CI: 12.6–15.6 months) in the regorafenib plus ICI group and 14.8 months (95% CI: 12.2–18.8) in the regorafenib monotherapy group before PSM and remained similar after PSM.
Before PSM, the median PFS was 7.5 months (95% CI: 6.5–9.6) in the regorafenib plus ICI group and 3.4 months (95% CI: 3.0–4.9) in the regorafenib monotherapy group (p < 0.001, Figure 2A). The median OS was 25.6 months (95% CI: 18.1‐NA) in the regorafenib plus ICI group and 16.4 months (95% CI: 10.6‐NA) in the regorafenib monotherapy group (P = 0.010, Figure 2B).
FIGURE 2.
Before propensity score matching, Kaplan–Meier analysis of progression‐free survival (A) and overall survival (B) between regorafenib plus immune checkpoint inhibitors group (Rego + ICI) and regorafenib monotherapy group (Rego). CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio.
After PSM, the regorafenib plus ICI group showed a similarly significant improvement in both PFS (7.9 months, 95% CI: 6.6–11.7) and OS (25.6 months, 95% CI: 18.1‐NA), compared to the regorafenib monotherapy group's median PFS (3.2 months, 95% CI: 2.8–4.9; P < 0.001) and OS (16.4 months, 95% CI: 11.3‐NA; P = 0.010) (Figure 3 A‐B).
FIGURE 3.
After propensity score matching, Kaplan–Meier analysis of progression‐free survival (A) and overall survival (B) between regorafenib plus immune checkpoint inhibitors group (Rego+ICI) and regorafenib monotherapy group (Rego). CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio.
In cohort before PSM, multivariate analysis showed that presence of macrovascular invasion (HR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.02–2.06, p = 0.039), first‐line treatment with lenvatinib (HR = 2.27, 95% CI: 1.36–3.78, p = 0.002) and regorafenib plus ICI treatment (HR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.31–0.61, p < 0.001) were independent prognostic factors for PFS (Table 3). Regorafenib plus ICI treatment (HR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.35–0.87, p = 0.01) was associated with OS in multivariate analysis (Table 4).
TABLE 3.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of influencing factors for progression‐free survival.
| Characteristic | Univariable | Multivariable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | p value | HR | 95% CI | p value | |
| Sex | ||||||
| Male/female | 0.78 | 0.49, 1.25 | 0.308 | |||
| Age group | ||||||
| <65 years/≥65 years | 1.06 | 0.70, 1.60 | 0.776 | |||
| ECOG performance status | ||||||
| 0/1 | 0.91 | 0.64, 1.29 | 0.597 | |||
| HBsAg‐positive | ||||||
| No/yes | 1.03 | 0.59, 1.79 | 0.911 | |||
| Child‐Pugh class | ||||||
| A/B | 1.12 | 0.68, 1.84 | 0.65 | 1.77 | 0.98, 3.22 | 0.06 |
| BCLC stage | ||||||
| B/C | 1.09 | 0.77, 1.54 | 0.632 | |||
| Macrovascular invasion | ||||||
| No/yes | 1.34 | 0.95, 1.89 | 0.093 | 1.45 | 1.02, 2.06 | 0.039* |
| Extrahepatic metastasis | ||||||
| No/yes | 1.05 | 0.76, 1.45 | 0.773 | 1.38 | 0.98, 1.93 | 0.063 |
| ALBI grade | ||||||
| 1 | — | — | — | — | ||
| 2 | 1.13 | 0.81, 1.58 | 0.455 | 0.91 | 0.62, 1.32 | 0.616 |
| 3 | 0.27 | 0.04, 1.91 | 0.188 | 0.18 | 0.02, 1.39 | 0.1 |
| AFP | ||||||
| <400 ng/mL/≥400 ng/mL | 1.5 | 1.09, 2.06 | 0.013* | |||
| First‐line multikinase inhibitor | ||||||
| Sorafenib/lenvatinib | 1.56 | 1.13, 2.17 | 0.007* | 2.27 | 1.36, 3.78 | 0.002* |
| First‐line immune checkpoint inhibitor | ||||||
| No/yes | 1.12 | 0.81, 1.56 | 0.477 | 0.67 | 0.40, 1.12 | 0.123 |
| Regorafenib initial dose | ||||||
| 80 mg | — | — | ||||
| 120 mg | 0.8 | 0.53, 1.22 | 0.303 | |||
| 160 mg | 0.98 | 0.68, 1.41 | 0.919 | |||
| Locoregional treatment in second‐line treatment | ||||||
| No/yes | 0.95 | 0.69, 1.30 | 0.749 | |||
| Group | ||||||
| Regorafenib/regorafenib+ICI | 0.48 | 0.34, 0.67 | <0.001* | 0.43 | 0.31, 0.61 | <0.001* |
Note: Statistical significance indicated in bold (p<0.05).
Abbreviations: ALBI, albumin–bilirubin; AFP, α‐fetoprotein; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; CI, confidence interval; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; HR, hazard ratio; HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; ICI, immune checkpoint inhibitors.
TABLE 4.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of influencing factors for overall survival.
| Characteristic | Univariable | Multivariable | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR | 95% CI | p value | HR | 95% CI | p value | |
| Sex | ||||||
| Male/female | 0.59 | 0.29, 1.19 | 0.142 | 0.61 | 0.30, 1.24 | 0.172 |
| Age group | ||||||
| <65 years/≥65 years | 1.18 | 0.67, 2.09 | 0.559 | |||
| ECOG performance status | ||||||
| 0/1 | 0.98 | 0.61, 1.58 | 0.924 | |||
| HBsAg‐positive | ||||||
| No/yes | 1.5 | 0.55, 4.12 | 0.428 | |||
| Child‐Pugh class | ||||||
| A/B | 1.25 | 0.62, 2.52 | 0.535 | |||
| BCLC stage | ||||||
| B/C | 1.17 | 0.71, 1.94 | 0.535 | |||
| Macrovascular invasion | ||||||
| No/yes | 1.49 | 0.91, 2.44 | 0.116 | 1.49 | 0.91, 2.45 | 0.113 |
| Extrahepatic metastasis | ||||||
| No/yes | 1.27 | 0.80, 2.02 | 0.32 | |||
| ALBI grade | ||||||
| 1 | — | — | ||||
| 2 | 0.89 | 0.54, 1.45 | 0.628 | |||
| 3 | 0.93 | 0.13, 6.75 | 0.941 | |||
| AFP | ||||||
| <400 ng/mL/≥400 ng/mL | 1.45 | 0.92, 2.29 | 0.107 | |||
| First‐line multikinase inhibitor | ||||||
| Sorafenib/lenvatinib | 0.96 | 0.59, 1.56 | 0.863 | |||
| First‐line immune checkpoint inhibitor | ||||||
| No/yes | 0.74 | 0.46, 1.19 | 0.212 | |||
| Regorafenib initial dose | ||||||
| 80 mg | — | — | ||||
| 120 mg | 0.67 | 0.35, 1.28 | 0.23 | |||
| 160 mg | 1.01 | 0.60, 1.73 | 0.959 | |||
| Locoregional treatment in second‐line treatment | ||||||
| No/yes | 0.77 | 0.49, 1.21 | 0.259 | |||
| Group | ||||||
| Regorafenib/regorafenib + ICI | 0.56 | 0.35, 0.88 | 0.012* | 0.55 | 0.35, 0.87 | 0.01* |
Note: Statistical significance indicated in bold (p<0.05).
Abbreviations: ALBI, albumin–bilirubin; AFP, α‐fetoprotein; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; CI, confidence interval; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; HR, hazard ratio; ICI, immune checkpoint inhibitors.
3.4. Subgroup analysis
Subgroup analyses were conducted according to different clinical characteristics and treatment options. The improvement in PFS with the regorafenib plus ICI group was maintained in nearly all subgroup analyses except for patients with HBsAg‐negative. Patients who received sorafenib in their first‐line treatment (HR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.16–0.42) had better PFS compared to patients who received lenvatinib (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.48–1.40; p for interaction = 0.002; Figure 4A). The improvement in OS with the regorafenib plus ICI group was observed in all subgroup analyses and there were no statistically significant interactions within subgroups (Figure 4B).
FIGURE 4.
Subgroup analyses for comparing progression‐free survival (A) and overall survival (B) between regorafenib plus ICI group (Rego + ICI) and regorafenib monotherapy group (Rego). AFP, α‐fetoprotein; ALBI, albumin‐bilirubin; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; CI, confidence interval; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; HR, hazard ratio; HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen.
3.5. Safety
No treatment‐related death happened. The incidence of TRAEs was similar in both groups, with 106 (74.1%) patients who received regorafenib plus ICI and 46 (70.8%) patients who received regorafenib having at least one TRAE. The most common TRAEs of any grade in regorafenib plus ICI group were hand–foot skin reaction (39.2%), diarrhea (29.4%), fatigue (21.7%), increased blood bilirubin (20.3%), and in regorafenib monotherapy group were hand–foot skin reaction (35.4%), diarrhea (24.6%), and increased blood bilirubin (23.1%) (Table 5).
TABLE 5.
Treatment‐related adverse events.
| Treatment‐related adverse events | Regorafenib + ICI (N = 143) | Regorafenib (N = 65) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any grade (%) | Grade ≥3 (%) | Any grade (%) | Grade ≥3 (%) | |
| Any adverse event | 106 (74.1) | 34 (23.8) | 46 (70.8) | 13 (20.0) |
| Hand–foot skin reaction | 56 (39.2) | 8 (5.6) | 23 (35.4) | 3 (4.6) |
| Diarrhea | 42 (29.4) | 5 (3.5) | 16 (24.6) | 2 (3.1) |
| Fatigue | 31 (21.7) | 1 (0.7) | 9 (13.8) | 0 (0) |
| Hypertension | 25 (17.5) | 3 (2.1) | 6 (9.2) | 0 (0) |
| Increased blood bilirubin | 29 (20.3) | 5 (3.5) | 15 (23.1) | 3 (4.6) |
| Increased AST | 20 (14.0) | 3 (2.1) | 12 (18.5) | 1 (1.5) |
| Increased ALT | 19 (13.3) | 3 (2.1) | 11 (16.9) | 0 (0) |
| Hypoalbuminemia | 22 (15.4) | 4 (2.8) | 6 (9.2) | 0 (0) |
| Thrombocytopenia | 20 (14.0) | 3 (2.1) | 5 (7.7) | 1 (1.5) |
| Hypothyroidism | 18 (12.6) | 0 (0) | 8 (12.3) | 0 (0) |
Note: Data are presented as number (percentage).
Abbreviations: AST, aspartate transaminase; ALT, alanine transaminase; ICI, immune checkpoint inhibitors.
4. DISCUSSION
In this multicenter, real‐world, retrospective study, which is one of the largest scale conducted so far, the regorafenib plus ICI group demonstrated significantly higher ORR and DCR compared to the regorafenib monotherapy group based on mRECIST criteria. Median PFS and OS were also significantly improved in the regorafenib plus ICI group. Importantly, combining with ICI did not result in an increased incidence of TRAEs.
The median PFS in the regorafenib monotherapy group (3.2 months) was consistent with the REFINE study (3.9 months). The median OS in the regorafenib monotherapy group (16.4 months) was longer than the overall population in the REFINE study (13.2 months), but was similar to patients from Asia (15.0 months) and patients with Child‐Pugh A(15.5 months). 22 Together with the REFINE study, our study once again confirmed the efficacy of regorafenib as second‐line therapy for advanced HCC in real‐world settings. In our real‐world study, physicians would employ locoregional treatment modalities, including transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), after considering liver function and tumor burden. Therefore, the improvement in OS may be partially attributed to the combined usage of locoregional treatments. However, further validation is required through prospective randomized controlled trials.
The efficacy and survival outcomes of the regorafenib plus ICI group in this study aligned with previous studies, demonstrating superiority over the regorafenib monotherapy group. 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 Remarkably, in this study, the combination of regorafenib and ICI achieved a median OS of 25.6 months, making it one of the few studies in the second‐line treatment for HCC to surpass the 2‐year milestone. Due to the differences in study design and baseline characteristics, the results from different studies cannot be directly compared. In comparison to previous studies, the patients in this study had relatively better liver function, with the majority being classified as Child‐Pugh A, which could independently influence the survival of patients with HCC. 27 Additionally, the proportion of patients with extrahepatic metastasis and macrovascular invasion was relatively lower, which might also have a positive impact on survival. 28
It is worth noting that in multivariate and subgroup analyses, patients who received sorafenib in their first‐line treatment had better PFS in the second‐line treatment compared to patients who received lenvatinib. This may be due to the different molecular target spectrums of sorafenib and lenvatinib, suggesting that the choice of first‐line treatment could have an impact on the effectiveness of subsequent therapies. This highlights the importance of considering previous treatment history in treatment decision‐making for advanced HCC. Previous retrospective studies also showed a difference in the survival outcomes of patients receiving regorafenib after different first‐line systemic treatments. 29 However, it should be noted that the approval of sorafenib occurred earlier than lenvatinib, resulting in differences in the initiation of actual clinical use between the two subgroups. This disparity in exposure time had an impact on the censored rates (sorafenib 52.9% vs. lenvatinib 73.1%, p < 0.003) in the second‐line treatment and consequently influenced the results. As more patients have the opportunity to receive second‐line systemic treatment, incorporating patients' first‐line treatment history or taking the first and second‐line treatments as a whole in future study designs may yield more comprehensive and insightful results and eventually prolong survival.
Implementation of ICI may have collateral effects on the immune system, potentially leading to immune‐related adverse events (irAEs), which could be further amplified by combination strategies. 30 The safety profile observed in our study somewhat alleviated this concern, as the combination of regorafenib and ICI did not result in a significantly increased incidence of TRAEs or new TRAEs, which is consistent with previous retrospective studies. 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 The overall incidence of TRAEs was lower compared to the RESORCE trial, where all patients (374 out of 374) who received regorafenib experienced at least one TRAE. 8 Apart from differences in initial regorafenib dose, this may also be attributed to more extensive clinical experience and more sophisticated management of AEs.
This study had several limitations. First, different PD‐1/PD‐L1 inhibitors applied in the regorafenib plus ICI group may impact the results. Second, this study was conducted in China, with most patients having HBV infection. Further validation in global multicenters with diverse populations is needed. Third, this study did not assess whether the combination of regorafenib and ICI can provide survival benefits after the failure of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or sintilimab plus bevacizumab. It would be valuable to explore treatment strategies following the progression of these newly emerged combinations.
5. CONCLUSIONS
The combination of regorafenib and ICI shows potential as a viable second‐line treatment for advanced HCC, demonstrating favorable efficacy with a manageable safety profile compared to regorafenib monotherapy under real‐world circumstances. Furthermore, as this study included a broader patient population, the survival benefit of regorafenib combined with ICI was validated in patients who progressed on sorafenib or lenvatinib, augmenting the practicality of implementing this treatment regimen in clinical practice.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Liang Qiao: Data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); writing – original draft (equal). Wei He: Data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); writing – original draft (equal). Guoying Wang: Data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Huanwei Chen: Data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Fuxi Huang: Data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Bo Zhang: Data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Yuxiong Qiu: Writing – original draft (supporting). Shaoru Liu: Writing – original draft (supporting). Zhenkun Huang: Writing – original draft (supporting). Yichuan Yuan: Writing – original draft (supporting). Jiliang Qiu: Writing – review and editing (supporting). Yunfei Yuan: Conceptualization (equal); supervision (equal). Binkui Li: Conceptualization (equal); supervision (equal).
FUNDING INFORMATION
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not‐for‐profit sectors.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no financial interests or personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests in this work.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors express their gratitude to all the included patients in this study, together with their families.
Qiao L, He W, Wang G, et al. Regorafenib with immunotherapy versus regorafenib alone as second‐line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicenter real‐world study. Cancer Med. 2024;13:e7236. doi: 10.1002/cam4.7236
Liang Qiao, Wei He, Guoying Wang, Huanwei Chen, Fuxi Huang, and Bo Zhang authors contributed equally to this work.
Contributor Information
Yunfei Yuan, Email: yuanyf@mail.sysu.edu.cn.
Binkui Li, Email: libk@sysucc.org.cn.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available because of privacy or ethical restrictions.
REFERENCES
- 1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209‐249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Vogel A, Meyer T, Sapisochin G, Salem R, Saborowski A. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet. 2022;400(10360):1345‐1362. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01200-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(4):378‐390. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0708857 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Kudo M, Finn RS, Qin S, et al. Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first‐line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non‐inferiority trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10126):1163‐1173. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30207-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Finn RS, Qin S, Ikeda M, et al. Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(20):1894‐1905. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1915745 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Abou‐Alfa GK, Meyer T, Cheng AL, et al. Cabozantinib in patients with advanced and progressing hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(1):54‐63. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1717002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Zhu AX, Park JO, Ryoo BY, et al. Ramucirumab versus 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;16(7):859‐870. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00050-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Bruix J, Qin S, Merle P, 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(10064):56‐66. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(16)32453-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Granito A, Marinelli S, Forgione A, et al. Regorafenib combined with other systemic therapies: exploring promising therapeutic combinations in HCC. J Hepatocell Carcinoma. 2021;8:477‐492. doi: 10.2147/JHC.S251729 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Tai WT, Chu PY, Shiau CW, et al. STAT3 mediates regorafenib‐induced apoptosis in hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20(22):5768‐5776. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0725 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Chen C‐W, Ou D‐L, Hsu C‐L, Lin L, Cheng A‐L, Hsu C. FRI‐471‐Regorafenib may enhance efficacy of anti‐program cell death‐1 therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma through modulation of macrophage polarization. J Hepatol. 2019;70(1):e605‐e606. doi: 10.1016/s0618-8278(19)31207-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Wu RY, Kong PF, Xia LP, et al. Regorafenib promotes antitumor immunity via inhibiting PD‐L1 and IDO1 expression in melanoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(14):4530‐4541. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-2840 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Shigeta K, Datta M, Hato T, et al. Dual programmed death Receptor‐1 and vascular endothelial growth factor Receptor‐2 blockade promotes vascular normalization and enhances antitumor immune responses in hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2020;71(4):1247‐1261. doi: 10.1002/hep.30889 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Shigeta K, Matsui A, Kikuchi H, et al. Regorafenib combined with PD1 blockade increases CD8 T‐cell infiltration by inducing CXCL10 expression in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Immunother Cancer. 2020;8(2):e001435. doi: 10.1136/jitc-2020-001435 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. El‐Khoueiry AB, Kim RD, Harris WP, et al. Updated results of a phase 1b study of regorafenib (REG) 80 mg/day or 120 mg/day plus pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) for first‐line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(15_suppl):4078. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.4078 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Finn RS, Ikeda M, Zhu AX, et al. Phase Ib study of Lenvatinib plus Pembrolizumab in patients with Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38(26):2960‐2970. doi: 10.1200/JCO.20.00808 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Bruix J, Sherman M. American Association for the Study of liver D. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology. 2011;53(3):1020‐1022. doi: 10.1002/hep.24199 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. European Association For The Study Of The L, European Organisation For R, Treatment Of C . EASL‐EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2012;56(4):908‐943. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2011.12.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Llovet JM, Lencioni R. mRECIST for HCC: performance and novel refinements. J Hepatol. 2020;72(2):288‐306. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2019.09.026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Health UDo, Services H . Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 5.0. US Department of Health and Human Services Published online November 27, 2017. 2021. [Google Scholar]
- 21. Ho D, Imai K, King G, Stuart EA. MatchIt: nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. J Stat Softw. 2011;42(8):1‐28. doi: 10.18637/jss.v042.i08 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Kim YJ, Kurosaki M, Numata K, et al. 73MO Regorafenib in patients (pts) with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) in real‐world practice in Asia: final analysis of the prospective, observational REFINE study. Ann Oncol. 2022;33:S1459‐S1460. doi: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.10.109 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Huang J, Guo Y, Huang W, et al. Regorafenib combined with PD‐1 blockade immunotherapy versus Regorafenib as second‐line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study. J Hepatocellular Carcinoma. 2022;9:157‐170. doi: 10.2147/jhc.s353956 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Li J, Jia Y, Shao C, Li Y, Song J. Clinical efficacy and safety of an immune checkpoint inhibitor in combination with Regorafenib therapy as second‐line regimen for patients with Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2023;19:329‐339. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S400079 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Tu X, Yang J, Zheng Y, et al. Immunotherapy combination with regorafenib for refractory hepatocellular carcinoma: a real‐world study. Int Immunopharmacol. 2022;113:109401. doi: 10.1016/j.intimp.2022.109401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Liu K, Wu J, Xu Y, Li D, Huang S, Mao Y. Efficacy and safety of Regorafenib with or without PD‐1 inhibitors as second‐line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in real‐world clinical practice. Onco Targets Ther. 2022;15:1079‐1094. doi: 10.2147/OTT.S383685 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Johnson PJ, Berhane S, Kagebayashi C, et al. Assessment of liver function in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a new evidence‐based approach‐the ALBI grade. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(6):550‐558. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.57.9151 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Liu PH, Hsu CY, Hsia CY, et al. Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: assessment of eleven staging systems. J Hepatol. 2016;64(3):601‐608. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2015.10.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Zhai J, Liu J, Fu Z, et al. Comparison of the safety and prognosis of sequential regorafenib after sorafenib and lenvatinib treatment failure in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective cohort study. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2022;13(3):1278‐1288. doi: 10.21037/jgo-22-404 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Ramos‐Casals M, Brahmer JR, Callahan MK, et al. Immune‐related adverse events of checkpoint inhibitors. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2020;6(1):38. doi: 10.1038/s41572-020-0160-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available because of privacy or ethical restrictions.