“Patients with advanced or inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC] have a poor prognosis, often with underlying cirrhosis, and the treatment option currently available, sorafenib, has a high level of toxicity,” Dr. Vilgrain stated at an EASL press briefing presentation of SARAH trial results. She further noted that HCC, the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, represents more than 90% of primary liver cancers. The multikinase inhibitor sorafenib is the only approved first-line systemic treatment, and there is currently no standard of care for sorafenib-intolerant patients or for those who have sorafenib contraindications.
Dr. Vilgrain’s SARAH study aimed to test the efficacy of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with yttrium (Y)-90 microspheres in advanced HCC in a direct comparison with sorafenib, the standard of care. In the SHARP trial of sorafenib versus placebo in advanced HCC, median overall survival (OS) with sorafenib was 10.7 months versus 7.9 months for placebo. Large cohort studies have previously demonstrated SIRT efficacy. “We set out to compare the efficacy of this treatment versus the current standard of care,” Dr. Vilgrain said.
SARAH is a prospective, open-label, phase 3, multicenter, randomized, and controlled trial in patients with locally advanced and inoperable HCC who have failed two rounds of transarterial chemoembolization, the reference treatment for intermediate HCC. The primary endpoint is OS. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival (PFS), incidence of intrahepatic and extrahepatic progression, and tumor response rate.
The SARAH trial enrolled 467 patients at 25 French sites, randomizing them 1:1 to sorafenib 800 mg per day or SIR-Spheres Y-90 resin microspheres (Sirtex). Ultimately, 174 patients received SIRT and 206 received sorafenib (26.6% did not receive SIRT, and 7.2% did not receive sorafenib per protocol). Mean age was approximately 65 years, about 90% of patients had cirrhosis, and approximately 90% were men. In the intent-to-treat analysis (n = 459) of median OS, the rates were 8.0 months for SIRT and 9.9 months for sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94–1.41; P = 0.18). In the per-protocol analysis (n = 380), median OS was 9.9 months for both SIRT and sorafenib (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.79–1.24; P = 0.92). PFS was similar for both treatments in both the intent-to-treat analysis (4.1 months for SIRT versus 3.7 months for sorafenib; P = 0.76) and per-protocol analysis (4.3 months for SIRT versus 3.7 months for sorafenib; P = 0.77). An intent-to-treat analysis of radiological progression in the liver as the first site, however, revealed significantly lower incidence in the SIRT group than in the sorafenib group (P = 0.027). In addition, the tumor response rate (using RECIST 1.1 criteria of complete response plus partial response) was higher for SIRT (19.0%) than for sorafenib (11.6%) (P = 0.042). “These indicate a strong signal for local effects within the liver for Y-90 microspheres,” Dr. Vilgrain said.
Grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events were fewer with SIRT (n = 230) than with sorafenib (n = 411), with half of the median number of adverse events per person with SIRT than with sorafenib. Fatigue, weight loss, infection, hand–foot skin reaction, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and hypertension were all significantly lower with SIRT than with sorafenib. Quality of life, assessed using the Global Health Status scale of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ–C30 questionnaire, was significantly better in patients who received SIRT compared with the sorafenib group (P = 0.005), an advantage that tended to increase with time (P = 0.045).
Two radiation-induced complications were reported in the SIRT group.
In response to press conference questions, Dr. Vilgrain noted that the shorter OS for sorafenib in the SARAH trial than in the SHARP trial may be attributed to more advanced disease in SARAH patients, particularly with 60% having vascular invasion, a major prognostic factor for adverse outcomes. In addition, a greater number of patients treated with SIRT than with sorafenib became eligible for curative treatments, such as liver resection, tumor ablation, or transplantation. Finally, she suggested that the roughly 50-patient reduction in the number of patients who ultimately got SIRT was due to the two- to three-week delay between the work-up and treatment. That process, which includes imaging to determine likely uptake of Y-90 microspheres, is being reduced to a single day in ongoing studies.
“While SIRT did not increase overall survival in this population, it offered a higher tumor response, better tolerance with less treatment-related adverse events, and a better quality of life over time. We think these issues are extremely important because these patients have severe disease with poor life expectancy, so quality of life is a priority,” Dr. Vilgrain concluded.