Abstract
Objective
The purpose of this multicenter retrospective study was to investigate the impact of the prognostic nutritional index (PNI) on the survival of Japanese patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with sorafenib.
Methods
A total of 178 HCC patients from May 2009 to December 2015 at our affiliated hospitals was included in this study. The PNI was calculated as follows: 10×serum albumin (g/dL)+0.005×total lymphocyte count (per mm3). The patients were divided into two groups according to the cut-off value of the PNI and as calculated by a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.
Results
The optimum cut-off value of the PNI was set at 46.8. We defined the 33 patients with a PNI≥46.8 as the PNI-high group and the 145 patients with a PNI<46.8 as the PNI-low group. The response rate was 20.0% in the PNI-high group and 8.1% in the PNI-low group, without any statistically significance (p=0.09). The duration of sorafenib therapy and the overall survival in the PNI-high group were significantly better than those in the PNI-low group. The PNI-high group was thus found to be a predictive factor associated with the duration of sorafenib therapy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.87, p=0.008] and overall survival (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.39-0.99, p=0.046) in a multivariate analysis.
Conclusion
The PNI is a simple and useful marker for predicting the survival of patients with HCC treated with sorafenib.
Keywords: hepatocellular carcinoma, sorafenib, prognostic nutritional index
Introduction
Liver cancer is the sixth-most common cancer and is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, with approximately 745,000 deaths reported in 2012 (1), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) accounts for about 80% of all liver cancers (2). When the disease is diagnosed at an early stage, curative treatments, such as hepatic resection, liver transplantation and radiofrequency ablation (RFA), are recommended, resulting in a relatively good survival (3-6). However, many patients present at an advanced stage when they can no longer benefit from these curative treatments. Under the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) guideline (3,6), transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) and sorafenib treatment are recommended for patients at intermediate and advanced stages of disease, respectively. Furthermore, sorafenib treatment can be considered even for patients with intermediate-stage disease when the definition of TACE failure/refractoriness proposed by the Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan is met or TACE is deemed to be either not feasible or has failed (5,7).
Sorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor that blocks the Raf-MEK-ERK signaling pathway to inhibit tumor cell proliferation and blocks VEGF receptors to prevent neoangiogenesis (8,9). Two randomized, placebo-controlled phase III studies showed the survival rate of advanced HCC patients treated with sorafenib to be better than that in a control group (10,11). Recently, the RESORCE study showed that regorafenib also provided a good survival benefit in advanced HCC patients with progressive disease on sorafenib treatment (12).
The prognostic nutritional index (PNI) proposed by Onodera et al. (13) has been shown to be a useful tool for evaluating the preoperative condition and outcome of patients with malignant gastrointestinal tract tumors. It is easily calculated from the serum albumin and total lymphocyte count in the peripheral blood and it reflects the immunological and nutritional condition of cancer patients. Several studies have reported the PNI to be a useful prognostic factor for patients with gastric cancer (14,15), colorectal cancer (16) and HCC (17,18) after surgical treatment. However, few studies have so far evaluated the implications of the PNI in advanced HCC patients treated with sorafenib.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of the PNI on the survival of Japanese patients with advanced HCC treated with sorafenib and to clarify the relationship between the PNI and the duration of sorafenib therapy.
Materials and Methods
Inclusion criteria
The inclusion criteria of this retrospective cohort study were as follows: HCC diagnosed based on early enhancement in the arterial phase and washout in the portal vein or equilibrium phase of enhanced computed tomography (CT) or enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (19) or historically proven disease; not indicated for surgical resection, liver transplantation or local ablation therapy; Child-Pugh score 5-7 and measurable lesions detected on radiological imaging. The exclusion criteria were as follows: inadequate patient background data; no data on the total lymphocyte count in peripheral blood at baseline treatment.
Treatment
Sorafenib was administered orally, and all treatment decisions, including the dose and duration, were determined at the physician's discretion or choice. In general, sorafenib treatment was discontinued if progressive disease was identified on follow-up CT, if serious adverse events were observed or if a deterioration of the liver function was noted. Best supportive care or other palliative treatments were subsequently provided. The best radiological response was evaluated by the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST). At follow-up visits after sorafenib administration, drug-related adverse events, such as fatigue, hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR), diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, rash/desquamation, hypertension, upper gastrointestinal (GI) hemorrhaging, were assessed by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4.0.
Patient selection and data collection
A total of 302 HCC patients treated with sorafenib at the Department of Gastroenterology, Gunma Saiseikai Maebashi Hospital, Maebashi, Japan, and its affiliated hospitals from May 2009 to December 2015 were included in the present study. Of these patients, 23 for whom background data were deemed inadequate, 1 who had no measurable lesions, and 100 missing data on the total lymphocyte count were excluded. Therefore, the remaining 178 patients were analyzed. A flow chart of the patient selection is shown in Fig. 1.
Figure 1.
The flow chart of patient selection. HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma
We reviewed the medical records in February 2017 and collected the data. We also collected data on the level of serum albumin and total lymphocyte count at baseline treatment. We calculated the PNI using the following formula: 10×serum albumin value (g/dL)+0.005×total lymphocyte count (per mm3) (13).
This study was compliant with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the institutional review board, and the need for written informed consent was waived because of the retrospective nature of the study.
Statistical analyses
To assess the sensitivity and specificity of the PNI for predicting the one-year survival of HCC patients treated with sorafenib, we determined the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and the Youden index was estimated to determine the optimum cut-off value for the PNI. We divided all patients into two groups according to the cut-off value of the PNI. Continuous variables were represented as the median [interquartile range (IQR)] and compared with a Mann-Whitney U test. Categorical variables were represented as the count (percentage) and compared with a chi-squared test or Fisher exact test when appropriate.
We defined an objective response as a complete response and partial response. The factors affecting the objective response were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses with a logistic regression model and the following factors were used: age, sex, underlying liver disease, platelet count, initial dose of sorafenib, naïve, number of tumors, maximum tumor diameter, macroscopic vascular invasion, extrahepatic metastasis, α-fetoprotein (AFP), des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin (DCP), and PNI. Variables with p<0.05 on a univariate analysis were subjected to a multivariate analysis.
The factors associated with the duration of sorafenib therapy and overall survival were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses by a Cox proportional hazard analysis. The following factors were used: age, sex, underlying liver disease, Child-Pugh, platelet count, initial dose of sorafenib, naive, previous hepatic resection, previous locoregional treatment, number of tumors, maximum tumor diameter, macroscopic vascular invasion, extrahepatic metastasis, AFP, DCP, and PNI. Variables with p<0.05 on a univariate analysis were subjected to a multivariate analysis.
The duration of sorafenib therapy and the survival curve were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using a log-rank test. We defined the duration of sorafenib therapy as the interval between the start date of sorafenib treatment and the date of discontinuation. We also defined the survival time as the interval between the start date of sorafenib treatment and death or the last visit to the outpatient clinic, until 28 February 2017. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were estimated by a logistic regression model and a Cox proportional hazard analysis. The results of univariate and multivariate analyses were presented as HR with the corresponding 95% CI and a p value. We dichotomized the continuous variables by a median of total patients. All statistical analyses were performed using the IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software version 24 (IBM SPSS 24, IBM, Armonk, USA).
Results
The area under the ROC curve, which was used to calculate the optimum cut-off value of the PNI for predicting the one-year survival, was 0.628. When the PNI was 46.77, the Youden index was maximized (Fig. 2). Therefore, the optimum cut-off value of the PNI was set at 46.8. We defined the 33 patients with a PNI≥46.8 as the PNI-high group and the 145 patients with a PNI＜46.8 as the PNI-low group.
Figure 2.
Result of receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, which was used to calculate optimum cut-off value of the PNI for predicting the one-year survival. PNI: prognostic nutritional index
The patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. The median age was 72 (IQR: 63-75) years in the PNI-high group and 71 (IQR: 64-77) years in the PNI-low group. The underlying liver disease was hepatitis B virus (HBV)/hepatitis C virus (HCV)/alcohol/others in 3 patients (9.1%)/18 patients (54.5%)/5 patients (15.2%)/7 patients (21.2%) in the PNI-high group and in 15 patients (10.3%)/88 patients (60.7%)/11 patients (7.6%)/31 patients (21.4%) in the PNI-low group, respectively. The Child-Pugh Class was A and B in 32 (97.0%) and 1 patient (3.0%) in the PNI-high group and in 120 (82.8%) and 25 patients (17.2%) in the PNI-low group, respectively. The BCLC stage was early, intermediate and advanced in 3 (9.1%), 9 (27.3%) and 21 patients (63.6%) in the PNI-high group and in 16 (11.0%), 49 (33.8%) and 80 patients (55.2%) in the PNI-low group, respectively. There were 12 (36.4%) naïve cases in the PNI-high group and 40 (27.6%) in the PNI-low group. The lymphocyte count, platelet count, prothrombin time, serum albumin, AFP, DCP, and macroscopic vascular invasion were significantly different between the two groups.
Table 1.
Patients’ Characteristics.
| PNI-high group (n=33) | PNI-low group (n=145) | p value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y) | 72 (63-75) | 71 (64-77) | 0.91 | |||
| Males, n (%) | 29 (87.9) | 115 (79.3) | 0.26 | |||
| Underlying liver disease, n (%) | 0.59 | |||||
| HBV | 3 (9.1) | 15 (10.3) | ||||
| HCV | 18 (54.5) | 88 (60.7) | ||||
| Alcohol | 5 (15.2) | 11 (7.6) | ||||
| Others | 7 (21.2) | 31 (21.4) | ||||
| Child-Pugh, n (%) | 0.052 | |||||
| A | 32 (97.0) | 120 (82.8) | ||||
| B | 1 (3.0) | 25 (17.2) | ||||
| Lymphocyte (/mm3) | 1,529 (1,200-2,020) | 988 (710-1,272) | <0.001 | |||
| Platelet count (×104/mm3) | 16.5 (12.2-24.1) | 11.8 (8.1-19.9) | 0.011 | |||
| ALT (IU/L) | 34 (22-51) | 36 (23-61) | 0.43 | |||
| Prothrombin time (%) | 92 (83-101) | 83 (75-93) | 0.002 | |||
| Albumin (g/dL) | 4.2 (4.0-4.4) | 3.3 (3.1-3.7) | <0.001 | |||
| Total bilirubin (mg/dL) | 0.7 (0.6-1.1) | 0.8 (0.6-1.3) | 0.31 | |||
| PNI | 49.1 (47.5-51.8) | 39.3 (35.3-42.4) | ||||
| AFP (ng/mL) | 44 (6.2-335) | 149 (16.8-1,210)† | 0.040 | |||
| DCP (mAU/mL) | 87.5 (26.5-1,000) | 371 (51-6,340) | 0.031 | |||
| Naïve, n (%) | 12 (36.4) | 40 (27.6) | 0.32 | |||
| Previous treatment, n (%) | ||||||
| Hepatic resection | 9 (27.3) | 23 (15.9) | 0.12 | |||
| Locoregional therapy | 10 (30.3) | 50 (34.5) | 0.65 | |||
| Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization | 21 (63.6) | 105 (72.4) | 0.32 | |||
| Number of the tumor, n (%) | 0.16 | |||||
| 1-3 | 15 (45.5) | 48 (33.1) | ||||
| ≥4 | 18 (54.5) | 97 (67.4) | ||||
| Maximum tumor diameter (cm) | 3.5 (2.3-6.1) | 3.6 (2.2-7.1) | 0.75 | |||
| BCLC, n (%) | 0.79 | |||||
| Early | 3 (9.1) | 16 (11.0) | ||||
| Intermediate | 9 (27.3) | 49 (33.8) | ||||
| Advanced | 21 (63.6) | 80 (55.2) | ||||
| Extrahepatic lesion, n (%) | 16 (48.5) | 59 (40.7) | 0.41 | |||
| Macroscopic vascular invasion, n (%) | 5 (15.2) | 28 (84.8) | 0.049 | |||
| Initial dose of sorafenib | 0.65 | |||||
| >400 mg | 8 (24.2) | 30 (20.7) | ||||
| ≤400 mg | 25 (75.8) | 115 (79.3) |
Continuous variables were represented by as the median (interquartile range). Categorical variables were represented as counts (percentages).
† There was two missing data in 4 patients.
PNI: prognostic nutritional index, HBV: hepatitis B virus, HCV: hepatitis C virus, ALT: alanine aminotransferase, AFP: α-fetoprotein, DCP: des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin, BCLC: Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer
The 1-year survival rates were 79.3% (95% CI: 64.6-93.6%) in the PNI-high group and 39.5% (95% CI: 31.3-47.7%) in the PNI-low group. The cumulative survival rate in the PNI-high group was significantly better than that in the PNI-low group (p=0.002) (Fig. 3). The median duration of sorafenib treatment was 287 (95% CI 67-506) days in the PNI-high group and 111 (95% CI 72-149) days in the PNI-low group. The duration of sorafenib treatment in the PNI-high group was longer than that in the PNI-low group (p=0.001) (Fig. 4).
Figure 3.
Overall survival. The Kaplan-Meier analyses estimated that the 1-year survival rates of HCC patients treated with sorafenib were 79.3% (95% CI: 64.6-93.6%) in the PNI-high group and 39.5% (95% CI: 31.3-47.7%) in the PNI-low group. The cumulative survival rate in the PNI-high group was significantly better than in the PNI-low group (p=0.002). PNI: prognostic nutritional index, HCC: hepatocellular carcinoma, CI: confidence interval
Figure 4.
Duration of sorafenib treatment. The graph illustrated that the median duration of sorafenib treatment was 287 (95% CI 67-506) days in the PNI-high group and 111 (95% CI 72-149) days in the PNI-low group. The patients in the PNI-high group received sorafenib treatment longer than those in the PNI-low group (p=0.001). PNI: prognostic nutritional index, CI: confidence interval
In the PNI-high group, complete response (CR) was shown in 2 patients (6.7%), while 4 patients (13.3%) had a partial response (PR), 14 patients (46.7%) had stable disease (SD), and 10 patients (33.3%) had progressive disease, thus resulting in a response rate of 20.0% and disease control rate of 66.7%. In the PNI-low group, no patients had CR, and PR was shown in 9 patients (8.1%), SD in 53 patients (48.6%) and PD in 48 patients (43.2%), resulting in a response rate of 8.1 and disease control rate of 56.8%. The best radiological response was not significantly different between the two groups (Table 2). Three patients in PNI-high group and 34 patients in PNI-low group were excluded because of its lack of evaluation radiographic imaging. We could not identify any factors predicting the objective response in a multivariate analysis with a logistic regression model since no variables had p<0.05 on a univariate analysis (Table 3).
Table 2.
A Summary of the Treatment Effect.
| PNI-high group (n=33) | PNI-low group (n=145) | p value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall survival (days) | ||||||
| Median (95% CI) | 778 (240-1,315) | 275 (230-319) | 0.002 | |||
| 1-year survival rate (95% CI) | 79.3 (64.6-93.6) | 39.5 (31.3-47.7) | ||||
| Duration of sorfenib therapy (days) | ||||||
| Median (95% CI) | 287 (67-506) | 111 (72-149) | 0.001 | |||
| Best radiological response, n (%)‡ | 0.061 | |||||
| CR | 2 (6.7) | 0 (0.0) | ||||
| PR | 4 (13.3) | 9 (8.1) | ||||
| SD | 14 (46.7) | 54 (48.6) | ||||
| PD | 10 (33.3) | 48 (43.2) | ||||
| Response rate (%) | 20.0 | 8.1 | 0.090 | |||
| Disease control rate (%) | 66.7 | 56.8 | 0.41 |
‡ Evaluated by the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST). Three patients in PNI-high group and 34 patients in PNI-low group were excluded because of its lack of evaluation radiographic imaging.
Categorical variables were represented as counts (percentages).
PNI: prognostic nutritional index, CI: confidence interval, CR: complete response, PR: partial response, SD: stable disease, PD: progressive disease
Table 3.
Pretreatment Factors Affecting the Objective Response.
| Variable | Hazard ratio (95% CI) | p value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis | ||||||
| Age | ≥71 years | 1.30 (0.44-3.81) | 0.63 | |||
| ≤70 years | 1 | |||||
| Sex | Male | 0.64 (0.14-3.00) | 0.58 | |||
| Female | 1 | |||||
| Underlying liver disease | HCV | 0.54 (0.18-1.57) | 0.25 | |||
| HBV, alcohol, other | 1 | |||||
| Platelet count | ≥14×104/mm3 | 0.82 (0.28-2.40) | 0.72 | |||
| <14×104/mm3 | 1 | |||||
| Initial dose of sorafenib | >400 mg | 0.46 (0.14-1.46) | 0.19 | |||
| ≤400 mg | 1 | |||||
| Naïve | Naïve | 0.78 (0.21-2.96) | 0.72 | |||
| Recurrence | 1 | |||||
| Number of tumors | 1, 2, 3 | 1.08 (0.36-3.22) | 0.89 | |||
| ≥4 | 1 | |||||
| Maximum tumor diameter | ≥3.5 cm | 1.20 (0.41-3.51) | 0.74 | |||
| <3.5 cm | 1 | |||||
| Macroscopic vascular invasion | Present | 1.08 (0.32-3.62) | 0.90 | |||
| Absent | 1 | |||||
| Extrahepatic metastasis | Present | 0.70 (0.24-2.04) | 0.51 | |||
| Absent | 1 | |||||
| AFP | ≥100 ng/mL | 1.16 (0.40-3.41) | 0.78 | |||
| <100 ng/mL | 1 | |||||
| DCP | ≥300 mAU/mL | 2.25 (0.66-7.71) | 0.20 | |||
| <300 mAU/mL | 1 | |||||
| PNI | The PNI-high group | 0.36 (0.12-1.11) | 0.075 | |||
| The PNI-low group | 1 |
CI: confidence interval, HCV: hepatitis C virus, HBV: hepatitis B virus, AFP: α-fetoprotein, DCP: des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin, PNI: prognostic nutritional index
In the univariate analysis by a Cox proportional hazard analysis, sex, Child-Pugh, platelet count, naïve, previous hepatic resection, previous locoregional treatment, maximum tumor diameter, AFP and PNI were factors affecting the duration of sorafenib therapy among pretreatment factors. Child-Pugh class A (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.37-0.89, p=0.013), previous locoregional treatment (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.42-0.82, p=0.002), AFP≥100 ng/mL (HR 1.52; 95%CI 1.11-2.09, p=0.009) and the PNI-high group (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.39-0.87, p=0.008) were independent factors affecting the duration of sorafenib therapy in a multivariate analysis by a Cox proportional hazard analysis (Table 4).
Table 4.
Pretreatment Factors Affecting the Duration of Sorfenib Therapy.
| Variable | Hazard ratio (95% CI) | p value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis | ||||||
| Age | ≥71 years | 1.21 (0.90-1.64) | 0.21 | |||
| ≤70 years | 1 | |||||
| Sex | Male | 0.66 (0.45-0.97) | 0.036 | |||
| Female | 1 | |||||
| Underlying liver disease | HCV | 1.14 (0.84-1.54) | 0.40 | |||
| HBV, alcohol, other | 1 | |||||
| Child-Pugh | A | 0.49 (0.32-0.74) | 0.001 | |||
| B | 1 | |||||
| Platelet count | ≥14×104/mm3 | 0.72 (0.53-0.97) | 0.033 | |||
| <14×104/mm3 | 1 | |||||
| Initial dose of sorafenib | >400 mg | 1.02 (0.71-1.47) | 0.91 | |||
| ≤400 mg | 1 | |||||
| Naïve | Naïve | 0.62 (0.44-0.85) | 0.004 | |||
| Recurrence | 1 | |||||
| Previous hepatic resection | Present | 0.62 (0.42-0.91) | 0.015 | |||
| Absent | 1 | |||||
| Previous locoregional treatment | Present | 0.58 (0.42-0.80) | 0.001 | |||
| Absent | 1 | |||||
| Number of tumors | 1, 2, 3 | 1.27 (0.93-1.74) | 0.133 | |||
| ≥4 | 1 | |||||
| Maximum tumor diameter | ≥3.5 cm | 1.39 (1.03-1.89) | 0.034 | |||
| <3.5 cm | 1 | |||||
| Macroscopic vascular invasion | Present | 1.28 (0.92-1.78) | 0.14 | |||
| Absent | 1 | |||||
| Extrahepatic metastasis | Present | 0.82 (0.60-1.11) | 0.20 | |||
| Absent | 1 | |||||
| AFP | ≥100 ng/mL | 1.49 (1.10-2.03) | 0.01 | |||
| <100 ng/mL | 1 | |||||
| DCP | ≥300 mAU/mL | 1.32 (0.97-1.80) | 0.078 | |||
| <300 mAU/mL | 1 | |||||
| PNI | The PNI-high group | 0.51 (0.34-0.75) | 0.001 | |||
| The PNI-low group | 1 | |||||
| Multivariate analysis | ||||||
| Child-Pugh | A | 0.57 (0.37-0.89) | 0.013 | |||
| B | 1 | |||||
| Previous locoregional treatment | Present | 0.58 (0.42-0.82) | 0.002 | |||
| Absent | 1 | |||||
| AFP | ≥100 ng/mL | 1.52 (1.11-2.09) | 0.009 | |||
| <100 ng/mL | 1 | |||||
| PNI | The PNI-high group | 0.58 (0.39-0.87) | 0.008 | |||
| The PNI-low group | 1 |
CI: confidence interval, HCV: hepatitis C virus, HBV: hepatitis B virus, AFP: α-fetoprotein, DCP: des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin, PNI: prognostic nutritional index
In the analysis of factors predictive of the overall survival, Child-Pugh, naïve, previous hepatic resection, maximum tumor diameter, macroscopic vascular invasion, AFP, DCP, and PNI were identified on a univariate analysis by a Cox proportional hazard analysis. Child-Pugh class A (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.34-0.96, p=0.033), previous hepatic resection (HR 0.60; 95% CI 0.37-0.99, p=0.050), maximum tumor diameter ≥3.5 cm (HR 1.66; 95% CI 1.15-2.40, p=0.007), AFP ≥100 ng/mL (HR 1.78; 95%CI 1.24-2.55, p=0.002) and the PNI-high group (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.39-0.99, p=0.046) were independent factors associated with the overall survival in a multivariate analysis by a Cox proportional hazard analysis (Table 5).
Table 5.
Pretreatment Factors Affecting the Overall Survival.
| Variable | Hazard ratio (95% CI) | p value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Univariate analysis | ||||||
| Age | ≥71 years | 1.04 (0.75-1.45) | 0.82 | |||
| ≤70 years | 1 | |||||
| Sex | Male | 1.01 (0.66-1.53) | 0.98 | |||
| Female | 1 | |||||
| Underlying liver disease | HCV | 11.23 (0.88-1.72) | 0.23 | |||
| HBV, alcohol, other | 1 | |||||
| Child-Pugh | A | 0.57 (0.34-0.84) | 0.007 | |||
| B | 1 | |||||
| Platelet count | ≥14×104/mm3 | 0.72 (0.52-1.01) | 0.058 | |||
| <14×104/mm3 | 1 | |||||
| Initial dose of sorafenib | >400 mg | 1.03 (0.69-1.52) | 0.89 | |||
| ≤400 mg | 1 | |||||
| Naïve | Naïve | 0.59 (0.41-0.85) | 0.004 | |||
| Recurrence | 1 | |||||
| Previous hepatic resection | Present | 0.55 (0.35-0.87) | 0.010 | |||
| Absent | 1 | |||||
| Previous locoregional treatment | Present | 1.40 (0.98-1.99) | 0.067 | |||
| Absent | 1 | |||||
| Number of tumors | 1, 2, 3 | 1.34 (0.94-1.90) | 0.11 | |||
| ≥4 | 1 | |||||
| Maximum tumor diameter | ≥3.5 cm | 1.68 (1.19-2.36) | 0.003 | |||
| <3.5 cm | 1 | |||||
| Macroscopic vascular invasion | Present | 1.57 (1.02-2.42) | 0.042 | |||
| Absent | 1 | |||||
| Extrahepatic metastasis | Present | 1.11 (0.79-1.55) | 0.55 | |||
| Absent | 1 | |||||
| AFP | ≥100 ng/mL | 1.89 (1.34-2.65) | <0.001 | |||
| <100 ng/mL | 1 | |||||
| DCP | ≥300 mAU/mL | 1.56 (1.11-2.20) | 0.010 | |||
| <300 mAU/mL | 1 | |||||
| PNI | The PNI-high group | 0.50 (0.32-0.79) | 0.003 | |||
| The PNI-low group | 1 | |||||
| Multivariate analysis | ||||||
| Child-Pugh | A | 0.57 (0.34-0.96) | 0.033 | |||
| B | 1 | |||||
| Previous hepatic resection | Present | 0.60 (0.37-0.99) | 0.050 | |||
| Absent | 1 | |||||
| Maximum tumor diameter | ≥3.5 cm | 1.66 (1.15-2.40) | 0.007 | |||
| <3.5 cm | 1 | |||||
| AFP | ≥100 ng/mL | 1.78 (1.24-2.55) | 0.002 | |||
| <100 ng/mL | 1 | |||||
| PNI | The PNI-high group | 0.62 (0.39-0.99) | 0.046 | |||
| The PNI-low group | 1 |
CI: confidence interval, HCV: hepatitis C virus, HBV: hepatitis B virus, AFP: α-fetoprotein, DCP: des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin, PNI: prognostic nutritional index
Among the drug-related adverse events, HFSR was the most frequent adverse event in both groups. While the rate of grade 3/4 severity HFSR was not significantly different between the two groups, the rate of all-grade HFSR was significantly higher in the PNI-high group than in the PNI-low group. Other commonly experienced adverse events were fatigue and diarrhea. The rate of adverse events of all grades other than HFSR was not significantly different between the two groups (Table 6).
Table 6.
Drug-related Adverse Events.
| PNI-high group (n=33) | PNI-low group (n=145) | p value | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All grade | Grade 3/4 | All grade | Grade 3/4 | All grade | Grade 3/4 | |||
| Fatigue | 8 (24.2) | 0 (0) | 36 (24.8) | 2 (1.4) | 0.94 | 1.00 | ||
| Hand-foot skin reaction | 22 (66.7) | 4 (12.1) | 53 (36.6) | 11 (7.6) | 0.002 | 0.40 | ||
| Diarrhea | 14 (42.4) | 1 (3.0) | 39 (26.9) | 6 (4.1) | 0.078 | 0.77 | ||
| Nausea | 2 (6.1) | 0 (0) | 22 (15.2) | 1 (0.7) | 0.26 | 1.00 | ||
| Vomitting | 1 (3.0) | 0 (0) | 5 (3.4) | 0 (0) | 1.00 | NA | ||
| Rash/desquamation | 7 (21.2) | 1 (3.0) | 24 (16.6) | 1 (0.7) | 0.53 | 0.34 | ||
| Hypertension | 3 (9.1) | 1 (3.0) | 16 (11.0) | 3 (2.1) | 0.74 | 0.56 | ||
| Upper GI hemorrhage | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (1.4) | 1 (0.7) | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
The data are expressed as the counts (percentage).
PNI: prognostic nutritional index, NA: not available, GI: gastrointestinal
Discussion
The major finding of our study was that the PNI was the significant factor associated with the duration of sorafenib therapy and the overall survival among pretreatment factors although there were no significant differences in the sorafenib efficacy and rate of serious adverse events between the two groups. Because several factors were significantly different between the two groups, we used the multivariate analysis to avoid any confounding factors, thus demonstrating that a high PNI was a significant factor associated with the duration of sorafenib therapy and the overall survival.
Some researchers have reported predictive markers for the survival in patients receiving sorafenib treatment. Llovet et al. (20) reported that baseline vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A), hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) and Angiopoietin-2 levels were plasma biomarkers predicting the overall survival of HCC patients treated with sorafenib. The α-fetoprotein response (21,22), changes in the dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI findings (23) and drug-related adverse events, such as hypertension (24) and toxic skin reaction (25,26), have also been suggested as potential early surrogate markers. However, these plasma biomarkers are not available in daily clinical practice and cannot be used for making treatment decisions in advance. In contrast, we emphasized that the PNI, the value of which can be easily calculated based on the serum albumin and total lymphocyte count at baseline, can be measured in daily clinical practice and it is a reliable marker for predicting the overall survival, based on our results.
Several investigators (27-29) recently showed that the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was associated with the overall survival of HCC patients administered sorafenib. Because the NLR is shown to be easily affected by many comorbidities, such as acute coronary syndrome, diabetes mellitus, essential hypertension, renal failure and thyroid disease (30), caution must be practiced when using the NLR to predict the overall survival of HCC patients, especially in Japanese HCC patients, who tend to be older than those in other countries (31).
The preoperative PNI was initially intended to evaluate the nutritional and immunological status of patients with gastrointestinal malignant tumors (13). Regarding HCC, some investigators (17,18) have reported that the PNI influences the survival of HCC patients at an early stage while undergoing surgical treatment. Pinato et al. (32) also reported that the PNI was an independent factor associated with the survival of HCC patients treated with locoregional treatment, systemic treatment and best supportive care. However, the role of the PNI in patients with advanced HCC treated with sorafenib remains uncertain. Our study corroborates these previous findings and extends them by showing that the PNI is a good marker for assessing the overall survival of patients with advanced HCC treated with sorafenib.
Precisely why the PNI influences the overall survival of HCC patients treated with sorafenib remains unclear. Several mechanisms have been proposed. Albumin is affected not only by the liver function due to underlying liver disease but also by cancer-related inflammation (33). Albumin is a well-known prognostic factor for HCC patients and has been included in some staging systems, such as the Japan Integrated Staging score (JIS score) and the Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP) score (34,35). Lymphocytes play a crucial role in the host immune response, helping inhibit the formation and progression of tumors (36). In the tumor microenvironment, the presence of dense or conspicuous lymphocyte infiltration has been reported to be associated with a better outcome in patients with various common solid tumors (33). Previous reports on HCC have found that an increased number of tumor-infiltrating effector T lymphocytes is associated with better prognostic results after surgical resection (37), and reduced lymphocyte infiltration is a negative predictive factor affecting tumor recurrence after liver transplantation (38). Another mechanism that had been suggested is that a longer duration of sorafenib treatment inhibits tumor progression, thereby leading to a better overall survival.
According to the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN) guidelines (39), the rate of response to chemotherapy and its duration are poorer in cancer patients with malnutrition than in those with a good nutritional status. With respect to duration, it is consistent with the present findings that the PNI is the predictive factor of the duration of sorafenib therapy. However, we failed to detect a relationship between the PNI and the patients’ response to sorafenib therapy. A larger number of cases may be needed to detect significant differences, as the response of sorafenib therapy for HCC is low (10,11).
The drug-related adverse events found in our study were similar to those reported in the GIDEON study (31), with HFSR being the most frequently reported event. In our study, the rate of all-grade HFSR was significantly higher in the PNI-high group than in the PNI-low group. This may be due to the longer duration of sorafenib treatment in the PNI-high group than in the PNI-low group. Patients with HFSR may also have a better prognosis than those without HFSR, based on the findings of a previous report (25).
Several limitations associated with the present study warrant mention. First, this is a retrospective study. Second, we did not routinely measure the lymphocyte count at pretreatment, and we excluded those cases lacking data on the lymphocyte count. Third, the optimum cut-off value of the PNI needs to be validated. A large-scale prospective validation study is needed to confirm the optimum cut-off value of the PNI.
In conclusion, this study demonstrated that the PNI was a simple and useful marker for predicting the duration of sorafenib therapy and the overall survival of patients with advanced HCC treated with sorafenib. Assessing the nutritional status using the PNI may provide clinicians better prognostic information for determining the efficacy of sorafenib treatment.
The authors state that they have no Conflict of Interest (COI).
References
- 1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136: E359-E386, 2015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. McGlynn KA, Petrick JL, London WT. Global epidemiology of hepatocellular carcinoma: an emphasis on demographic and regional variability. Clin Liver Dis 19: 223-238, 2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Bruix J, Reig M, Sherman M. Evidence-based diagnosis, staging, and treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 150: 835-853, 2016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Bruix J, Sherman M. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 53: 1020-1022, 2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Kudo M, Matsui O, Izumi N, et al. JSH consensus-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: 2014 update by the Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan. Liver Cancer 3: 458-468, 2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 56: 908-943, 2012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Forner A, Gilabert M, Bruix J, Raoul JL. Treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 11: 525-535, 2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Chang YS, Adnane J, Trail PA, et al. Sorafenib (BAY 43-9006) inhibits tumor growth and vascularization and induces tumor apoptosis and hypoxia in RCC xenograft models. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 59: 561-574, 2007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Wilhelm SM, Carter C, Tang L, et al. 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. Cancer Res 64: 7099-7109, 2004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 359: 378-390, 2008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. 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 10: 25-34, 2009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. 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 389: 56-66, 2017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Onodera T, Goseki N, Kosaki G. [Prognostic nutritional index in gastrointestinal surgery of malnourished cancer patients]. Nihon Geka Gakkai Zasshi (J Jpn Surg Soc) 85: 1001-1005, 1984(in Japanese, Abstract in English). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Nozoe T, Ninomiya M, Maeda T, Matsukuma A, Nakashima H, Ezaki T. Prognostic nutritional index: a tool to predict the biological aggressiveness of gastric carcinoma. Surg Today 40: 440-443, 2010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Jiang N, Deng JY, Ding XW, et al. Prognostic nutritional index predicts postoperative complications and long-term outcomes of gastric cancer. World J Gastroenterol 20: 10537-10544, 2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Nozoe T, Kohno M, Iguchi T, et al. The prognostic nutritional index can be a prognostic indicator in colorectal carcinoma. Surg Today 42: 532-535, 2012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Chan AW, Chan SL, Wong GL, et al. Prognostic nutritional index (PNI) predicts tumor recurrence of very early/early stage hepatocellular carcinoma after surgical resection. Ann Surg Oncol 22: 4138-4148, 2015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Okamura Y, Sugiura T, Ito T, Yamamoto Y, Ashida R, Uesaka K. The optimal cut-off value of the preoperative prognostic nutritional index for the survival differs according to the TNM stage in hepatocellular carcinoma. Surg Today 47: 986-993, 2017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Bruix J, Sherman M. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 42: 1208-1236, 2005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Llovet JM, Pena CE, Lathia CD, Shan M, Meinhardt G, Bruix J. Plasma biomarkers as predictors of outcome in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 18: 2290-2300, 2012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Personeni N, Bozzarelli S, Pressiani T, et al. Usefulness of alpha-fetoprotein response in patients treated with sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 57: 101-107, 2012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Yau T, Yao TJ, Chan P, et al. The significance of early alpha-fetoprotein level changes in predicting clinical and survival benefits in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients receiving sorafenib. Oncologist 16: 1270-1279, 2011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Hsu CY, Shen YC, Yu CW, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers predict survival and response in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib and metronomic tegafur/uracil. J Hepatol 55: 858-865, 2011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Estfan B, Byrne M, Kim R. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: hypertension as a potential surrogate marker for efficacy. Am J Clin Oncol 36: 319-324, 2013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Otsuka T, Eguchi Y, Kawazoe S, et al. Skin toxicities and survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib. Hepatol Res 42: 879-886, 2012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Lee S, Kim BK, Kim SU, et al. Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib as first-line therapy: a Korean multicenter study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 29: 1463-1469, 2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Bruix J, Cheng AL, Meinhardt G, Nakajima K, De Sanctis Y, Llovet J. Prognostic factors and predictors of sorafenib benefit in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: analysis of two phase III studies. J Hepatol 67: 999-1008, 2017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Zheng YB, Zhao W, Liu B, et al. The blood neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio predicts survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma receiving sorafenib. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 14: 5527-5531, 2013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. da Fonseca LG, Barroso-Sousa R, Bento Ada S, et al. Pre-treatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio affects survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib. Med Oncol 31: 264, 2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Tanoglu A, Karagoz E. Predictive role of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma receiving sorafenib. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15: 1063, 2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Kudo M, Ikeda M, Takayama T, et al. Safety and efficacy of sorafenib in Japanese patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in clinical practice: a subgroup analysis of GIDEON. J Gastroenterol 51: 1150-1160, 2016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Pinato DJ, North BV, Sharma R. A novel, externally validated inflammation-based prognostic algorithm in hepatocellular carcinoma: the prognostic nutritional index (PNI). Br J Cancer 106: 1439-1445, 2012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Diakos CI, Charles KA, McMillan DC, Clarke SJ. Cancer-related inflammation and treatment effectiveness. Lancet Oncol 15: e493-503, 2014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Kudo M, Chung H, Haji S, et al. Validation of a new prognostic staging system for hepatocellular carcinoma: the JIS score compared with the CLIP score. Hepatology 40: 1396-1405, 2004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. The Cancer of the Liver Itailan Program (CLIP) investigators A new prognostic system for hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study of 435 patients: the Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP) investigators. Hepatology 28: 751-755, 1998. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144: 646-674, 2011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Wada Y, Nakashima O, Kutami R, Yamamoto O, Kojiro M. Clinicopathological study on hepatocellular carcinoma with lymphocytic infiltration. Hepatology 27: 407-414, 1998. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Unitt E, Marshall A, Gelson W, et al. Tumour lymphocytic infiltrate and recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma following liver transplantation. J Hepatol 45: 246-253, 2006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Bozzetti F, Arends J, Lundholm K, Micklewright A, Zurcher G, Muscaritoli M. ESPEN Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition: non-surgical oncology. Clin Nutr 28: 445-454, 2009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]