Randomised, multicentre prospective trial of transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) plus sorafenib as compared with TACE alone in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: TACTICS trial.

OBJECTIVE:This trial compared the efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) plus sorafenib with TACE alone using a newly established TACE-specific endpoint and pre-treatment of sorafenib before initial TACE. DESIGN:Patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were randomised to TACE plus sorafenib (n=80) or TACE alone (n=76). Patients in the combination group received sorafenib 400 mg once daily for 2-3 weeks before TACE, followed by 800 mg once daily during on-demand conventional TACE sessions until time to untreatable (unTACEable) progression (TTUP), defined as untreatable tumour progression, transient deterioration to Child-Pugh C or appearance of vascular invasion/extrahepatic spread. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), which is not a conventional one but defined as TTUP, or time to any cause of death plus overall survival (OS). Multiplicity was adjusted by gatekeeping hierarchical testing. RESULTS:Median PFS was significantly longer in the TACE plus sorafenib than in the TACE alone group (25.2 vs 13.5 months; p=0.006). OS was not analysed because only 73.6% of OS events were reached. Median TTUP (26.7 vs 20.6 months; p=0.02) was also significantly longer in the TACE plus sorafenib group. OS at 1 year and 2 years in TACE plus sorafenib group and TACE alone group were 96.2% and 82.7% and 77.2% and 64.6%, respectively. There were no unexpected toxicities. CONCLUSION:TACE plus sorafenib significantly improved PFS over TACE alone in patients with unresectable HCC. Adverse events were consistent with those of previous TACE combination trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT01217034

Identifying and prioritizing strategies for comprehensive liver cancer control in Asia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Liver cancer is both common and burdensome in Asia. Effective liver cancer control, however, is hindered by a complex etiology and a lack of coordination across clinical disciplines. We sought to identify strategies for inclusion in a comprehensive liver cancer control for Asia and to compare qualitative and quantitative methods for prioritization.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Qualitative interviews (N = 20) with international liver cancer experts were used to identify strategies using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis and to formulate an initial prioritization through frequency analysis. Conjoint analysis, a quantitative stated-preference method, was then applied among Asian liver cancer experts (N = 20) who completed 12 choice tasks that divided these strategies into two mutually exclusive and exhaustive subsets. Respondents' preferred plan was the primary outcome in a choice model, estimated using ordinary least squares (OLS) and logistic regression. Priorities were then compared using Spearman's Rho.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eleven strategies were identified: <it>Access to treatments; Centers of excellence; Clinical education; Measuring social burden; Monitoring of at-risk populations; Multidisciplinary management; National guidelines; Public awareness; Research infrastructure; Risk-assessment and referral</it>; and <it>Transplantation infrastructure</it>. Qualitative frequency analysis indicated that <it>Risk-assessment and referral </it>(85%), <it>National guidelines </it>(80%) and <it>Monitoring of at-risk populations </it>(80%) received the highest priority, while conjoint analysis pointed to <it>Monitoring of at-risk populations </it>(p < 0.001), <it>Centers of excellence </it>(p = 0.002), and <it>Access to treatments </it>(p = 0.004) as priorities, while <it>Risk-assessment and referral </it>was the lowest priority (p = 0.645). We find moderate concordance between the qualitative and quantitative methods (rho = 0.20), albeit insignificant (p = 0.554), and a strong concordance between the OLS and logistic regressions (rho = 0.979; p < 0.0001).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Identified strategies can be conceptualized as the ABCs of comprehensive liver cancer control as they focus on <it>Antecedents</it>, <it>Better care </it>and <it>Connections </it>within a national strategy. Some concordance was found between the qualitative and quantitative methods (e.g. <it>Monitoring of at-risk populations</it>), but substantial differences were also identified (e.g. qualitative methods gave highest priority to risk-assessment and referral, but it was the lowest for the quantitative methods), which may be attributed to differences between the methods and study populations, and potential framing effects in choice tasks. Continued research will provide more generalizable estimates of priorities and account for variation across stakeholders and countries.</p