Comparison of skeletal muscle mass loss in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with regorafenib or TAS-102

Purpose: To assess whether regorafenib and TAS-102 treatments are associated with a change in Skeletal Muscle Area (SMA) as well as to compare Skeletal Muscle Mass (SMM) loss levels between regorafenib and TAS-102 treatments and prognostic significance in the patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methods: A total of 36 mCRC patients, who received regorafenib or TAS-102 in the third-line and subsequent settings were assessed in the analysis. SMM changes were assessed with CT scans findings, and they were categorized into two groups as SMM-loss (SMM decrease ≥2%) and SMM-stable (SMM change <2%). Results: The SMM change after regorafenib therapy was significantly worse compared with TAS-102 therapy (p=0.001). The median overall survival (OS) was longer in SMM-stable group than in SMM-loss group (12.8 months; 95%CI:9.8-15.7) vs. 6.4 months; 95%CI:5.2-7.7, respectively;p=0.04). Cox regression analysis showed that SMM loss was independent prognostic indicator for OS (HR, 2.87; 95%CI: 1.07-7.42, p=0.03). Conclusion: Although patients who received regorafenib had more SMM loss than those who received TAS-102, there was no difference in OS between drugs

Efficacy of regorafenib in the second-and third-line setting for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A real life data of multicenter study from Turkey

*Sezgin Göksu, Sema ( Aksaray, Yazar )Purpose: After failure of the first-line sorafenib treatment in advanced or metastatic stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), regorafenib is one of the newly-approved targeted agents. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of regorafenib in patients with advanced HCC treated in the second- or third-line setting. Methods: In this retrospective and multicenter study, advanced HCC patients not eligible for local therapies, who received a second- or third-line regorafenib therapy after progression on the first-line sorafenib or sequential therapy with chemotherapy (CT) followed by sorafenib, were included. Results: In the first-line setting, 28 (28.9%) patients received CT and 69 (71.1%) patients received sorafenib. There were 24 (24.7%) patients who were intolerant to sorafenib. Disease control rate (DCR) was 53.6% for all patients treated with regorafenib, 62.3% in patients who received regorafenib in the second-line, and 32.1% for those receiving regorafenib in the third-line (p=0.007). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 5.6 (range; 4.3-6.9) and 8.8 (range, 6.3-11.3) months for all patients treated with regorafenib vs. 7.1 months and 10.3 months for patients who received regorafenib in the second-line vs. 5.1 and 8.7 months for patients who received regorafenib in the third-line, respectively; however, there was no statistically significant difference (pPFS=0.22 and pOS=0.85). Conclusion: Although receiving CT as a first-line therapy in advanced HCC patients did not affect the survival rates of subsequent regorafenib therapy, it might diminish the DCR of regorafenib