SNFGE SNFGE
 
Thématique :
- Carcinome hépatocellulaire (CHC)
Originalité :
Très original
Solidité :
Très solide
Doit faire évoluer notre pratique :
Dans certains cas
 
 
Nom du veilleur :
Dr Yann TOUCHEFEU
Coup de coeur :
 
 
Journal of clinical oncology (JCO)
  2018/03  
 
  2018 Mar:JCO2017760892.  
  doi: 10.1200/JCO.2017.76.0892  
 
  SIRveNIB: Selective Internal Radiation Therapy Versus Sorafenib in Asia-Pacific Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma.  
 
  Chow PKH, Gandhi M, Tan SB, Khin MW, Khasbazar A, Ong J, Choo SP, Cheow PC, Chotipanich C, Lim K, Lesmana LA, Manuaba TW, Yoong BK, Raj A, Law CS, Cua IHY, Lobo RR, Teh CSC, Kim YH, Jong YW, Han HS, Bae SH, Yoon HK, Lee RC, Hung CF, Peng CY, Liang PC, Bartlett A, Kok KYY, Thng CH, Low AS, Goh ASW, Tay KH, Lo RHG, Goh BKP, Ng DCE, Lekurwale G, Liew WM, Gebski V, Mak KSW, Soo KC; Asia-Pacific Hepatocellular Carcinoma Trials Group.  
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29498924  
 
 

Abstract

Purpose Selective internal radiation therapy or radioembolization (RE) shows efficacy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) limited to the liver. This study compared the safety and efficacy of RE and sorafenib in patients with locally advanced HCC.

Patients and Methods SIRveNIB (selective internal radiation therapy v sorafenib), an open-label, investigator-initiated, phase III trial, compared yttrium-90 (90Y) resin microspheres RE with sorafenib 800 mg/d in patients with locally advanced HCC in a two-tailed study designed for superiority/detriment. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 and stratified by center and presence of portal vein thrombosis. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Efficacy analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses in the treated population.

Results A total of 360 patients were randomly assigned (RE, 182; sorafenib, 178) from 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. In the RE and sorafenib groups, 28.6% and 9.0%, respectively, failed to receive assigned therapy without significant cross-over to either group. Median OS was 8.8 and 10.0 months with RE and sorafenib, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9 to 1.4; P = .36). A total of 1,468 treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were reported (RE, 437; sorafenib, 1,031). Significantly fewer patients in the RE than sorafenib group had grade ≥ 3 AEs (36 of 130 [27.7%]) v 82 of 162 [50.6%]; P < .001). The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs were ascites (five of 130 [3.8%] v four of 162 [2.5%] patients), abdominal pain (three [2.3%] v two [1.2%] patients), anemia (zero v four [2.5%] patients), and radiation hepatitis (two [1.5%] v zero [0%] patients). Fewer patients in the RE group (27 of 130 [20.8%]) than in the sorafenib group (57 of 162 [35.2%]) had serious AEs.

Conclusion In patients with locally advanced HCC, OS did not differ significantly between RE and sorafenib. The improved toxicity profile of RE may inform treatment choice in selected patients.

 

 
Question posée
 
Comparée au sorafénib, une radio-embolisation par microsphères chargées à l’Yttrium-90 (SIR-SPHERE ®) améliore-t–elle la survie globale des patients ayant un carcinome hépatocellulaire localement avancé ?
 
Question posée
 
Non.
 
Commentaires

Cette étude asiatique est négative, avec des résultats comparables à l’étude SARAH, soit l’absence de bénéfice en survie et un profil de tolérance favorable à la radioembolisation. Il faut noter que l’HAS a rendu récemment un avis favorable au remboursement de Therasphere® avec thrombose portale, chez des patients non éligibles ou en échec au sorafénib.

 
www.snfge.org