Purpose

To compare currently available non-three-dimensional methods (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST], European Association for Study of the Liver [EASL], modified RECIST [mRECIST[) with three-dimensional (3D) quantitative methods of the index tumor as early response markers in predicting patient survival after initial transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE).

Materials and methods

This was a retrospective single-institution HIPAA-compliant and institutional review board-approved study. From November 2001 to November 2008, 491 consecutive patients underwent intraarterial therapy for liver cancer with either conventional TACE or TACE with drug-eluting beads. A diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was made in 290 of these patients. The response of the index tumor on pre- and post-TACE magnetic resonance images was assessed retrospectively in 78 treatment-naïve patients with HCC (63 male; mean age, 63 years ± 11 [standard deviation]). Each response assessment method (RECIST, mRECIST, EASL, and 3D methods of volumetric RECIST [vRECIST] and quantitative EASL [qEASL]) was used to classify patients as responders or nonresponders by following standard guidelines for the uni- and bidimensional measurements and by using the formula for a sphere for the 3D measurements. The Kaplan-Meier method with the log-rank test was performed for each method to evaluate its ability to help predict survival of responders and nonresponders. Uni- and multivariate Cox proportional hazard ratio models were used to identify covariates that had significant association with survival.

Results

The uni- and bidimensional measurements of RECIST (hazard ratio, 0.6; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.3, 1.0; P = .09), mRECIST (hazard ratio, 0.6; 95% CI: 0.6, 1.0; P = .05), and EASL (hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% CI: 0.6, 2.2; P = .75) did not show a significant difference in survival between responders and nonresponders, whereas vRECIST (hazard ratio, 0.6; 95% CI: 0.3, 1.0; P = .04), qEASL (Vol) (hazard ratio, 0.5; 95% CI: 0.3, 0.9; P = .02), and qEASL (%) (hazard ratio, 0.3; 95% CI: 0.15, 0.60; P < .001) did show a significant difference between these groups.

Conclusion

The 3D-based imaging biomarkers qEASL and vRECIST were tumor response criteria that could be used to predict patient survival early after initial TACE and enabled clear identification of nonresponders.

Lessons learned

Androgen receptor as assessed by immunohistochemistry is expressed in a high proportion of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Enzalutamide at 160 mg orally daily is safe and tolerable in patients with advanced HCC but has no single-agent antitumor activity. Enzalutamide, a CYP3A4 inducer, at a standard dose of 160 mg reduces the exposure of sorafenib, a CYP3A4 substrate. Enzalutamide and sorafenib is safe and tolerable in patients with advanced HCC, but the addition of enzalutamide to sorafenib did not enhance the antitumor activity of sorafenib.

Background

Androgen receptor (AR) interference is deleterious to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in preclinical models.

Methods

This is a multicenter, phase Ib study of enzalutamide ± sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC. In part 1, a 3 + 3 dose de-escalation design with expansion established the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of enzalutamide in patients in whom sorafenib treatment had failed. In part 2, a 3 + 3 dose escalation with expansion established the safety of enzalutamide with sorafenib in treatment-naive patients with HCC. Secondary objectives included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), pharmacokinetics (PK), and determination of AR expression by immunohistochemistry. A 7-day run-in with sorafenib alone in part 2 allowed assessment of the impact of enzalutamide on sorafenib pharmacokinetics.

Results

In part 1, 16 patients received enzalutamide 160 mg daily. No dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) occurred; 1 patient required dose reduction. Responses were not observed; median PFS and OS were 1.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6-3.6) and 7 (95% CI: 3.6 to not reached [NR]) months, respectively. In part 2, patients received sorafenib 400 mg daily (4) or twice a day (8) both with enzalutamide at the recommended phase II dose-no DLTs were observed. ORR was 10% (95% CI: 0.3-44.5), and median PFS and OS were 2.9 (95% CI: 1.6 to NR) and 6.7 (95% CI: 4.6 to NR) months, respectively. Enzalutamide reduced sorafenib exposure by 60%. Tumor AR expression did not associate with outcome.

Conclusion

Enzalutamide is ineffective in HCC; further development is not supported by this study.