Supplementary Material for: A Randomized Phase II Open-Label Multi-Institution Study of the Combination of Bevacizumab and Erlotinib Compared to Sorafenib in the First-Line Treatment of Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma
datasetposted on 02.05.2018 by Thomas M.B., Garrett-Mayer E., Anis M., Anderton K., Bentz T., Edwards A., Brisendine A., Weiss G., Siegel A.B., Bendell J., Baron A., Duddalwar V., El-Khoueiry A.
Datasets usually provide raw data for analysis. This raw data often comes in spreadsheet form, but can be any collection of data, on which analysis can be performed.
Objectives: To investigate the clinical efficacy and tolerability of the combination of bevacizumab (B) and erlotinib (E) compared to sorafenib (S) as first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: A total of 90 patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class A–B7 cirrhosis, and no prior systemic therapy were randomly assigned (1: 1) to receive either 10 mg/kg B intravenously every 14 days and 150 mg E orally daily (n = 47) (B+E) or 400 mg S orally twice daily (n = 43). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included event-free survival (EFS), objective response rate based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST 1.1), time to progression, and safety and tolerability. Results: The median OS was 8.55 months (95% CI: 7.00–13.9) for patients treated with B+E and 8.55 months (95% CI: 5.69–12.2) for patients receiving S. The hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.57–1.47). The median EFS was 4.37 months (95% CI: 2.99–7.36) for patients receiving B+E and 2.76 months (95% CI: 1.84–4.80) for patients receiving S. The HR for EFS was 0.67 (95% CI: 0.42–1.07; p = 0.09), favoring B+E over S. When OS was assessed among patients who were Child-Pugh class A, the median OS was 11.4 months (95% CI: 7.5–15.7) for patients treated with B+E (n = 39) and 10.26 months (95% CI: 5.9–13.0) for patients treated with S (n = 38) (HR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.53–1.46). Conclusions: There was no difference in efficacy between the B+E and S arms, although the safety and tolerability profile tended to favor B+E over S based on competing risk analysis.