Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2021 Sep 20;39(27):3002-3011.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.21.00163. Epub 2021 Jun 29.

Donafenib Versus Sorafenib in First-Line Treatment of Unresectable or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel-Controlled Phase II-III Trial

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Donafenib Versus Sorafenib in First-Line Treatment of Unresectable or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel-Controlled Phase II-III Trial

Shukui Qin et al. J Clin Oncol. .

Abstract

Purpose: Donafenib, a novel multikinase inhibitor and a deuterated sorafenib derivative, has shown efficacy in phase Ia and Ib hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) studies. This study compared the efficacy and safety of donafenib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy for advanced HCC.

Patients and methods: This open-label, randomized, parallel-controlled, multicenter phase II-III trial enrolled patients with unresectable or metastatic HCC, a Child-Pugh score ≤ 7, and no prior systemic therapy from 37 sites across China. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral donafenib (0.2 g) or sorafenib (0.4 g) twice daily until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), tested for noninferiority and superiority. Efficacy was primarily assessed in the full analysis set (FAS), and safety was assessed in all treated patients.

Results: Between March 21, 2016, and April 16, 2018, 668 patients (intention-to-treat) were randomly assigned to donafenib and sorafenib treatment arms; the FAS included 328 and 331 patients, respectively. Median OS was significantly longer with donafenib than sorafenib treatment (FAS; 12.1 v 10.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.831; 95% CI, 0.699 to 0.988; P = .0245); donafenib also exhibited superior OS outcomes versus sorafenib in the intention-to-treat population. The median progression-free survival was 3.7 v 3.6 months (P = .0570). The objective response rate was 4.6% v 2.7% (P = .2448), and the disease control rate was 30.8% v 28.7% (FAS; P = .5532). Drug-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in significantly fewer patients receiving donafenib than sorafenib (125 [38%] v 165 [50%]; P = .0018).

Conclusion: Donafenib showed superiority over sorafenib in improving OS and has favorable safety and tolerability in Chinese patients with advanced HCC, showing promise as a potential first-line monotherapy for these patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Zhenggang RenConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck Sharp & DohmeLiqing WuEmployment: Suzhou Zelgen Biopharmaceuticals Co, Ltd.Stock and other ownership interests: Suzhou Zelgen Biopharmaceuticals Co, Ltd.No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Figures

FIG 1.
FIG 1.
Patient disposition from March 21, 2016, to September 30, 2019 (cutoff date). PD, progressive disease.
FIG 2.
FIG 2.
Kaplan-Meier analysis of OS in the (A) FAS and (B) ITT populations, and (C) Kaplan-Meier analysis of PFS in the FAS. FAS, full analysis set; HR, hazard ratio; ITT, intention-to-treat; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival.
FIG A1.
FIG A1.
Kaplan-Meier analysis of OS (PPS). HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival; PPS, per-protocol set.
FIG A2.
FIG A2.
Forest plot of HRs for OS on the basis of subgroups. AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival.
FIG A3.
FIG A3.
Kaplan-Meier analysis of TTP (FAS). FAS, full analysis set; HR, hazard ratio; TTP, time to progression.

References

    1. Bray F Ferlay J Soerjomataram I, et al. : Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68:394-424, 2018 - PubMed
    1. Chen W Zheng R Baade PD, et al. : Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 66:115-132, 2016 - PubMed
    1. European Association for the Study of the Liver: EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 69:182-236, 2018 - PubMed
    1. Yang JD, Roberts LR: Hepatocellular carcinoma: A global view. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 7:448-458, 2010 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fan JH Wang JB Jiang Y, et al. : Attributable causes of liver cancer mortality and incidence in China. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 14:7251-7256, 2013 - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms