Comparative restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis of survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) from pivotal phase III trials: IMbrave-150, ORIENT-32, CARES-310, HIMALAYA, and CM-9DW.

597 Background: In advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC), the evaluation of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) through restricted mean survival time (RMST) provides a nuanced understanding of treatment efficacy. The RMST analysis serves as a valuable complement to the hazard ratio (HR) analysis, offering insights into the average survival time over a specified period. This study compares RMST analyses of OS at 24 and 36 months, and PFS at 12 and 18 months, across five pivotal phase III trials: IMbrave-150, ORIENT-32, CARES-310, HIMALAYA, and CM-9DW. Methods: Data from the experimental arms of the five phase III trials were analyzed. The RMST was calculated using the area under the Kaplan-Meier survival curves up to the specified time points. Specifically, OS was evaluated at 24 and 36 months, and PFS at 12 and 18 months. The RMST provides an estimate of the average time that patients survive (for OS) or remain progression-free (for PFS) within a specific timeframe. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were digitized if not available in raw form, and the area under the curve (AUC) was computed using numerical integration methods. RMST values were extracted from the AUC for the specified periods. This approach accounts for censored data and provides a robust comparison of survival times across different treatment groups. Results: The results for OS RMST at 24 and 36 months and PFS RMST at 12 and 18 months are summarized in the table. Conclusions: Angiogenesis inhibitor + immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab; Sintilimab + IBI305) provide the most favorable RMST outcomes in terms of OS and PFS. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) comparison of OS and PFS (months). aHCC 1L Phase III Trials Treatment Arm OS 24m OS 36m PFS 12m PFS 18m IMbrave-150 1, 2 Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab 17.50 22.79 9.69 13.29 ORIENT-32 3 Sinitilimab + IBI305 17.01 21.09 9.18 12.54 CARES-310 4 Camrelizumab + Rivoracenib 16.34 19.75 9.29 12.14 HIMALAYA 5, 6 Tremelimumab + Durvalumab 15.36 18.76 8.95 12.02 CM-9DW 7, 8 Nivolumab + Ipilimumab 15.87 20.08 8.74 11.78 1 Finn et al. N Engl J Med 2020;382:1894-905; 2 Cheng et al. J Hepatol 2022;76:862-873; 3 Ren et al. Lancet Oncol 2021;22:977–90; 4 Qin et al. Lancet 2023;402:1133–46; 5 Abou-Alfa et al. NEJM Evid 2022;1(8):EVIDoa2100070; 6 Sangro et al. Ann Oncol 2024;35:448-457; 7 Galle et al. J Clin Oncol 2024;42(suppl 17):abstr LBA4008; 8 Decaens et al. Ann Oncol 2024;35:S657.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2025-01-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2025.43.4_suppl.597
Primary Topic
Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis of survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) from pivotal phase III trials: IMbrave-150, ORIENT-32, CARES-310, HIMALAYA, and CM-9DW.

Raquel Larrosa, Carmen Blanco Abad, Luis Sarría, Marta Gascón Ruiz et al.
1 links
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
article

Comparative restricted mean survival time (RMST) analysis of survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) from pivotal phase III trials: IMbrave-150, ORIENT-32, CARES-310, HIMALAYA, and CM-9DW.

Raquel Larrosa, Carmen Blanco Abad, Luis Sarría, Marta Gascón Ruiz, Ana Comin Orce, Irene Torres, Javier Fuentes Olmo, Paula Gomila Pons, R.A. Pazo Cid, María Álvarez Alejandro, Pablo Gómez, Sara Elena Campos Ramírez, Alejandro Serrablo
article en

Abstract

597 Background: In advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC), the evaluation of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) through restricted mean survival time (RMST) provides a nuanced understanding of treatment efficacy. The RMST analysis serves as a valuable complement to the hazard ratio (HR) analysis, offering insights into the average survival time over a specified period. This study compares RMST analyses of OS at 24 and 36 months, and PFS at 12 and 18 months, across five pivotal phase III trials: IMbrave-150, ORIENT-32, CARES-310, HIMALAYA, and CM-9DW. Methods: Data from the experimental arms of the five phase III trials were analyzed. The RMST was calculated using the area under the Kaplan-Meier survival curves up to the specified time points. Specifically, OS was evaluated at 24 and 36 months, and PFS at 12 and 18 months. The RMST provides an estimate of the average time that patients survive (for OS) or remain progression-free (for PFS) within a specific timeframe. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were digitized if not available in raw form, and the area under the curve (AUC) was computed using numerical integration methods. RMST values were extracted from the AUC for the specified periods. This approach accounts for censored data and provides a robust comparison of survival times across different treatment groups. Results: The results for OS RMST at 24 and 36 months and PFS RMST at 12 and 18 months are summarized in the table. Conclusions: Angiogenesis inhibitor + immune checkpoint inhibitor combinations (Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab; Sintilimab + IBI305) provide the most favorable RMST outcomes in terms of OS and PFS. Restricted mean survival time (RMST) comparison of OS and PFS (months). aHCC 1L Phase III Trials Treatment Arm OS 24m OS 36m PFS 12m PFS 18m IMbrave-150 1, 2 Atezolizumab + Bevacizumab 17.50 22.79 9.69 13.29 ORIENT-32 3 Sinitilimab + IBI305 17.01 21.09 9.18 12.54 CARES-310 4 Camrelizumab + Rivoracenib 16.34 19.75 9.29 12.14 HIMALAYA 5, 6 Tremelimumab + Durvalumab 15.36 18.76 8.95 12.02 CM-9DW 7, 8 Nivolumab + Ipilimumab 15.87 20.08 8.74 11.78 1 Finn et al. N Engl J Med 2020;382:1894-905; 2 Cheng et al. J Hepatol 2022;76:862-873; 3 Ren et al. Lancet Oncol 2021;22:977–90; 4 Qin et al. Lancet 2023;402:1133–46; 5 Abou-Alfa et al. NEJM Evid 2022;1(8):EVIDoa2100070; 6 Sangro et al. Ann Oncol 2024;35:448-457; 7 Galle et al. J Clin Oncol 2024;42(suppl 17):abstr LBA4008; 8 Decaens et al. Ann Oncol 2024;35:S657.

Journal of Clinical OncologyVol. 43(4_suppl)
Centro de Salud Casa del Barco (ES), Hospital Universitario Miguel Servet (ES), Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa (ES), Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Aragón (ES)
Openalex Percentile: Top 98%
Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment and Prognosis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.