Safety profile of immune checkpoint inhibitors versus sorafenib as first-line treatment in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

315 Background: Systemic treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as sorafenib represents the mainstay of advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, survival outcomes remain disappointing, mostly because of the onset of acquired resistance and a suboptimal safety profile, which frequently requires treatment modifications and early discontinuation of treatment – thus, interfering with compliance and long-term outcomes of patients. With immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) quickly expanding as a novel therapeutic option in advanced HCC, the toxicity profiles of these agents should be kept in mind. We performed a meta-analysis with the aim to compare all-grade (G) adverse drug events (ADEs) of ICIs (alone or in combination with other anticancer agents) versus sorafenib monotherapy across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of first-line treatment for advanced HCC. Methods: Eligible studies included RCTs comparing ICIs versus sorafenib as first-line treatment in HCC. Safety profile from each selected study was investigated for all-G most common ADEs. Outcomes of interest were as follows: pruritus, diarrhea, hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR), fatigue, aspartate aminotransferase (AST) increase, rash, hypertension and decreased appetite. Results were compared by calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs); ORs were combined with Mantel-Haenszel method. All statistical analyses were performed using R studio software. Results: Two RCTs (CheckMate 459, IMbrave 150) involving 1,228 patients were included in the analysis. Patients treated with ICIs showed higher risk of pruritus (OR 1.99, 95% CI = 1.22-3.24) while sorafenib treatment was associated with higher risk of diarrhea (OR 0.26, 95% CI = 0.18-0.37) and HFSR (OR 0.01, 95% CI = 0-0.04). Conversely, no statistically significant differences were observed in terms of fatigue (OR 0.84, 95% CI = 0.45-1.58), AST increase (OR 1.21, 95% CI = 0.78-1.88), rash (OR 0.71, 95% CI = 0.46-1.11), hypertension (OR 0.28, 95% CI = 0.01-9.76) and decreased appetite (OR 0.41, 95% CI = 0.14-1.21) between the two groups. Conclusions: Although the substantial heterogeneities affecting our analyses, ICIs appear feasible in advanced HCC, being endowed with an acceptable safety profile. Beyond activity and efficacy, careful consideration should be given to toxicity while choosing the appropriate first-line treatment in advanced HCC.