Does first-line treatment have prognostic impact for unresectable HCC?-Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib

Is atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma superior to lenvatinib? a systematic review and meta‑analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was dedicated to evaluating the effectiveness and safety of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) and Lenvatinib (LEN) as first-line systematic therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC).

METHODS

The prospective protocol for this study was registered with the PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42022356874). Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE database Cochrane Library, and Web Science to determine all clinical controlled studies that reported Atez/Bev and LEN for treating u-HCC. We. evaluated as primary end-point overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), as well as other outcomes such as tumor response and adverse events (AEs).Quality assessment and data extraction of studies were conducted independently by three reviewers. Mean difference (MD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a fixed-effects or random-effects model. The meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

12 retrospective cohort studies (RCSs) involving a total of 4948 patients were finally included. The results showed that compared with LEN, Atez/Bev can improve the patient's PFS (HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.72 ~ 0.88; p < 0.0001) and reduce the rate of overall AEs (OR = 0.46 95% CI: 0.38 ~ 0.55, p < 0.00001) and grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.36 ~ 0.51, p < 0.00001), while there is no difference between OS and treatment responses rate (objective response rate, disease control rate, complete response, partial response, progressive disease, and stable disease) between two groups. In addition, the subgroup analysis shows that Atez/Bev can promote the OS of patients with viral hepatitis. (HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67 ~ 0.95; p = 0.01), while LEN has an advantage in improving OS in patients with Child-Pugh grade B liver function (HR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.50 ~ 2.63; p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

Current evidence shows that compared with LEN, Atez/Bev has more advantages in PFS and safety in treating u-HCC and can improve the OS of patients with viral. LEN has advantages in improving the OS of patients with grade B liver function. However, more multicenter randomized controlled experiments are needed in the future to verify our results.

Frontline evaluation: Atezolizumab-bevacizumab versus lenvatinib for BCLC stage B hepatocellular carcinoma exceeding the up-to-seven criteria

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) compared to lenvatinib (LEN) as first-line systemic therapy for patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) exceeding the up-to-seven criteria threshold, who are typically unsuitable for transarterial chemoembolization (TACE).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 49 consecutive patients with HCC treated at Tokyo Metropolitan Komagome Hospital between May 2018 and October 2023. The patients were divided into two groups: the Atez/Bev group (21 patients) and the LEN group (28 patients). Eligibility criteria included Child-Pugh A classification, no prior systemic therapy, and ineligibility for resection, ablation, or transplantation. Treatment outcomes were assessed through periodic imaging and laboratory tests, evaluating OS, PFS, ORR, and disease control rate (DCR).

RESULTS

Both groups demonstrated comparable baseline characteristics, with a median follow-up of 15.4 months. No significant difference was observed in OS between the Atez/Bev and LEN groups (median OS: 19.80 vs. 22.20 months, p = 0.763). The median PFS was 10.23 months for Atez/Bev and 7.20 months for LEN (p = 0.343). There were no statistically significant differences in ORR or DCR between the two groups. Common adverse events included elevated AST and ALT levels, with no significant difference in the overall rate of adverse events between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Atez/Bev and LEN demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety as first-line systemic treatments for patients with BCLC stage B HCC exceeding the up-to-seven criteria. Both therapeutic options are viable for this population, though further large-scale prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.

Outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in real-world clinical practice who met or did not meet the inclusion criteria for the phase 3 IMbrave150 trial

BACKGROUND

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo/Bev) is frequently selected as the primary systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

AIMS

To investigate the outcomes of patients with HCC treated with Atezo/Bev in a real-world setting based on whether they met the inclusion criteria for the phase 3 IMbrave150 trial.

METHODS

A total of 936 patients were enrolled. There were 404 patients who met the inclusion criteria of the phase 3 IMbrave150 trial (IMbrave150 group) and 532 who did not (non-IMbrave150 group).

RESULTS

Median progression-free survival (PFS) in the IMbrave150 and non-IMbrave150 groups was 7.4 months and 5.6 months (p = 0.002). Multivariable analysis revealed that non-B, non-C HCC aetiology (hazard ratio [HR], 1.173), α-fetoprotein ≥100 ng/mL (HR, 1.472), Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage ≥ C (HR, 1.318), and modified albumin-bilirubin (mALBI) grade 2b or 3 (HR, 1.476) are independently associated with PFS. Median overall survival (OS) in the IMbrave150 and non-Imbrave150 groups was 26.5 and 18.8 months (p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed that Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2 (HR, 1.986), α-fetoprotein ≥100 ng/mL (HR, 1.481), and mALBI grade 2b or 3 (HR, 2.037) are independently associated with OS. In subgroup analysis, there were no significant differences in PFS or OS between these groups among patients with mALBI grade 1 or 2a.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who are treated with Atezo/Bev and meet the inclusion criteria for the phase 3 IMbrave150 trial, as well as those who do not meet the inclusion criteria but have good liver function, have a good prognosis for survival.

Outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated in the lenvatinib and immunotherapy era (2018-2021) compared to the sorafenib era (2008-2018)

BACKGROUND

Lenvatinib (LEN) and atezolizumab + bevacizumab (A + B) have drastically changed the treatment paradigm for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Before these landmark trials, sorafenib (SOR) served as the standard first-line treatment for a decade. Our study aimed to assess the outcomes of HCC patients treated during the SOR era (2008-2018) in contrast to those in the post-SOR era (2018-2021), of which the predominant first-line treatments were LEN or A + B.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria of the study were all HCC patients in the Canadian province of Alberta who started first-line systemic therapy at cancer centers between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2021. Survival outcomes, including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), along with clinician-assessed response rate (RR), were subject to retrospective analysis.

RESULTS

Of 372 total patients, 230 received treatment in the SOR era and 142 in the post-SOR era. The demographic and clinical characteristics for the SOR era and post-SOR era groups are as follows, respectively: the median age was 63 and 64 years, 80% and 81% were male, and 24% and 11% were of East Asian ethnicity. Before receiving systemic treatment, 40% and 33% received TACE, 7% and 9% received TARE, and 3% and 14% received SBRT in the two eras, respectively. In the post-SOR era, patients received A + B (23%), LEN (51%), and SOR (23%) as first-line treatment. There was a statistically significant improvement in RR (15% vs. 26%; p = 0.02), median PFS (3.8 months vs. 7.9 months; p < 0.0001), and median OS (9.8 months vs. 17.0 months; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective multicenter real-world study, HCC patients treated in the post-SOR era, where LEN and A + B were commonly used first-line treatments, exhibited superior OS, PFS, and RR compared to patients treated in the SOR era. The findings of this study affirm the tangible progress achieved in the real world in enhancing outcomes for HCC patients through advancements in treatments over the past 15 years.

Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab Versus Lenvatinib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is often diagnosed in advanced stages. Following sorafenib, lenvatinib (LENV) has been approved as a first-line treatment option for unresectable HCC. In the past few years, at least 9 large-scale cohort studies have examined the efficacy and safety of LENV compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (ATE/BEV) in unresectable HCC, but there is currently no direct meta-analysis conducted for a comprehensive consolidation. To provide the most updated meta-analysis of the clinical efficacy and safety of ATE/BEV versus LENV for patients with unresectable HCC. Our studies comparing the efficacy and safety of ATE/BEV and LENV in unresectable HCC were systematically searched in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from inception to February 2023. Outcomes measured were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), mortality, complete response (CR), partial response (PR), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progressive disease (PD), stable disease (SD), and adverse events (AEs). Seven eligible studies involving 4428 patients (1569 in the ATE/BEV group and 2859 in the LENV group) were included in the narrative synthesis. All baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups except for Child-Pugh class B. Ultimately, our meta-analysis showed that the LENV group had longer OS and PFS than the ATE/BEV group. Moreover, patients on LENV were more likely to achieve SD, whereas those on ATE/BEV were more likely to achieve PR.

Comparative analysis of the therapeutic outcomes of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib for hepatocellular carcinoma patients aged 80 years and older: Multicenter study

AIM

Elderly patients are believed to have a reduced immune capacity, which may make immunotherapy less effective. The aim of this study was to compare the therapeutic outcome of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) and lenvatinib (LEN) for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients aged 80 years and older.

METHODS

From March 2018 to July 2022, 170 and 92 elderly patients who received LEN and Atez/Bev as first-line treatment, respectively, were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The median ages of the Atez/Bev and LEN groups were 83.0 (8.01-86.0) and 83.0 (82.0-86.0) years (p = 0.3), respectively. Men accounted for approximately 70% of the patients in both groups. The objective response rate was 35.9% in the LEN group and 33.7% in the Atez/Bev group (p = 0.8), whereas the disease control rates in the LEN and Atez/Bev groups were 62.9% and 63.0%, respectively (p = 1.0). The median progression-free survival (PFS) in the LEN and Atez/Bev groups was 6.3 and 7.2 months, respectively, which were not significantly different (p = 0.2). The median overall survival (OS) was 17.9 months in the LEN group and 14.0 months in the Atez/Bev group. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.7). In multivariate analyses, the choice of treatment (LEN vs. Atez/Bev) showed no association with PFS or OS. The Atez/Bev group had a significantly higher rate of postprogression treatment (59.0% vs. 35.7%, p = 0.01) and a lower rate of discontinuation due to adverse events (69 [40.6%] vs. 19 [20.7%], p < 0.001) compared to the LEN group.

CONCLUSIONS

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed comparable effectiveness to LEN in HCC patients aged 80 years and older. Given the results of postprogression treatment and discontinuation due to adverse events, Atez/Bev could serve as a first-line treatment even for elderly HCC patients.

Clinical usefulness of newly developed prognostic predictive score for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for hepatocellular carcinoma

AIMS

The aim of the present study was to elucidate detailed parameters for prediction of prognosis for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) treatment.

METHODS

A total of 719 patients (males 577, median age 74 years) treated with Atez/Bev between September 2020 and January 2023 were enrolled. Factors related to overall survival (OS) were extracted and a prognostic scoring system based on hazard ratio (HR) was created. OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were retrospectively examined, and the prognostic ability of the newly developed system was compared to CRAFITY score using concordance index (c-index) and Akaike information criterion (AIC) results.

RESULTS

Cox-hazards multivariate analysis showed BCLC classification C/D (HR 1.4; 1 point), AFP ≥100 ng/mL (HR 1.4; 1 point), mALBI 2a (HR 1.7; 1 point), mALBI 2b/3 (HR 2.8; 2 points), and DCP ≥100 mAU/mL (HR 1.6; 1 point) as significant factors. The assigned points were added and used to develop the IMmunotherapy with AFP, BCLC staging, mALBI, and DCP evaluation (IMABALI-De) scoring system. For IMABALI-De scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, OS was not applicable (NA), NA, 26.11, 18.79, 14.07, and 8.32 months, respectively (p < .001; AIC 2788.67, c-index 0.699), while for CRAFITY scores of 0, 1, and 2, OS was 26.11, 20.29, and 11.32 months, respectively (p < .001; AIC 2864.54, c-index 0.606). PFS periods for those IMABALI-De scores were 21.75, 12.89, 9.18, 8.0, 5.0, and 3.75 months, respectively (p < .001; AIC 5203.32, c-index 0.623) and for the CRAFITY scores were 10.32, 7.68, and 3.57 months, respectively (p < .001; AIC 5246.61, c-index 0.574). As compared with CRAFITY score, IMABALI-De score had better AIC and c-index results for both OS and PFS.

CONCLUSION

The present results indicated that the proposed IMABALI-De score may be favorable for predicting prognosis of uHCC patients receiving Atez/Bev therapy.

Safety and Feasibility of Combining On-Demand Selective Locoregional Treatment with First-Line Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab for Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Various locoregional treatments for localized hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been developed. This retrospective study investigated the safety and feasibility of combining on-demand selective locoregional treatment for residual lesions after tumor shrinkage (complete response [CR] oriented) or for solitary or few drug-resistant lesions (progressive disease (PD) salvage) with first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo/bev) for unresectable HCC. Twenty-nine patients with unresectable HCC were included. Fourteen locoregional treatments were performed (CR oriented, 7; PD salvage, 7) in ten patients in the combination-therapy group. All patients in the combination-therapy group successfully achieved a CR or PD salvage status after the planned locoregional treatment. The objective response rate of the combination-therapy group (80.0%) was higher than that of the atezo/bev alone group (21.1%; p = 0.005). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were longer in the combination group (medians for PFS and OS not reached) than in the atezo/bev alone group (median PFS, 7.4 months; median OS, 19.8 months) (PFS, p = 0.004; OS, p < 0.001). The albumin-bilirubin score did not change, and no severe complications occurred after locoregional treatment. When performed in a minimally invasive manner, on-demand selective locoregional treatment combined with first-line atezo/bev could be safe and feasible for unresectable HCC.

Lenvatinib Versus Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab in the First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Meta-Analysis of Real-World Studies

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, whether adding immunotherapy to antiangiogenic therapy benefits patients with unresectable HCC (uHCC) more in the first-line setting remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

In this analysis, we compared the clinical outcomes of lenvatinib monotherapy with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab combination therapy in advanced uHCC in real-world clinical practice.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were systematically searched on 23 April 2023. The "metaSurvival" and "meta" packages of the R software (version 4.2.2) were used to summarize the survival curves and meta-analyze the survival data. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were defined as dual primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included the objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR).

RESULTS

Overall, the pooled median OS was 18.4 months in the lenvatinib group versus 18.5 months in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group; the pooled median PFS was 6.9 months in the lenvatinib group versus 7.3 months in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group. Lenvatinib therapy showed similar OS [hazard ratio (HR): 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55-1.52, p = 0.72] and PFS (HR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.56-1.12, p = 0.19) compared with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab therapy. In addition, a comparable ORR [odds ratio (OR): 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65-1.20, p = 0.44) was observed between lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive analysis suggested that lenvatinib monotherapy exhibited survival outcomes comparable to those of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab combination therapy, which may provide useful insights for clinicians in future clinical practice.

Evaluation of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab Versus Modified Lenvatinib Therapy in Child-Pugh A Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background/Aim

Atezolizumab/bevacizumab (Atez/BV) and lenvatinib (LEN) are the recommended first-line treatments for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Previous reports have suggested that the tolerability and therapeutic efficacy of LEN could be enhanced by modifying its administration method. Therefore, this study compared the efficacy and safety of Atez/BV, the standard LEN therapy (standard LEN), and modified LEN therapy (modified LEN).

Patients and Methods

The overall survival (OS) and the rate of discontinuation due to adverse events (AEs) were compared between groups treated with Atez/BV (n=36), standard LEN (n=30), and modified LEN (n=11).

Results

Discontinuation due to AEs was required in 22.2%, 23.3%, and 9.1% of patients in the Atez/BV, standard LEN, and modified LEN groups (p=0.485). The median OS for the Atez/BV, standard LEN, and modified LEN groups was 523 [95% confidence interval (CI)=163-818], 382 (95%CI=330-547), and 604 (95% CI=257-656) days, respectively (log-rank test, p=0.949).

Conclusion

Atez/BV and the standard and modified LEN regimens showed comparable efficacy and safety.

Efficacy of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab Versus Lenvatinib in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: a Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Hepatocellular carcinoma is a lethal disease and there has been a debate regarding the first-line treatment of its advanced and unresectable form. Observational studies have explored atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib, yielding mixed results. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to compare efficacy and safety of both treatment arms.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Randomized control trials, cohort studies, or case-control that included patients above age 60 with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma confirmed by radiological imaging were included. At least one of the outcomes: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, or adverse events was included in the selected studies.

RESULTS

Ten cohorts were included in the analysis with a total of 6493 patients. Nine of the included studies had patients with advanced HCC (BCLC-C) or intermediate HCC (BCLC-B) and 1 study included patients with all three stages (BCLC-A, BCLC-B, and BCLC-C). Of these patients, 2524 patients received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B) combination while 3969 received lenvatinib. The overall survival was better statistically in the A + B group then the lenvatinib group (MD: - 5.06; 95% CI: - 7.79 to - 2.33; p = 0.0003, I2 = 0%). The progression-free survival was significantly improved in A + B arm as well group (MD: - 4.96; 95% CI: - 7.67 to - 2.26; I2 = 0%, p = 0. 0003). There was no significant difference in objective response rate, disease control rate, and frequency of adverse events in either of the group.

CONCLUSION

Our study concluded that combination therapy with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab could increase the survival duration without affecting the disease course. Moreover, while the severity of adverse events was greater in the A + B group, their frequency was comparable to the lenvatinib group.

Differential liver function at cessation of atezolizumab-bevacizumab versus lenvatinib in HCC: a multicenter, propensity-score matched comparative study

BACKGROUND

Atezolizumab+bevacizumab (AB) and lenvatinib have been proposed as first-line treatment options for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but comparative efficacy and associated factors are controversial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This real-world multicenter study analysed patients with HCC who received AB (n=169) or lenvatinib (n=177).

RESULTS

First, 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, resulting in 141 patients in both the AB and lenvatinib groups. After PSM, overall survival (OS) was better in the AB group than in the lenvatinib group [hazard ratio (HR)=0.642, P=0.009], but progression-free survival (PFS) did not vary between the two groups (HR=0.817, P=0.132). Objective response rate (ORR) was also similar between AB and lenvatinib (34.8% vs. 30.8%, P=0.581). In a subgroup of patients with objective responses (OR, n=78), OS (HR=0.364, P=0.012) and PFS (HR=0.536, P=0.019) were better in the AB group (n=41) than in the lenvatinib group (n=37). Time-to-progression from time of OR was also better in the AB group (HR=0.465, P=0.012). Importantly, residual liver function was a significant factor related to OS in both treatments. Child-Pugh score following cessation of the respective treatments was better in the AB group (n=105) than in the lenvatinib group (n=126) (median 6 versus 7, P=0.008), and proportion of salvage treatment was also higher in the AB group (52.4% versus 38.9%, P=0.047). When we adjusted for residual liver function or salvage treatment, there was no difference in OS between the two treatments.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that residual liver function and subsequent salvage treatments are major determinants of clinical outcomes in patients treated with AB and lenvatinib; these factors should be considered in future comparative studies.

Systemic Treatment in Intermediate Stage (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer-B) Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents an entity of poor prognosis, especially in cases of delayed diagnosis. According to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system, patients in BCLC-A are the most suitable for potentially curative treatments (surgery or radiofrequency ablation), whereas those in BCLC-C should be treated only with systemic treatment, as locoregional interventions are ineffective due to the tumor's extensiveness. For patients in the BCLC-B stage, trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the reference treatment, but the role of systemic treatment has been constantly increasing. As this group of patients is extremely heterogeneous, a case-by-case therapeutic strategy instead of a one-fits-all treatment is certainly required to achieve adequate results against HCC. The decision of selecting among immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), TACE, or a combination of them depends on the patient's tumor load, the severity of liver dysfunction, the general performance status, and the presence of concomitant extrahepatic diseases. The objective of this review is to critically appraise the recent data regarding the systemic treatment of BCLC-B HCCs, aiming to emphasize its potential role in the management of these difficult-to-treat patients.

Survival Improvements in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Sequential Therapy by Era

Treatment modalities for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have changed dramatically, with systemic therapy as the primary option. However, the effect of sequential treatment on prognosis remains unclear. This retrospective study included patients who began systemic therapy between 2009 and 2022. The patients were separated into three groups according to systemic therapy commencement. The number of therapy lines, treatment efficacy, and overall survival (OS) were compared. Multivariate analyses of the prognostic factors were analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards model. Overall, 336 patients were included (period 1: 2009-2013, n = 86; period 2: 2014-2018, n = 132; period 3: 2019-2022, n = 118). A significant etiological trend was observed with decreasing viral hepatitis-related HCC and increasing non-viral hepatitis-related HCC. Across periods 1-3, the proportion of patients who were administered >2 lines progressively increased (1.2%, 12.9%, and 17.0%, respectively; p < 0.001) and the median OS was significantly prolonged (14.3, 16.8, and 31.0 months; p < 0.001). The use of <3 lines, the non-complete and partial response of the first line, modified albumin-bilirubin at grade 2b or 3, an intrahepatic tumor number ≥ 5, extrahepatic metastasis, and alpha-fetoprotein at ≥400 ng/mL were the strongest factors associated with shorter OS. Sequential therapies have contributed to significant improvements in HCC prognosis, suggesting that sequential treatment post-progression is worthwhile for better survival.

Sequencing Systemic Therapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

OPINION STATEMENT

Multiple treatment options are now approved for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). An immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-containing regimen should be highly considered as the first-line treatment when there is no contraindication, especially in those with hepatitis virus-related HCC, due to proven superior overall survival (OS) compared to sorafenib. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab remain the treatment of choice among all ICI-containing regimens, unless contraindications to either of the medications exist. Although sorafenib is still the only medication currently approved for select patients with Child-Pugh B (CP) HCC in the first-line setting, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is being studied in this patient population. Moreover, patients with post-liver transplantation recurrence may benefit from tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), while more studies are still needed to determine the safety of ICIs in this setting. Interestingly, multiple potential biomarkers, including tumor mutational burden (TMB), microsatellite instability (MSI) status, and PD-L1 expression level, have inconsistently predicted response to ICIs in patients with HCC. Limited evidence is available to guide treatment choice in later-line settings after progressing on ICIs, and decisions should be based on the safety profile of the treatment regimen and patient preference. Multiple trials are ongoing to elucidate the optimal treatment sequence. Of note, we believe that TKIs (e.g., cabozantinib, regorafenib, lenvatinib, and sorafenib) could be more beneficial in later-line settings to broaden inhibition of other pathways apart from vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). When conventional treatment options are exhausted, tissue biopsy may be helpful to reveal rare targetable mutations, such as RET gene fusions.

Efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib are the current first-line systematic therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). However, the selection of initial treatment among the two therapies are controversial. This meta-analysis aims to compare efficacy and safety between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib.

METHODS

We systematically searched for studies on atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib in the online databases PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. The outcome data including overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), tumor response and adverse events (AEs), were independently extracted by two authors in a standardized way.

RESULTS

Eight retrospective cohort studies with 3690 patients (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab: 1680, lenvatinib: 2010) were included in the meta-analysis. The atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group had significant longer PFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.76, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.65-0.88; I squared statistic (I2) = 0.0%, p = 0.590], compared with lenvatinib group but no significant difference in OS (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75-1.01; I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.597), objective response rate (ORR) [risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.79-1.02; I2 = 19.3%, p = 0.283] and disease control rate (DCR) (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98-1.09; I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.467) among them. Moreover, patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab exhibited lower incidences of grade 3/4 AEs than those receiving lenvatinib (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51-0.83; I2 = 69.3%, p = 0.003). However, in non-viral patients group, lenvatinib delivered favorable outcomes in OS (HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04-1.67; I2 = 0.0%, p = 0.380) compared with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

CONCLUSION

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab provides potential advantage in efficacy and better safety than lenvatinib in the treatment of uHCC. Lenvatinib is an appropriate effective alternative to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients without viral infecting.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib as first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim of the study

Studies comparing atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (ATE/BEV) vs. lenvatinib (LEN) for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) have shown conflicting results. With this background, we aimed to collate the available evidence comparing ATE/BEV and LEN in aHCC.

Material and methods

A comprehensive search of three databases was conducted from inception to November 2022 for studies comparing ATE/BEV with LEN for managing aHCC. Results were presented with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) as the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes or odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes.

Results

A total of 8 studies were included. On analysis of matched cohorts, there was no difference in the objective response rate (ORR) (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.83-1.61) or disease control rate (DCR) (aOR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.49-1.38) between groups. Three studies reported a significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) with ATE/LEN, while one reported a longer PFS with LEN. The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for PFS available from three studies was comparable (HR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.75-1.50). Data were insufficient to carry out a formal analysis for overall survival (OS), but none of the studies reported any difference in OS. On comparison of overall adverse events (AE) and ≥ grade 3 AE, there was no difference in the overall analysis, but higher risk of AE with LEN on sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions

Based on the currently available literature, LEN was found to be non-inferior to ATE/BEV in terms of ORR, DCR, and PFS. However, LEN may be associated with a higher incidence of AEs. Further head-to-head trials are required to demonstrate the superiority of ATE/BEV over LEN.

The effect of liver disease on hepatic microenvironment and implications for immune therapy

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer and the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. HCC often occurs in the setting of chronic liver disease or cirrhosis. Recent evidence has highlighted the importance of the immune microenvironment in the development and progression of HCC, as well as its role in the potential response to therapy. Liver disease such as viral hepatitis, alcohol induced liver disease, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is a major risk factor for the development of HCC and has been demonstrated to alter the immune microenvironment. Alterations in the immune microenvironment may markedly influence the response to different therapeutic strategies. As such, research has focused on understanding the complex relationship among tumor cells, immune cells, and the surrounding liver parenchyma to treat HCC more effectively. We herein review the immune microenvironment, as well as the relative effect of liver disease on the immune microenvironment. In addition, we review how changes in the immune microenvironment can lead to therapeutic resistance, as well as highlight future strategies aimed at developing the next-generation of therapies for HCC.

Endocrine Side Effects in Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Narrative Review

Checkpoint inhibitors are monoclonal antibodies that elicit an anti-tumor response by stimulating immune system. Their use has improved the treatment of different types of cancer such as melanoma, breast carcinoma, lung, stomach, colon, liver, renal cell carcinoma, and Hodgkin's lymphoma, but several adverse events have been reported. Although the etiology of these effects is not completely understood, an uncontrolled activation of the immune system has been postulated. Indeed, some studies showed a cross reactivity of T cells, which acted against tumor antigens as well as antigens in the tissues of patients who developed immune-related adverse events. Despite the known possibility of developing immune-related adverse events, early diagnosis, monitoring during therapy, and treatment are fundamental for the best supportive care and administration of immune checkpoint inhibitors. The aim of this review is to guide the clinician in early diagnosis, management, and treatment of the endocrinological adverse effects in the major endocrine glands (thyroid, pituitary, adrenal, endocrine pancreas, and parathyroid).

Impact of first-line systemic therapy with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The study goal was to compare the outcomes of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo/Bev) as either first- or later-line systemic therapy.

METHODS

A total of 430 patients with HCC treated with Atezo/Bev at 22 institutions in Japan were included. Patients treated with Atezo/Bev as first-line therapy for HCC were defined as the first-line group (n = 268) while those treated with Atezo/Bev as second- or later-line therapy were defined as the later-line group (n = 162).

RESULTS

The median progression-free survival times in the first- and later-line groups were 7.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7-9.2) and 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.0-7.7) (P = 0.021). Regarding treatment-related adverse events, hypertension of any grade was more common in the first-line group than in the later-line group (P = 0.025). Analysis adjusted by inverse probability weighting, including patient and HCC characteristics, showed that the later-line group (hazard ratio, 1.304; 95% CI, 1.006-1.690; P = 0.045) was significantly associated with progression-free survival. In patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B, the median progression-free survival times in the first- and later-line groups were 10.5 months (95% CI, 6.8-13.8) and 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.0-9.4) (P = 0.021). Among patients with a history of lenvatinib therapy, the median progression-free survival times in the first- and later-line groups were 7.7 months (95% CI, 6.3-9.2) and 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.0-7.7) (P = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

The use of Atezo/Bev as first-line systemic therapy in patients with HCC is expected to prolong survival.

Efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the real world: a single-arm meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was approved in 2020 as a first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The purpose of this study was to assess the curative effect and tolerability of the combination treatment in advanced HCC.

METHODS

Web of Science, PubMed and Embase were retrieved for qualified literatures on the treatment of advanced HCC with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab until September 1, 2022. The outcomes included pooled overall response (OR), complete response (CR), partial response (PR), median overall survival (mOS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies, comprising 3168 patients, were enrolled. The pooled OR, CR, and PR rates of the long-term (more than six weeks) therapy response based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) were 26%, 2%, and 23%, respectively. The pooled OR, CR, and PR rates of the short-term (six weeks) therapeutic response evaluated with RECIST were 13%, 0%, and 15%, respectively. The pooled mOS and mPFS were 14.7 months and 6.66 months, respectively. During the treatment, 83% and 30% of patients experienced any grade AEs and grade 3 and above AEs, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab showed good efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of advanced HCC. Compared with short-term, non-first-line, and low-dose therapy, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in long-term, first-line, and standard-dose treatment for advanced HCC showed a better tumor response rate.

Current Landscape of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The liver maintains a balance between immune tolerance and activation in its role as a filtration system. Chronic inflammation disrupts this immune microenvironment, thereby allowing for the rise and progression of cancer. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a liver tumor generally diagnosed in the setting of chronic liver disease. When diagnosed early, the primary treatment is surgical resection, liver transplantation, or liver directed therapies. Unfortunately, patients with HCC often present at an advanced stage or with poor liver function, thereby limiting options. To further complicate matters, most systemic therapies are relatively limited and ineffective among patients with advanced disease. Recently, the IMbrave150 trial demonstrated that the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab was associated with better survival compared to sorafenib among patients with advanced HCC. As such, atezolizumab and bevacizumab is now recommended first-line therapy for these patients. Tumor cells work to create an immunotolerant environment by preventing the activation of stimulatory immunoreceptors and upregulating expression of proteins that bind inhibitory immunoreceptors. ICIs work to block these interactions and bolster the anti-tumor function of the immune system. We herein provide an overview of the use of ICIs in the treatment of HCC.

Clinical efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Assess the effectiveness and safety of treatment options atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) or lenvatinib in clinical practice for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.

METHODS

To compare the effectiveness of Atez/Bev and lenvatinib in treating advanced HCC, we systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. We utilized Review Manager 5.3 to extract and analyze the data.

RESULTS

The present systematic review included 8 nonrandomized studies comprising a total of 6628 cases. There was no significant difference in 0.5-, 1-, 1.5-year OS rates and 0.5-, 1-year PFS rates between the 2 groups. However, patients with HCC caused by viral hepatitis would benefit more from the Atez/Bev therapy (hazard ratio = 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.63-0.89) but patients with a Child-Pugh class B liver function would benefit more from lenvatinib (hazard ratio = 1.70, 95% confidence interval: 1.07-2.70). At the same time, there are no major differences in safety between the 2 treatment options.

CONCLUSION

Our study did not find any significant difference in effectiveness and safety between Atez/Bev and lenvatinib. However, Additional verification is required to determine whether these 2 therapeutic approaches have varying effects on distinct populations.

Clinical practice guidelines and real-life practice in hepatocellular carcinoma: A Japanese perspective

Striking advances in systemic therapy for unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have improved the average prognosis of patients with HCC. As a result, the guidelines for the treatment of HCC have changed significantly. However, various issues have emerged in clinical practice. First, there is no established biomarker that can predict response to systemic therapy. Second, there is no established treatment regimen after primary systemic therapy, including combined immunotherapy. Third, there is no established treatment regimen for intermediate-stage HCC. These points make the current guidelines ambiguous. In this review, we present the Japanese guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of HCC based on the latest evidence; introduce various efforts mainly in Japanese real-life practice to update these guidelines; and present our perspectives on future guidelines.

Comparative efficacy and safety of atezolizumab and bevacizumab between hepatocellular carcinoma patients with viral and non-viral infection: A Japanese multicenter observational study

AIM

This study compared the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) in patients with viral and non-viral infection in clinical settings.

METHODS

We conducted the retrospective cohort study of 323 BCLC stage B or C hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with Child-Pugh class A, and a performance status of 0 or 1 who started Atez/Bev from September 2020 to December 2021 at 22 institutions in Japan. Patients with viral infection was defined as those who were either serum anti-HCV- Ab or HBs-Ag-positive, while patients with non-viral infection was defined as those who were both serum anti-HCV Ab- and HBs-Ag-negative. We constructed a propensity-score-matched cohort to minimize the risk of observable potential confounders.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching produced 126 matched pairs for patients with viral versus non-viral infection. After matching, the significant differences in baseline demographic features did not exist between the two groups. The objective response rate was 20.6% and 24.6% in viral- and non-viral-related HCC patients, respectively, without a significant difference (p = 0.55). The disease control rate was not also significantly different (68.3% vs 69.0%, p = 1.00). The median progression-free survival was 7.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.0-9.6) and 6.2 months (95% CI 5.1-7.8) in patients with viral and non-viral infection, and the 12-month survival rates were 65.5% (95% CI 50.8-76.8) and 71.7% (95% CI 57.3-81.9) in those with viral and non-viral infection, respectively, which were not significantly different (p = 0.33, p = 0.38). No significant difference in treatment-related adverse events was found between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our etiology-based study demonstrated that Atez/Bev showed good efficacy and safety for HCC patient with non-viral infection as well as those with viral infection.

Clinical effects and emerging issues of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma from Japanese real-world practice

BACKGROUND

Although the efficacy of atezolizumab has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials, its long-term efficacy and association with adverse events in real-world practice are unknown. This study was designed to shed light on these issues.

METHODS

In this multicenter retrospective study, data were collected from patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in seven institutions in Japan. The authors focused on the efficacy and adverse events related to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition.

RESULTS

A total of 123 patients were enrolled in this study. The median progression-free survival (PFS) for the first-line treatment group was 8.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.1-9.9), whereas the median PFS for the second- or later-line treatment group was 4.1 months (95% CI, 2.6-5.7), which was significantly worse than that of the first-line treatment group (p = .005). Twenty-seven patients had interrupted bevacizumab treatment. Proteinuria accounted for the largest proportion of bevacizumab treatment interruptions. The cumulative incidence rate of bevacizumab interruption due to anti-VEGF-related adverse events was significantly higher in patients with hypertension and/or diabetes mellitus than in those without (p = .026). The landmark analysis showed that patients experienced bevacizumab interruption by 24 weeks from treatment initiation had poorer PFS than those who did not (p = .013).

CONCLUSIONS

The PFS of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment mostly replicates that of a global phase 3 trial. Interrupted bevacizumab treatment was more common in patients with hypertension and/or diabetes mellitus, which may be associated with worsening long-term PFS.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has been the standard front line systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. With the growing incidence of fatty liver due to metabolic syndrome as a background liver disease for hepatocellular carcinoma, the rate of comorbid hypertension and diabetes mellitus has been increasing accordingly. The present study demonstrated the cumulative incidence rate of bevacizumab interruption due to anti-VEGF-related adverse events was significantly higher in patients with hypertension and/or diabetes mellitus. The landmark analysis clarified that interruption of bevacizumab might be a risk of impaired efficacy of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab over the long term in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Development and validation of a modified albumin-bilirubin grade and α-fetoprotein score (mALF score) for hepatocellular carcinoma patients receiving atezolizumab and bevacizumab

AIM

Predicting the survival of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients receiving atezolizumab and bevacizumab (Atez/bev) remains a challenge. This study aims to validate the modified albumin-bilirubin grade and α-fetoprotein score (mALF score).

METHODS

This retrospective, multicenter study included 426 HCC patients receiving Atez/Bev. Each patient was randomized 3:2 to a training set (n = 255) and a validation set (n = 171). We investigated prognostic factors in the training set and developed an easily applicable mALF score, which was evaluated in the validation set.

RESULTS

We built the mALF score using baseline mALBI grade 2b or 3 (HR 2.36, 95% CI 1.37-4.05, p = 0.002) and α-fetoprotein ≥ 100 ng/ml (HR 2.61, 95% CI 1.49-4.55, p < 0.001), which were identified as unfavorable prognostic factors in a multivariate analysis. The 1-year OS rates were 82.7% (95% CI 68.9-90.8) in patients who meet neither of the criteria (mALF 0 points, n = 101), 61.7% (95% CI 44.5-74.9) in patients who meet either of the two criteria (mALF 1 point, n = 109), and 24.6% (95% CI 9.0-44.3) in patients who meet both criteria (mALF 2 points, n = 45); the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The median PFS in patients with mALF 0, 1, and 2 points was 9.5 months (95% CI 4.3-NA), 6.6 months (95% CI 6.0-8.0), and 3.8 months (95% CI 3.0-5.2), respectively, which amounted to a significant difference (p < 0.001). These results were confirmed in the validation set (1-year OS rates, 0/1/2 points = 94.2%/62.1%/46.3%, p < 0.001; median PFS, 0/1/2 points = 9.3/6.7/4.7 months, p = 0.018).

CONCLUSION

The mALF score can reliably predict the prognosis of HCC patients receiving Atez/Bev.

FDA-Approved Monoclonal Antibodies for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: What Do We Know So Far?

Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an advanced primary liver malignancy with a poor prognosis. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has, to date, approved nivolumab, pembrolizumab, ramucirumab, nivolumab/ipilimumab, atezolizumab/bevacizumab, as well as tremelimumab/durvalumab, as first- or second-line monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) for unresectable HCC. The present review examines the current state of knowledge, and provides a useful update on the safety and efficacy of these therapeutic agents, thus attempting to define the suitability of each mAb for different patient subgroups.

Adverse events as potential predictive factors of therapeutic activity in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab

AIM

To investigate the possible correlation between the development of adverse events (AEs) and prognosis in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev).

METHODS

A total of 286 patients with unresectable HCC treated with Atez/Bev as first-line systematic therapy were included.

RESULTS

Regarding treatment-related AEs, decreased appetite of any grade, proteinuria of any grade, and fatigue of any grade were found with a frequency of ≥20%. Multivariate analysis adjusted for immune-related liver injury, immune-related endocrine dysfunction, proteinuria, fatigue, decreased appetite, hypertension, sex, age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, HCC etiology, HCC stage, Child-Pugh score, and α-fetoprotein showed that hypertension of any grade (hazard ratio [HR], 0.527; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.326-0.854; p = 0.009) and α-fetoprotein ≥100 ng/ml (HR, 1.642; 95% CI, 1.111-2.427; p = 0.013) were independently associated with progression-free survival. Multivariate analysis adjusted for the same AEs showed that fatigue (HR, 2.354; 95% CI, 1.299-4.510; p = 0.010) was independently associated with overall survival. Median progression-free survival was 6.5 months (95% CI, 5.2-8.1) in patients without hypertension of any grade and 12.6 months (95% CI, 6.7-not available) in patients with hypertension of any grade (p = 0.035). The overall survival was significantly shorter in patients in whom treatment-related fatigue of any grade was observed (p < 0.001). Regarding response rates, the disease control rate of patients who developed treatment-related hypertension (94.2%) was significantly higher than those who did not (79.1%) (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment-related hypertension is associated with good outcomes in patients with HCC treated with Atez/Bev.

Similar efficacy and safety between lenvatinib versus atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as the first‐line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab(A + B) have been used for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) as first-line therapy. Real-world studies comparison of efficacy and safety in these two regimens are limited, we therefore conduct this study to investigate these issues.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients received lenvatinib (n = 46) and A + B (n = 46) as first-line systemic therapy for unresectable HCC in a tertiary medical center. Objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST). Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was performed for baseline clinical features balance.

RESULTS

A total of 92 patients with median age of 63.8 year-old, 78.3% male, 85.9% viral hepatitis infected, 67.4% BCLC stage C were enrolled. The median treatment and follow-up duration were 4.7 months and 9.4 months, respectively. There was no significant difference in ORR (26.1% vs. 41.3%, p = 0.1226), PFS (5.9 vs. 5.3 months, p = 0.4066), and OS (not reached vs. not reached, p = 0.7128) between the lenvatinib and A + B groups. After IPW, the results of survival and response rate were also compared. Subgroup analysis suggested that using lenvatinib was not inferior to A + B in regards of PFS, including those with elder, Child-Pugh class B, beyond up-to-seven, or portal vein invasion VP4 patients. Among the lenvatinib treated patients, multivariate analysis showed patients elder than 65-year-old was an independent predictor associated with shorter PFS (adjust HR: 2.085[0.914-4.753], p = 0.0213). The incidence rates of adverse events were similar between two groups (76 vs. 63%, p = 0.1740). Both of two regimens had similarly few impact on liver function by comparison of baseline, third month, and sixth month albumin-bilirubin index and Child-Pugh score.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety of lenvatinib are similar to A + B as a first-line systemic therapy for unresectable HCC.