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

Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Predicts Immune-related Adverse Events in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated With Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab

Background/Aim

Atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab is an approved systemic chemotherapy regimen for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), such as atezolizumab, frequently lead to immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The identification of biomarkers that can predict the occurrence of irAEs is crucial for the optimal management of patients undergoing ICI treatment.

Patients and Methods

Between October 2020 and June 2023, we conducted a study involving 69 patients with advanced HCC who received treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. We conducted an analysis of blood-based biomarkers to identify independent risk factors associated with irAEs.

Results

In our study, 12 out of 69 patients (17.4%) experienced irAEs. Our investigation into blood-based biomarkers revealed that a neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) <2.04 at three weeks after the initiation of treatment had high predictive power (area under the curve: 0.77) for irAEs. Furthermore, multivariate logistic analysis identified NLR at three weeks (hazard ratio=0.23; p=0.037) and non-viral infection (hazard ratio=4.47; p=0.037) as independent factors contributing to the occurrence of irAEs. Patients who developed irAEs demonstrated a more favorable overall response rate (75.0% vs. 28.1%, p=0.005), disease control rate (91.6% vs. 52.6%, p=0.016), and progression-free survival (12.1 months vs. 6.0 months, p=0.010) than those who did not experience irAEs.

Conclusion

An NLR <2.04 at three weeks after the initiation of treatment may serve as a valuable biomarker for predicting irAEs in patients with HCC undergoing atezolizumab plus bevacizumab therapy.

Effectiveness and safety of atezolizumab-bevacizumab in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Atezolizumab-bevacizumab (atezo-bev) is recommended as first-line therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). However, its effectiveness and safety in other populations, including those with Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) class B cirrhosis, is unclear.

Methods

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, were searched from 1st May, 2020 till 5th October, 2022; the last date of access was January 31, 2023. Pooled progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and radiological response rate among patients receiving atezo-bev were compared between patients with CTP-A and CTP-B cirrhosis, with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and among those receiving the drug as first-line and later line therapy. The protocol was registered in Prospero (CRD42022364430).

Findings

Among 47 studies (n = 5400 patients), pooled PFS and OS were 6.86 (95% CI, 6.31-7.41) and 13.8 months (95% CI, 11.81-15.8), respectively. Objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate were 26.7% (24.6-29.1) and 75.3% (73.1-77.4) using RECIST criteria, and 34% (30.3-37.8) and 73.6% (68.8-78) using mRECIST criteria, respectively. Among those receiving atezo-bev, patients with CTP-B cirrhosis had similar ORRs by RECIST (odds ratio [OR], 1.42 [0.77-2.6]; P = 0.25) and mRECIST criteria (OR, 1.33 [0.52-3.39]; P = 0.53) but shorter PFS (mean difference [MD]:3.83 months [1.81-5.84]) than those with CTP-A cirrhosis. Compared to patients receiving TKIs, those receiving atezo-bev had longer PFS (MD: 2.27 months [0.94-3.5]) and higher ORR (RECIST: OR, 1.44 [1.01-2.04] and mRECIST: OR, 1.33 [1.01-1.75]). Compared to first-line therapy, later-line therapy had lower ORR (RECIST: OR, 1.82 [1.3-2.53]; P < 0.001 and mRECIST: OR, 2.02 [1.34-3.05]) but comparable PFS (MD: 0.58 months [-0.18 to 1.35]) among nine studies. The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events among patients with CTP-A and CTP-B cirrhosis was comparable (OR, 0.89 [0.45-1.74]) as it was for patients receiving atezo-bev and TKIs (OR, 0.86 [0.61-1.2]).

Interpretation

Our findings suggest that atezo-bev is safe and effective as first-line systemic therapy for patients with uHCC and CTP-A or CTP-B cirrhosis.

Funding

An unsolicited grant from ROCHE Products India Pvt Ltd. was received for publication.

Usefulness of Tumor Marker Score for Predicting the Prognosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the ability of a previously reported tumor marker (TM) score involving alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), fucosylated AFP (AFP-L3), and des gamma-carboxy prothrombin (DCP) as TMs in predicting the prognosis and therapeutic efficacy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients administered atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) as first-line treatment.

MATERIALS/METHODS

The study period covered September 2020 to December 2022 and involved 371 HCC patients treated with Atez/Bev. The values of the TMs AFP, AFP-L3, and DCP were measured upon introducing Atez/Bev. Elevations in the values of AFP (≥100 ng/mL), AFP-L3 (≥10%), and DCP (≥100 mAU/mL) were considered to indicate a positive TM. The number of positive TMs was summed up and used as the TM score, as previously proposed. Hepatic reserve function was assessed using the modified albumin-bilirubin grade (mALBI). Predictive values for prognosis were evaluated retrospectively.

RESULTS

A TM score of 0 was shown in 81 HCC patients (21.8%), 1 in 110 (29.6%), 2 in 112 (29.9%), and 3 in 68 (18.3%). The median overall survival (OS) times for TM scores 0, 1, 2, and 3 were not applicable [NA] (95% CI NA-NA), 24.0 months (95% CI 17.8-NA), 16.7 months (95% CI 17.8-NA), and NA (95% CI 8.3-NA), respectively (p < 0.001). The median progression-free survival (PFS) times for TM scores 0, 1, 2, and 3 were 16.5 months (95% CI 8.0-not applicable [NA]), 13.8 months (95% CI 10.6-21.3), 7.7 months (95% CI 5.3-8.9), and 5.8 months (95% CI 3.0-7.6), respectively (p < 0.001). OS was well stratified in mALBI 1/2a and mALBI 2a/2b. PFS was well stratified in mALBI 2a/2b, but not in mALBI 1/2a.

CONCLUSIONS

The TM score involving AFP, AFP-L3, and DCP as TMs was useful in predicting the prognosis and therapeutic efficacy in terms of OS and PFS in HCC patients administered Atez/Bev as first-line treatment.

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.

Research progress of targeted therapy combined with immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma is a common gastrointestinal malignancy with a high mortality rate and limited treatment options. Molecularly targeted drugs combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown unique advantages over single-agent applications, significantly prolonging patient survival. This paper reviews the research progress of molecular-targeted drugs combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma and discusses the effectiveness and safety of the combination of the two drugs to provide a reference for the further application of molecular-targeted drugs combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in clinical practice.

Outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma by etiology with first-line atezolizumab and bevacizumab: a real-world analysis

PURPOSE

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common and deadly form of liver cancer. Combination atezolizumab and bevacizumab has improved the outcomes for patients with advanced disease. We sought to determine the impact of etiology on outcomes of patients treated with atezolizumab and bevacizumab.

METHODS

This study used a real-world database. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) by etiology of HCC; the secondary outcome was real-world time to treatment discontinuation (rwTTD). Time-to-event analyses was performed by the Kaplan-Meier method; the log-rank test to assess for differences by etiology from date of first receipt of atezolizumab and bevacizumab. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate hazard ratios.

RESULTS

In total, 429 patients were included (n = 216 Viral-HCC; n = 68 Alcohol-HCC; n = 145, NASH-HCC). The median overall survival for the entire cohort was 9.4 months (95% CI 7.1-10.9). Compared with Viral-HCC, the hazard ratio (HR) of death was 1.11 (95% CI 0.74-1.68, p = 0.62) for Alcohol-HCC and was 1.34 (95% CI 0.96-1.86, p = 0.08) for NASH-HCC. The median rwTTD for the entire cohort was 5.7 months (95% CI 5.0-7.0 months). The HR of rwTTD was 1.24 (95% CI 0.86-1.77, p = 0.25) for Alcohol-HCC and was 1.31 (95% CI 0.98-1.75, p = 0.06) in reference to TTD with Viral-HCC.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world cohort of patients with HCC receiving first-line atezolizumab and bevacizumab, we did not identify an association between etiology and OS or rwTTD. This suggests that the efficacy of atezolizumab and bevacizumab may be similar across HCC etiologies. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Systemic therapy with or without locoregional therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

We aim to identify the optimal treatment option of systemic therapy with or without locoregional therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Outcomes of interest include overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and incidence of treatment discontinuation due to AEs. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability values were applied to rank the interventions. 23 randomized-controlled trials including 14,303 patients with advanced HCC were included. Lenvatinib plus transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) ranked best regarding OS benefit (SUCRA: 0.99). Immuno-oncology (IO)-multikinase inhibitor (MKI)/vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitor combinations had a higher probability of providing better OS than IO-IO combinations. IO monotherapies demonstrated superior safety profile while combination therapies caused more toxicity in general. We conclude that combination therapies achieve remarkable efficacy in patients with advanced HCC and clinical decision making requires a careful balance of efficacy versus risk.