Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a large real-life worldwide population

Metastatic glioblastoma to the lungs: a case report and literature review

Glioblastoma is the most common malignant primary brain tumor. Despite its infiltrative nature, extra-cranial glioblastoma metastases are rare. We present a case of a 63-year-old woman with metastatic glioblastoma in the lungs. Sarcomatous histology, a reported risk factor for disseminated disease, was found. Genomic alterations of TP53 mutation, TERT mutation, PTEN mutation, and +7/-10 were also uncovered. Early evidence suggests these molecular aberrations are common in metastatic glioblastoma. Treatment with third-line lenvatinib resulted in a mixed response. This case contributes to the growing body of evidence for the role of genomic alterations in predictive risk in metastatic glioblastoma. There remains an unmet need for treatment of metastatic glioblastoma.

Organ-specific response with first-line atezolizumab-bevacizumab versus lenvatinib for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based treatments have become the mainstay of first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but there has been a concern that intrahepatic HCC lesions may be less responsive to ICI monotherapy. We aimed to investigate the organ-specific response patterns among unresectable HCC patients treated with first-line atezolizumab-bevacizumab or lenvatinib.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 386 patients with Child-Pugh A unresectable HCC who were treated with first-line atezolizumab-bevacizumab (n = 217) or lenvatinib (n = 169). The organ-specific response was separately evaluated according to the site of the lesions: liver, lung, lymph node (LN), and intraabdomen based on a radiological evaluation adopted from RECIST v 1.1.

RESULTS

The median age was 60 years. Hepatitis B infection was the most common etiology (n = 270, 69.9%), and 291 (75.4%) patients had a viral etiology. The proportion of patients achieving a ≥ 30% reduction in the tumor burden for each organ category was overall higher in the atezolizumab-bevacizumab group than that in the lenvatinib group: 20.2% vs. 11.8%, 23.0% vs. 12.2%, 27.9% vs. 17.9% and 33.3% vs. 15.0% for intrahepatic, lung, LN, and intraabdominal lesions, respectively. The corresponding values for the subgroup with a viral etiology were 17.3% vs. 8.1%, 18.8% vs. 13.3%, 28.9% vs. 3.6%, and 36.0% vs. 12.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Compared to lenvatinib, atezolizumab-bevacizumab was associated with a favorable organ-specific response regardless of the site of the tumor lesions. Unlike anti-PD-1 monotherapy, atezolizumab-bevacizumab had a comparable organ-specific response between intrahepatic and extrahepatic lesions, especially for those with viral etiology HCCs.

Atezolizumab/bevacizumab or lenvatinib in hepatocellular carcinoma: Multicenter real-world study with focus on bleeding and thromboembolic events

Background & Aims

Atezolizumab/bevacizumab (atezo/bev) and lenvatinib have demonstrated efficacy as first-line therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition with these therapies may be associated with the risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety with focus on the bleeding and thromboembolic events of atezo/bev vs. lenvatinib in a large, multicenter real-world population.

Methods

This study is based on HCC cohorts from seven centers in Germany and Austria. Incidences of bleeding or thromboembolic events and efficacy outcomes were assessed and compared.

Results

In total, 464 patients treated with atezo/bev (n = 325) or lenvatinib (n = 139) were analyzed. Both groups were balanced with respect to demographics, presence of liver cirrhosis, and variceal status. Duration of therapy did not differ between groups. Within 3 months of therapy, bleeding episodes were described in 57 (18%) patients receiving atezo/bev compared with 15 (11%) patients receiving lenvatinib (p = 0.07). Variceal hemorrhage occurred in 11 (3%) patients treated with atezo/bev compared with 4 (3%) patients treated with lenvatinib (p = 0.99). Thromboembolic events were reported in 19 (6%) of patients in the atezo/bev cohort compared with 5 (4%) patients in the lenvatinib cohort (p = 0.37). In addition, incidence of overall bleeding, variceal hemorrhage, and thromboembolic events did not differ significantly in patients who received either atezo/bev or lenvantinib for 6 months.

Conclusions

Safety considerations related to bleeding and thromboembolic events may not be helpful in guiding clinical decision-making when choosing between atezo/bev and lenvatinib.

Impact and implications

The inhibition of VEGF by current first-line therapies for HCC, such as atezolizumab/bevacizumab or lenvatinib, may be associated with the risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events. Studies comparing the incidence of these side effects between atezolizumab/bevacizumab and lenvatinib, which are preferred treatments over sorafenib for HCC, are needed. Differences in this side effect profile may influence the choice of first-line therapy by treating physicians. Because no significant differences were observed regarding bleeding or thromboembolic events between both therapies in the present study, we conclude that safety considerations related to these events may not be helpful in guiding clinical decision-making when choosing between atezolizumab/bevacizumab and lenvatinib.

Hepatocellular carcinoma-the role of the underlying liver disease in clinical practice

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common causes of cancer-related mortality. This particular type of cancer has the distinctive characteristic of mostly happening in individuals with an underlying liver disease. This makes the management of patients more challenging, since physicians must take into consideration two different conditions, the chronic liver disease and the tumor. The underlying liver disease has several implications in clinical practice, because different kinds of chronic liver disease can lead to varying degrees of risk of developing HCC, obstacles in surveillance, and differences in the efficacy of the treatment against HCC. A shift in the prevalence of liver diseases has been evident over the last few years, with viral hepatitis gradually losing the leading position as cause of HCC and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease gaining importance. Therefore, in an era of personalized medicine, it is imperative that physicians are aware of the underlying liver disease of individuals with HCC and its impact in the management of their tumors.

Insights in Molecular Therapies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

We conducted a comprehensive review of the current literature of published data and clinical trials (MEDLINE), as well as published congress contributions and active recruiting clinical trials on targeted therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma. Combinations of different agents and medical therapy along with radiological interventions were analyzed for the setting of advanced HCC. Those settings were also analyzed in combination with adjuvant situations after resection or radiological treatments. We summarized the current knowledge for each therapeutic setting and combination that currently is or has been under clinical evaluation. We further discuss the results in the background of current treatment guidelines. In addition, we review the pathophysiological mechanisms and pathways for each of these investigated targets and drugs to further elucidate the molecular background and underlying mechanisms of action. Established and recommended targeted treatment options that already exist for patients are considered for systemic treatment: atezolizumab/bevacizumab, durvalumab/tremelimumab, sorafenib, lenvatinib, cabozantinib, regorafenib, and ramucirumab. Combination treatment for systemic treatment and local ablative treatment or transarterial chemoembolization and adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatment strategies are under clinical investigation.

From evidence to clinical practice: Bridging the gap of new liver cancer therapies in Latin America

The most common primary liver tumors are hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma. They constitute the sixth most common neoplasia and the third cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Although both tumors may share etiologic factors, diagnosis, prognostic factors, and treatments, they differ substantially in determining distinctive clinical management. In recent years, significant advances have been made in the management of these neoplasms, particularly in advanced stages. In this review, we focus on the most relevant diagnostic, prognostic, and treatment aspects of both, hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma, underlying their applicability in Latin America.

The emerging therapies are reshaping the first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Given the superior performance of various therapies over sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and the absence of direct comparisons, it is crucial to explore the efficacy of these treatments in phase III randomized clinical trials.

Objectives

The goal is to identify which patients are most likely to benefit significantly from these emerging therapies, contributing to more personalized and informed clinical decision-making.

Design

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Data sources and methods

PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and international conference databases have been searched from 1 January 2010 to 1 December 2023.

Results

After screening, 17 phase III trials encompassing 18 treatments were included. In the whole-population network meta-analysis, the newly first-line tremelimumab plus durvalumab (Tre + Du) was found to be comparable with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo + Beva) in providing the best overall survival (OS) benefit [hazard ratio (HR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.93-1.92]. Concerning OS benefits, sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar (Sint + Beva), camrelizumab plus rivoceranib (Camre + Rivo), and lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (Lenva + Pemb) appear to exhibit similar effects to Tre + Du and Atezo + Beva. In the context of progression-free survival, Atezo + Beva seemed to outperform Tre + Du (HR: 0.66 CI: 0.49-0.87), while the effects are comparable to Sint + Beva, Camre + Rivo, and Lenva + Pemb. Upon comparison between Asia-Pacific and non-Asia-Pacific cohorts, as well as between hepatitis B virus (HBV)-infected and non-HBV-infected populations, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based treatments seemed to exhibit heightened efficacy in the Asia-Pacific group and among individuals with HBV infection. However, combined ICI-based therapies did not show more effectiveness than molecular-targeted drugs in patients without macrovascular invasion and/or extrahepatic spread. As for grades 3-5 adverse events, combined therapies showed comparable safety to sorafenib and lenvatinib.

Conclusion

Compared with sorafenib and lenvatinib, combination therapies based on ICIs significantly improved the prognosis of advanced HCC and demonstrated similar safety. At the same time, the optimal treatment approach should be tailored to individual patient characteristics, such as etiology, tumor staging, and serum alpha-fetoprotein levels. With lower incidence rates of treatment-related adverse events and non-inferior efficacy compared to sorafenib, ICI monotherapies should be prioritized as a first-line treatment approach for patients who are not suitable candidates for ICI-combined therapies.

Trial registration

PROSPERO, CRD42022288172.

Alcohol-associated liver cancer

Heavy alcohol intake induces a wide spectrum of liver diseases ranging from steatosis, steatohepatitis, cirrhosis, and HCC. Although alcohol consumption is a well-known risk factor for the development, morbidity, and mortality of HCC globally, alcohol-associated hepatocellular carcinoma (A-HCC) is poorly characterized compared to viral hepatitis-associated HCC. Most A-HCCs develop after alcohol-associated cirrhosis (AC), but the direct carcinogenesis from ethanol and its metabolites to A-HCC remains obscure. The differences between A-HCC and HCCs caused by other etiologies have not been well investigated in terms of clinical prognosis, genetic or epigenetic landscape, molecular mechanisms, and heterogeneity. Moreover, there is a huge gap between basic research and clinical practice due to the lack of preclinical models of A-HCC. In the current review, we discuss the pathogenesis, heterogeneity, preclinical approaches, epigenetic, and genetic profiles of A-HCC, and discuss the current insights into and the prospects for future research on A-HCC. The potential effect of alcohol on cholangiocarcinoma and liver metastasis is also discussed.

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.

MASLD-Related HCC-Update on Pathogenesis and Current Treatment Options

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common complication of chronic liver diseases and remains a relevant cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. The global prevalence of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) as a risk factor for hepatocarcinogenesis is on the rise. Early detection of HCC has been crucial in improving the survival outcomes of patients with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), even in the absence of cirrhosis. Understanding how hepatocarcinogenesis develops in MASH is increasingly becoming a current research focus. Additive risk factors such as type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), genetic polymorphisms, and intestinal microbiota may have specific impacts. Pathophysiological and epidemiological associations between MASH and HCC will be discussed in this review. We will additionally review the available tumor therapies concerning their efficacy in MASH-associated HCC treatment.

α-FAtE: A new predictive score of response to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (AB) and lenvatinib can be alternatively used as first-line systemic treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, no direct comparison of the two regimens has been performed in randomized clinical trials, making the identification of baseline differential predictors of response of major relevance to tailor the best therapeutic option to each patient. Baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics of real-world AB-treated HCC patients were analyzed in uni- and multivariate analyses to find potential prognostic factors of overall survival (OS). Significant variables were incorporated in a composite score (α-FAtE) and it was tested for specificity and sensitivity in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and in multivariate analysis for OS. The score was applied in uni- and multivariate analyses for OS of a comparable lenvatinib-treated HCC population. Finally, comparison between treatments was performed in patients with low and high α-FAtE scores and predictivity estimated by interaction analysis. Time-to-progression (TTP) was a secondary endpoint. OS of AB-treated HCC patients was statistically longer in those with α-fetoprotein <400 ng/mL (HR 0.62, p = .0407), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) <125 IU/L (HR 0.52, p = .0189) and eosinophil count ≥70/μL (HR 0.46, p = .0013). The α-FAtE score was generated by the sum of single points attributed to each variable among the above reported. In ROC curve analysis, superior sensitivity and specificity were achieved by the score compared to individual variables (AUC 0.794, p < .02). Patients with high score had longer OS (HR 0.44, p = .0009) and TTP (HR 0.34, p < .0001) compared to low score if treated with AB, but not with lenvatinib. Overall, AB was superior to lenvatinib in high score patients (HR 0.55, p = .0043) and inferior in low score ones (HR 1.75, p = .0227). At interaction test, low α-FAtE score resulted as negative predictive factor of response to AB (p = .0004). In conclusion, α-FAtE is a novel prognostic and predictive score of response to first-line AB for HCC patients that, if validated in prospective studies, could drive therapeutic choice between lenvatinib and AB.

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.

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.

New Opportunities in the Systemic Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma-Today and Tomorrow

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer. Liver cirrhosis, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease represent major risk factors of HCC. Multiple different treatment options are available, depending on the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) algorithm. Systemic treatment is reserved for certain patients in stages B and C, who will not benefit from regional treatment methods. In the last fifteen years, the arsenal of available therapeutics has largely expanded, which improved treatment outcomes. Nevertheless, not all patients respond to these agents and novel combinations and drugs are needed. In this review, we aim to summarize the pathway of trials investigating the safety and efficacy of targeted therapeutics and immunotherapies since the introduction of sorafenib. Furthermore, we discuss the current evidence regarding resistance mechanisms and potential novel targets in the treatment of advanced HCC.

Safety and Efficacy of Lenvatinib in Very Old Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Data concerning the use of lenvatinib in very old patients (≥ 80 years) are limited, although the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in this patient population is constantly increasing.

OBJECTIVE

This analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in a large cohort of very old patients (≥ 80 years) with unresectable HCC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was conducted on a cohort of 1325 patients from 46 centers in four Western and Eastern countries (Italy, Germany, Japan, and the Republic of Korea) who were undergoing first-line treatment with lenvatinib between July 2010 and February 2022. Patients were stratified according to age as very old (≥ 80 years) and not very old (< 80 years).

RESULTS

The median overall survival (OS) was 15.7 months for patients < 80 years old and 18.4 months for patients ≥ 80 years old [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.25, p = 0.8281]. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 6.3 months for patients < 80 years old and 6.5 months for patients ≥ 80 years old (HR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.91-1.25, p = 0.3954). No differences between the two study groups were found in terms of disease control rate (DCR; 80.8% versus 78.8%; p = 0.44) and response rate (RR; 38.2% versus 37.9%; p = 0.88). Patients < 80 years old experienced significantly more hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) grade ≥ 2 and decreased appetite grade ≥ 2. Conversely, patients ≥ 80 years old experienced significantly more fatigue grade ≥ 2. In the very old group, parameters associated with prognosis were AFP, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC), and Child-Pugh score. BCLC stage was the only independent predictor of overall survival (OS; HR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.11-2.29, p = 0.01115).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the same efficacy and safety of lenvatinib between very old and not very old patients.

Using the hazard function to evaluate hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence risk after curative resection

Predicting recurrence patterns of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be helpful in developing surveillance strategies. This study aimed to use the hazard function to investigate recurrence hazard and peak recurrence time transitions in patients with HCC undergoing liver resection (LR). We enrolled 1204 patients with HCC undergoing LR between 2007 and 2018 at our institution. Recurrence hazard, patterns, and peak rates were analyzed. The overall recurrence hazard peaked at 7.2 months (peak hazard rate [pHR]: 0.0197), but varied markedly. In subgroups analysis based on recurrence risk factors, patients with a high radiographic tumor burden score (pHR: 0.0521), alpha-fetoprotein level ≥ 400 ng/ml (pHR: 0.0427), and pT3-4 (pHR: 0.0656) showed a pronounced peak within the first year after LR. Patients with cirrhosis showed a pronounced peak within three years after LR (pHR: 0.0248), whereas those with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B (pHR: 0.0609) and poor tumor differentiation (pHR: 0.0451) showed multiple peaks during the 5-year follow-up period. In contrast, patients without these recurrence risk factors had a relatively flat hazard function curve. HCC recurrence hazard, patterns, and peak rates varied substantially depending on different risk factors of HCC recurrence.

The action and resistance mechanisms of Lenvatinib in liver cancer

Lenvatinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor that prevents the formation of new blood vessels namely by inhibiting tyrosine kinase enzymes as the name suggests. Specifically, Lenvatinib acts on vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1-3 (VEGFR1-3), fibroblast growth factor receptors 1-4 (FGFR1-4), platelet-derived growth factor receptor-alpha (PDGFRα), tyrosine-kinase receptor (KIT), and rearranged during transfection receptor (RET). Inhibition of these receptors works to inhibit tumor proliferation. It is through these inhibition mechanisms that Lenvatinib was tested to be noninferior to Sorafenib. However, resistance to Lenvatinib is common, making the positive effects of Lenvatinib on a patient's survival null after resistance is acquired. Therefore, it is crucial to understand mechanisms related to Lenvatinib resistance. This review aims to piece together various mechanisms involved in Lenvatinib resistance and summarizes the research done so far investigating it.

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.

Combining atezolizumab 1200 mg with bevacizumab 15 mg/kg: based on science or just revenues?

Dose optimisation is increasingly important in oncology, as exemplified by the US Food and Drug Administration's Project Optimus initiative, which is aligned with similar initiatives in other countries. In parallel, multiple stakeholders have raised concerns about anticancer drug prices, affordability, and access. This is of particular concern to government payers as well as patients and physicians in low- and middle-income countries. As anticancer drugs have historically been approved at the maximally tolerated dose, it is now highly relevant to question whether lower doses are equally effective and can be delivered at lower doses, resulting in less toxicity for patients, and lower costs for patients and payers. We illustrate this opportunity by discussing the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab, approved in multiple countries for both non-small cell lung cancer and hepatocellular cancer. Our conclusion is that the cost of this regimen can be reduced by more than 80%, an opportunity that should be considered by patients, prescribers, payers, and policymakers.

Safety and Efficacy of Atezolizumab and Bevacizumab Combination as a First Line Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common leading causes of cancer death worldwide. As most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease, systemic therapy remains the backbone of treatment. In recent years, we have witnessed the transformation of advanced HCC treatment landscapes from single-agent targeted therapies to immunotherapy combinations, with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab becoming the new first-line standard of care with an increase in overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate compared to sorafenib, and a positive impact on quality of life. Although the efficacy and safety of this combination have been confirmed regardless of ethnicity, age, and etiology, only a subgroup of patients seems to benefit the most from this treatment. Currently, predictive serum and tissue biomarkers to select patients who are most likely to respond to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab are lacking. Moreover, the optimal subsequent therapy for patients who progress on first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab remains unknown, clinical trials are ongoing, and real-world data are needed to determine the most effective treatment sequence. Importantly, careful evaluation of bleeding risk and preservation of adequate liver function are fundamental to improve patients' prognosis, especially when subsequent treatments are administered.

Multidisciplinary consensus recommendations for management of hepatocellular carcinoma in Middle East and North Africa region

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a growing health concern projected to cross over a million cases worldwide by 2025. HCC presents a significant burden of disease in Middle East and North African (MENA) countries due to a high prevalence of risk factors such as hepatitis C and B infections and rising incidence of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. In August 2022, an advisory meeting consisting of experts from 5 MENA countries was convened in an attempt to provide consensus recommendations on HCC screening, early diagnosis, current treatment modalities and unmet medical needs in the region. Data were collected from a pre-meeting survey questionnaire and responses analysed and presented during the advisory meeting. This review summarizes the evidence discussed at the meeting and provides expert recommendations on the management of HCC. The 2022 update of Barcelona clinic liver cancer (BCLC) staging and treatment strategy and its implementation in the MENA region was extensively discussed. A key consensus of the expert panel was that multidisciplinary care is crucial to effective patient management that results in better clinical outcomes and overall survival of the patient. The panel recommended the use of predictive and early response biomarkers to guide clinicians in arriving at more effective therapeutic decisions. The experts also emphasized the role of robust screening/surveillance systems, population-based registries, effective referral pathways and standardization of guidelines to ensure the successful management of HCC in the region.

Improved clinical outcomes in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with transarterial chemoembolization plus atezolizumab and bevacizumab: a bicentric retrospective study

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) combined with atezolizumab and bevacizumab (hereafter, TACE-Atez/Bev) in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical information was collected from consecutive patients with advanced HCC who received treatment with TACE-Atez/Bev or Atez/Bev from April 2021 and October 2022. Treatment response, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were the primary outcomes of this study. Adverse events (AEs) were the secondary outcomes. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was applied to reduce bias between two groups.

RESULTS

This study included 62 patients in the TACE-Atez/Bev group and 77 patients in the Atez/Bev group. The objective response rate (ORR) of the TACE-Atez/Bev group and the Atez/Bev group were 38.7% and 16.9% (P=0.004). However, there was no statistical difference in disease control rate between the two groups (69.4% vs 63.6%, P=0.479). Before PSM, the median OS was 14 months in the TACE-Atez/Bev group and 10 months in the Atez/Bev group (P=0.014). The median PFS in the TACE-Atez/Bev and Atez/Bev groups was 10 months and 6 months, respectively (P=0.001). After PSM, the median OS in the two groups was 14 months and 9 months, respectively (P=0.01). The median PFS was 7 months and 6 months, respectively (P=0.036). Multivariable analysis showed that treatment method was independent prognostic factors affecting OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with Atez/Bev treatment, TACE-Atez/Bev showed better OS, PFS, and ORR for Chinese patients with advanced HCC, with an acceptable safety profile.

Objective Response and Progression-Free Survival Contribute to Prolong Overall Survival in Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) is a standard treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) due to its good antitumor and survival prolongation effects. Post-progression survival (PPS) has been reported to be a great contributor in the treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors for unresectable HCC. This study aimed to clarify the significance of progression-free survival (PFS) or PPS of Atez/Bev treatment for HCC.

METHODS

We analyzed the correlations of PFS and PPS with overall survival (OS) in studies of HCC patients treated with Atez/Bev and evaluated the contribution to OS in Atez/Bev treatment with patients at our institutions as clinical practice.

RESULTS

Analysis of 18 studies involving 3,752 patients treated with Atez/Bev found that PPS had a stronger correlation with OS (R2 = 0.872, p < 0.001) than did PFS (R2 = 0.605, p = 0.001). Analysis of 80 patients with unresectable HCC treated with Atez/Bev found that presence of antitumor responses during Atez/Bev was the most significant contributor to OS, and post-progression treatment after Atez/Bev also significantly contribute to OS.

CONCLUSION

The presence of antitumor response with tumor shrinkage during Atez/Bev treatment contributes to good OS through its durable response. Atez/Bev treatment could be considered as first-line treatment for unresectable HCC. However, there is a need for optimal biomarkers for good antitumor response.

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.

Bilobar Radioembolization Carries the Risk of Radioembolization-Induced Liver Disease in the Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Safety and Efficacy Comparison to Systemic Therapy with Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab

Recommended treatment options for advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) include systemic therapy (ST) and trans-arterial radioembolization (TARE) with Yttrium-90 (Y90). Before the approval of immune-checkpoint inhibitors, a similar safety profile was reported for TARE and ST with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). However, whole-liver treatment and underlying cirrhosis were identified as risk factors for potentially lethal radioembolization-induced liver disease (REILD). Therefore, the safety and efficacy of TARE and ST with atezolizumab/bevacizumab were compared in patients with advanced HCC involving at least both liver lobes in a retrospective real-world cohort. In total, 74 patients with new or recurrent advanced-stage HCC (BCLC stage B/C) were included if treated with either bilobar TARE (n = 33) or systemic combination therapy with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n = 41). Most patients had compensated liver function (90.5% were classified as Child-Pugh Score A, 73% as ALBI Grade 1) at baseline. Although not significant, patients treated with ST showed a more prolonged overall survival than those treated with Y90 TARE (7.1 months vs. 13.0 months, p = 0.07). While a similar disease control rate could be achieved with bilobar TARE and atezolizumab/bevacizumab, in the TARE group, overall survival was curtailed by the occurrence of REILD. In patients with underlying liver cirrhosis, the liver function at baseline was a predictor for REILD.

Comparative Analysis of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab and Hepatic Artery Infusion Chemotherapy in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter, Propensity Score Study

This study aimed to compare the prognosis and characteristics of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (AB) combination therapy and hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy (HAIC). We retrospectively assessed 193 and 114 patients treated with HAIC and AB combination therapy, respectively, between January 2018 and May 2023. The progression-free survival (PFS) of patients treated with AB combination therapy was significantly superior to that of patients treated with HAIC (p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS). After propensity score matching, our data revealed no significant differences in OS and PFS between patients who received AB combination therapy and those who received HAIC therapy (p = 0.5617 and 0.3522, respectively). In conclusion, our propensity score study reveals no significant differences in OS and PFS between patients treated with AB combination therapy and those treated with HAIC.

Real-World Use of Immunotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide and accounts for 90% of all primary liver cancers. Chronic inflammation is the hallmark across most prevalent etiologies among which HBV is the leading cause worldwide (33%), followed by alcohol (30%), HCV (21%), other factors like non-alcoholic steatohepatitis linked to insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome, and obesity associated inflammation (16%). Deregulation of the tightly controlled immunological network leads to liver disease, including chronic infection, autoimmunity, and tumor development. While inflammation drives oncogenesis in the liver, HCC also recruits ICOS+ FOXP3+ Tregs and MDSCs and upregulates immune checkpoints to induce a state of immunosuppression in the tumor microenvironment. As such, research is focused on targeting and modulating the immune system to treat HCC. The Checkmate 040 and Keynote 224 studies established the role of immunotherapy in the treatment of patients with HCC. In Phase I and II trials, nivolumab and pembrolizumab demonstrated durable response rates of 15-20% and were subsequently approved as second-line agents after sorafenib. Due to the success of the IMbrave 150 and HIMALAYA trials, which examined the combination of atezolizumab/bevacizumab and tremelimumab/durvalumab, respectively, the FDA approved these regimens as first-time treatment options for patients with advanced HCC. The encouraging results of immunotherapy in the management of HCC has led researchers to evaluate if combination with locoregional therapies may result in a synergistic effect. Real-world studies represent an invaluable tool to assess and verify the applicability of clinical trials in the bedside setting with a more varied patient population. We herein review current real-life use of ICIs in the management of HCC and highlight some of the ongoing clinical trials that are expected to change current recommended first-line treatment in the near future.

Assessing the effectiveness of camrelizumab plus apatinib versus sorafenib for the treatment of primary liver cancer: a single-center retrospective study

Although the effectiveness of camrelizumab plus apatinib has been confirmed in a phase II clinical study, the efficacy of camrelizumab plus apatinib versus sorafenib for primary liver cancer (PLC) remains unverified. We retrospectively collected the data of 143 patients with PLC who received camrelizumab plus apatinib or sorafenib as the first-line treatment at The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from April 2018 to November 2021. Of these, 71 patients received an intravenous injection of camrelizumab 200 mg (body weight ≥ 50 kg) or 3 mg/kg (body weight < 50 kg) followed by an oral dosage of apatinib 250 mg/day every 3 weeks and 72 patients received sorafenib 400 mg orally, twice a day in 28-day cycles. The primary outcomes were overall survival and progression-free survival. The secondary outcomes were objective response rate, disease control rate, and safety. The median median progression-free survival and median overall survival with camrelizumab plus apatinib and sorafenib were 6.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.2-7.8) and 3.0 months (95% CI 2.3-3.7) and 19.0 (95% CI 16.4-21.6) and 12.0 months (95% CI 8.9-15.1), respectively (death hazard ratio: 0.61, P = 0.023). Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were noted in 50 (70.4%) patients in the camrelizumab plus apatinib group and 19 (26.4%) patients in the sorafenib group. Two treatment-related deaths were recorded. Clinically significant improvements were observed in overall survival and progression-free survival with camrelizumab plus apatinib versus sorafenib. Although the side effects of camrelizumab plus apatinib are relatively high, they can be controlled.

Durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer: An early exploratory analysis of real-world data

BACKGROUND

The TOPAZ-1 phase III trial reported a survival benefit with the anti-programmed death cell ligand 1 (anti-PD-L1) durvalumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. The present study investigated the efficacy and safety of this new standard treatment in a real-world setting.

METHODS

The analysed population included patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the biliary tract treated with durvalumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin at 17 Italian centres. The primary endpoint of the study was progression-free survival (PFS), whereas secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) by baseline characteristics were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

From February 2022 to November 2022, 145 patients were enrolled. After a median follow-up of 8.5 months (95% CI: 7.9-13.6), the median PFS was 8.9 months (95% CI: 7.4-11.7). Median OS was 12.9 months (95% CI: 10.9-12.9). The investigator-assessed confirmed ORR was 34.5%, and the disease control rate was 87.6%. Any grade adverse events (AEs) occurred in 137 patients (94.5%). Grades 3-4 AEs occurred in 51 patients (35.2%). The rate of immune-mediated AEs (imAEs) was 22.7%. Grades 3-4 imAEs occurred in 2.1% of the patients. In univariate analysis, non-viral aetiology, ECOG PS >0 and NLR ≥3 correlated with shorter PFS.

CONCLUSION

The results reported in this first real-world analysis mostly confirmed the results achieved in the TOPAZ-1 trial in terms of PFS, ORR and safety.

Transarterial Chemoembolization Combined with Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab or Lenvatinib for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matched Study

Purpose

Combined transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and Lenvatinib (LEN) treatment (LEN-TACE) has been shown to be beneficial. We aimed to evaluate retrospectively Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab (Atezo/Bev)-TACE compared with LEN-TACE as a first-line therapy for unresectable HCC.

Patients and Methods

From October 2020 to October 2022, data from 98 consecutive HCC patients were analyzed. After propensity score matching, two cohorts of 34 patients who received either Atezo/Bev-TACE or LEN-TACE were studied. We compared overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response, objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) based on RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST, as well as safety outcome between the two cohorts.

Results

The 6-month and 12-month OS rates were 85.3% (95% CI 73.5-97.0) and 75.4% (95% CI 53.6-85.7) in the Atezo/Bev-TACE group, and 88.2% (95% CI 76.5-97.1) and 79.2% (95% CI 63.6-90.9) in the LEN-TACE group, respectively. The hazard ratio for death in the Atezo/Bev-TACE group compared to the LEN-TACE group was 1.09 (95% CI 0.47-2.51; P = 0.837). The median PFS was 7.03 months (95% CI 3.89-10.17) in the Atezo/Bev-TACE group and 6.03 months (95% CI 0-14.14) in the LEN-TACE group (HR 1.21; 95% CI 0.66-2.21; P = 0.545). No significant difference in ORR and DCR between the two groups was observed either according to RECIST 1.1 or mRECIST standards. Incidence rates of hand-foot skin reaction (35.3% vs 5.9%, P = 0.003) and proteinuria (17.9% vs 2.9%, P = 0.046) were significantly higher in the LEN-TACE group.

Conclusion

Atezo/Bev-TACE and LEN-TACE showed comparable efficacy and safety as first-line therapies for unresectable HCC patients.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Modern Context for an Ancient Disease

Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide [...].

Pharmacokinetic considerations for angiogenesis inhibitors used to treat hepatocellular carcinoma: an overview

INTRODUCTION

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth malignancy in terms of frequency and the fourth malignancy in terms of cancer-related death worldwide. Systemic therapy of advanced HCC has probably gone through the greatest wave of change in the last decade, with the introduction of several anti-angiogenic drugs and immune checkpoint inhibitors, able to significantly improve patients' prognosis.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we summarize the pharmacokinetic characteristic of the antiangiogenic drugs currently approved for the treatment of HCC, from oral tyrosine kinase inhibitors (sorafenib, lenvatinib, regorafenib and cabozantinib) to monoclonal antibodies (bevacizumab and ramucirumab), focusing on the main aspects that differ among compounds from the same class, on factors that can exert an influence on pharmacokinetic parameters and the main issues that could limit their clinical use.

EXPERT OPINION

Anti-angiogenic drugs have different profiles in terms of bioavailability, metabolism, elimination and interindividual variability in their pharmacokinetics and effectiveness. More studies should be developed to address the intrinsic and extrinsic factors influencing pharmacokinetics parameters to improve the individual therapeutic response and, furthermore, to evaluate the benefit and the harm of systemic therapy for advanced HCC in selected patients with liver impairment.

Safety and Efficacy of Atezolizumab-Bevacizumab in Real World: The First Indian Experience

Background

Atezolizumab-bevacizumab (atezo/bev) combination is a recommended first-line systemic therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). There are no studies from India reporting the safety and efficacy of this drug in real-world settings where most patients present in an advanced stage.

Methods

In this retrospective study from two centers in India, we included patients with uHCC who received atezo/bev as first-line systemic therapy. Comparison of overall survival (OS) among the different Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) classes was the primary objective, while progression-free survival (PFS), radiologic response, and adverse events to the therapy were secondary objectives.

Results

The median age of the 67 patients who received atezo/bev therapy was 61 (29-82) years, and 86% were males. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (55.2%) was the commonest cause of cirrhosis, and most patients belonged to BCLC-C (74.6%%). There were 24 patients in CTP A, 36 in CTP B, and 7 in CTP C. The median OS was 12 (95%CI, 8.16-15.83) months in the cohort. The median OS in CTP class A, B, and C was 21 (95%CI, 0-42.06) months, 9 (95%CI, 5.46-12.53) months, and 4 (95%CI, 2.14-5.85) months, respectively (P < 0.001). The median PFS in the whole cohort was 8 (95%CI, 6.03-9.96) months. The median PFS in Child A, B, and C was 18 (95%CI, 0.16-35.84) months, 8 (95%CI, 6.14-9.85) months, and 2 (95%CI, 1.77-2.23) months (P < 0.001). On mRECIST evaluation, 12.9% had achieved a complete response, 25.8% had a partial response, 27.41% had stable disease, and the rest had progressed. The objective response rate was 38.7%, and the disease control rate was 66.12%. Of the 64% who developed adverse events, 13.43% discontinued the drug. The incidence of grade ≥3 events was significantly higher in CTP C (85.7%) compared to CTP A (12.5%) and CTP B (14%) (P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Atezolizumab-bevacizumab is safe and effective in uHCC in real-world settings. Candidate selection is of utmost importance in treating uHCC with atezolizumab-bevacizumab to achieve a good response. Current evidence strongly suggests limited use of atezolizumab-bevacizumab in patients with CTP C, and such individuals should not be considered for this combination therapy.

Outcomes of Radiation Segmentectomy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease versus Chronic Viral Hepatitis

Purpose

To compare the outcomes of radiation segmentectomy for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) versus hepatitis C virus (HCV).

Materials and Methods

A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with NAFLD- or HCV-related HCC treated with radiation segmentectomy from 01/2017-06/2022 was performed. Eligibility criteria included solitary tumor ≤8 cm or up to 3 HCC ≤3 cm, ECOG 0-1, and absence of vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread. Imaging best response was assessed per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Target tumor and overall progression, time-to-progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS) were calculated. All outcomes were censored for liver transplantation (LT). Complete pathologic response (CPN) was assessed in patients who underwent LT.

Results

Of 142 patients included (NAFLD: 61; HCV: 81), most had cirrhosis (NAFLD: 87%; HCV: 86%) and small tumors (median size NAFLD: 2.3 cm; HCV: 2.5 cm). Patients with NAFLD had higher BMI (p<0.001) and worse ALBI scores (p=0.003). Patients with HCV were younger (p<0.001) and had higher AFP levels (p=0.034). Median radiation dose (NAFLD: 508 Gy; HCV: 452 Gy) and specific activity (NAFLD: 700 Bq; HCV: 698 Bq) were similar between cohorts. Objective response was 100% and 97% in the NAFLD and HCV cohorts, respectively. Target tumor progression occurred in 1 (2%) NAFLD and 8 (10%) HCV patients. Target tumor TTP was not met for either cohort. Overall progression occurred in 23 (38%) NAFLD and 39 (48%) HCV patients. Overall TTP was 17.4 months (95% CI 13.5-22.2) in NAFLD and 13.5 months (95% CI 0.4-26.6) in HCV patients (p=0.86). LT was performed in 27 (44%) NAFLD and 33 (41%) HCV patients, with a CPN rate of 63% and 54%, respectively. OS was not met in the NAFLD cohort and was 53.9 months (95% CI 32.1-75.7) in the HCV cohort (p=0.15).

Conclusion

Although NAFLD and HCV are associated with different mechanisms of liver injury, patients with early-stage HCC treated with radiation segmentectomy achieve comparable outcomes.

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.