Changing treatment landscape associated with improved survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a nationwide, population-based study

Impact of Helicobacter pylori on Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Study

INTRODUCTION

Immunomodulating effects of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) have been shown to inhibit antitumor immunity. Resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapies is common among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to assess the effect of H. pylori on the outcomes of ICI in patients with HCC.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter study in patients with HCC across a broad range of treatments. Patients received either ICI-based combination regimens or sorafenib-based therapy. H. pylori serostatus and virulence factors were determined and correlated with overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety across the treatment modalities.

RESULTS

180 patients with HCC were included; among these, 64 were treated with ICI-based regimen and 116 with sorafenib-based regimen. In patients treated with ICI, median OS was shorter in H. pylori-positive patients (10.9 months in H. pylori-positive vs. 18.3 months; p = 0.0384). H. pylori positivity was associated with a shorter PFS in ICI recipients (3.9 months vs. 6.8 months, p = 0.0499). In patients treated with sorafenib, median OS was not shorter among H. pylori-positive patients (13.4 months in H. pylori-positive vs. 10.6 months; p = 0.3353). Immune-related adverse events and rates of gastrointestinal bleeding were comparable between H. pylori-positive and -negative patients.

CONCLUSION

H. pylori seropositivity was linked to poorer outcomes in patients with HCC treated with ICI. This association was not observed among patients receiving sorafenib-based therapies.

Impact of immunotherapy on the care patterns and outcomes of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Modern immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors revolutionized cancer treatment and outcomes. This study aims to demonstrate how immunotherapy has impacted the national landscape of systemic treatment and palliative care in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

Retrospective cohort selecting patients from the U.S.-based National Cancer Database (NCDB) with clinical stages T3b/T4 and stage IV HCC from 2010 to 2021. We performed a multivariable analysis using the Cox proportional hazard for overall survival (OS) comparisons and a logistic regression model to study immunotherapy use.

RESULTS

Immunotherapy use increased from 0.27 % in 2010 to 33.80 % in 2021. The median OS survival (in months) was 2 for untreated patients, 7.20 for chemotherapy, and 7.46 for immunotherapy. There was a better OS with immunotherapy (HR 0.59, 95 % CI 0.56-0.62). Systemic therapy for palliation increased from 14.41 % in 2010 to 25.32 % in 2021. Compared to surgical palliation, radiation (HR 0.61, 95 % CI 0.52-0.71) and systemic palliative (HR 0.59, 95 % CI 0.51-0.69) therapies improved OS.

CONCLUSION

From 2010 to 2021, there was a significant increase in the use of immunotherapy, parallel to a large shift toward systemic therapy use for palliative care in patients with advanced HCC. Immunotherapy was associated with a significant OS benefit in the palliative setting.

Atezolizumab/bevacizumab and lenvatinib for hepatocellular carcinoma: A comparative analysis in a European real-world cohort

BACKGROUND

Immunotherapy-based combinations are currently the standard of care in the systemic treatment of patients with HCC. Recent studies have reported unexpectedly long survival with lenvatinib (LEN), supporting its use in first-line treatment for HCC. This study aims to compare the real-world effectiveness of LEN to atezolizumab/bevacizumab (AZ/BV).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of frontline AZ/BV or LEN therapy in patients with advanced HCC across 18 university hospitals in Europe.

RESULTS

The study included 412 patients (AZ/BV: n=207; LEN: n=205). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 treatment groups. However, patients treated with AZ/BV had a significantly longer median progression-free survival compared to those receiving LEN. The risk of hepatic decompensation was significantly higher in patients with impaired baseline liver function (albumin-bilirubin [ALBI] grade 2) treated with AZ/BV compared to those with preserved liver function. Patients with alcohol-associated liver disease had poorer baseline liver function compared to other etiologies and exhibited a worse outcome under AZ/BV.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world cohort, survival rates were similar between patients treated with LEN and those treated with AZ/BV, confirming that both are viable first-line options for HCC. The increased risk of hepatic decompensation in patients treated with AZ/BV who have impaired baseline liver function underscores the need for careful monitoring. Future trials should aim to distinguish more clearly between metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and alcohol-associated liver disease.

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.