Therapeutic efficacy of nivolumab plus sorafenib therapy in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

The current status and future of targeted-immune combination for hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common cancers and the third leading cause of death worldwide. surgery, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), systemic therapy, local ablation therapy, radiotherapy, and targeted drug therapy with agents such as sorafenib. However, the tumor microenvironment of liver cancer has a strong immunosuppressive effect. Therefore, new treatments for liver cancer are still necessary. Immune checkpoint molecules, such as programmed death-1 (PD-1), programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1), and cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4), along with high levels of immunosuppressive cytokines, induce T cell inhibition and are key mechanisms of immune escape in HCC. Recently, immunotherapy based on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) as monotherapy or in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitors, anti-angiogenesis drugs, chemotherapy agents, and topical therapies has offered great promise in the treatment of liver cancer. In this review, we discuss the latest advances in ICIs combined with targeted drugs (targeted-immune combination) and other targeted-immune combination regimens for the treatment of patients with advanced HCC (aHCC) or unresectable HCC (uHCC), and provide an outlook on future prospects. The literature reviewed spans the last five years and includes studies identified using keywords such as "hepatocellular carcinoma," "immune checkpoint inhibitors," "targeted therapy," "combination therapy," and "immunotherapy".

Efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Materials and Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles published until November 2022. Studies reporting the efficacy of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors in patients with advanced HCC were eligible for inclusion. The outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and ≥ Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (TrAEs).

Results

Fourteen trials with 4515 patients with HCC were included. Our results showed that treatment with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors was associated with better ORR and DCR than that with control (placebo or sorafenib or lenvatinib) (odds ratio [OR], 3.89; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.55-5.95 and OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.11-1.95, respectively). The overall hazard ratio (HR) of PFS and OS were 0.66 (95% CI 0.56-0.78) and 0.65 (95% CI 0.55-0.77), respectively. In subgroup analysis, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor combination therapy had an advantage in terms of PFS (HR: 0.57 vs. 0.81) compared to that of PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy. The incidence of grade 3-5 TrAEs was not significantly higher with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors than that with the control (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.70-1.81). However, the combination of PD-1inhibitor with higher incidence of Grade 3-5 TrAEs (OR: 2.04, 95% CI 0.66-6.32) than the combination PD-L1 inhibitor (OR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.50-1.81).

Conclusion

The combination of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and targeted agents significantly improved the clinical outcomes in patients with advanced HCC. However, the incidence of Grade 3-5 TrAEs with PD-1 inhibitor combination therapy was higher than the combination PD-L1 inhibitor.

Comparison of tumor response and outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma after multimodal treatment including immune checkpoint inhibitors - a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE), and radiotherapy to treat hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has not been well-defined. We performed a meta-analysis to characterize tumor response and survival associated with multimodal treatment of HCC.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Medline, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were searched (1990-2022). Random-effect meta-analysis was conducted to compare efficacy of treatment modalities. Odds ratios (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) were reported.

RESULTS

Thirty studies (4170 patients) met inclusion criteria. Triple therapy regimen (ICI + TKI + TACE) had the highest overall disease control rate (DCR) (87%, 95% CI 83-91), while ICI + radiotherapy had the highest objective response rate (ORR) (72%, 95% CI 54%-89%). Triple therapy had a higher DCR than ICI + TACE (OR 4.49, 95% CI 2.09-9.63), ICI + TKI (OR 3.08, 95% CI 1.63-5.82), and TKI + TACE (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.61-5.20). Triple therapy demonstrated improved overall survival versus ICI + TKI (SMD 0.72, 95% CI 0.37-1.07) and TKI + TACE (SMD 1.13, 95% CI 0.70-1.48) (both p < 0.05). Triple therapy had a greater incidence of adverse events (AEs) compared with ICI + TKI (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.29-0.91; p = 0.02), but no difference in AEs versus ICI + TACE or TKI + TACE (both p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The combination of ICIs, TKIs and TACE demonstrated superior tumor response and survival and should be considered for select patients with advanced HCC.

Conditional survival probability of distant-metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma: A population-based study

BACKGROUND

The prognosis of many patients with distant metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) improved after they survived for several months. Compared with traditional survival analysis, conditional survival (CS) which takes into account changes in survival risk could be used to describe dynamic survival probabilities.

AIM

To evaluate CS of distant metastatic HCC patients.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with distant metastatic HCC between 2010 and 2015 were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis were used to identify risk factors for overall survival (OS), while competing risk model was used to identify risk factors for cancer-specific survival (CSS). Six-month CS was used to calculate the probability of survival for an additional 6 mo at a specific time after initial diagnosis, and standardized difference (d) was used to evaluate the survival differences between subgroups. Nomograms were constructed to predict CS.

RESULTS

Positive α-fetoprotein expression, higher T stage (T3 and T4), N1 stage, non-primary site surgery, non-chemotherapy, non-radiotherapy, and lung metastasis were independent risk factors for actual OS and CSS through univariate and multivariate analysis. Actual survival rates decreased over time, while CS rates gradually increased. As for the 6-month CS, the survival difference caused by chemotherapy and radiotherapy gradually disappeared over time, and the survival difference caused by lung metastasis reversed. Moreover, the influence of age and gender on survival gradually appeared. Nomograms were fitted for patients who have lived for 2, 4 and 6 mo to predict 6-month conditional OS and CSS, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) of nomograms for conditional OS decreased as time passed, and the AUC for conditional CSS gradually increased.

CONCLUSION

CS for distant metastatic HCC patients substantially increased over time. With dynamic risk factors, nomograms constructed at a specific time could predict more accurate survival rates.

Trajectories of α-fetoprotein and unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma outcomes receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab: a secondary analysis of IMbrave150 study

BACKGROUND

α-fetoprotein (AFP) response has been demonstrated as a biomarker for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) patients receiving immunotherapy, but its definition is still unclear. This exploratory study investigated the AFP trajectory and clinical outcomes of receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) therapy.

METHODS

This secondary analysis used the Atez/Bev arm data of phase III IMbrave150 study to distinguish potential AFP changing rate trajectories through latent class trajectory models. The multivariable Cox models were applied to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Three distinct trajectories were identified among the uHCC patients with 7 times (range, 3 to 28) of AFP measurements: low-stable (50.0%, n = 132), sharp-falling (13.3%, n = 35), and high-rising (36.7%, n = 97). Compared with the high-rising class, HRs of disease progression were 0.52 (95% CI: 0.39, 0.70) and 0.26 (95% CI: 0.16, 0.43) for the low-stable class and sharp-falling class, respectively. In contrast, HRs of death were 0.59 (95% CI: 0.40, 0.81) and 0.30 (95% CI: 0.16, 0.57) for the two groups after propensity score adjustment. Besides, AFP trajectories had the highest relative importance of each covariate to survival.

DISCUSSION

There are three distinct AFP trajectories in uHCC patients receiving Atez/Bev, and it is an independent biomarker for clinical outcomes.

Target immune components to circumvent sorafenib resistance in hepatocellular carcinoma

Sorafenib, a multi-kinase inhibitor, has been approved for cancer treatment for decades, especially hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although sorafenib produced substantial clinical benefits in the initial stage, a large proportion of cancer patients acquired drug resistance in subsequent treatment, which always disturbs clinical physicians. Cumulative evidence unraveled the underlying mechanism of sorafenib, but few reports focused on the role of immune subpopulations, since the immunological rationale of sorafenib resistance has not yet been defined. Here, we reviewed the immunoregulatory effects of sorafenib on the tumor microenvironment and emphasized the potential immunological mechanisms of therapeutic resistance to sorafenib. Moreover, we also summarized the clinical outcomes and ongoing trials in combination of sorafenib with immunotherapy, highlighted the immunotherapeutic strategies to improve sorafenib efficacy, and put forward several prospective questions aimed at guiding future research in overcoming sorafenib resistance in HCC.