Covariate-adjusted analysis of the Phase 3 REFLECT study of lenvatinib versus sorafenib in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Efficacy and safety comparison between Lenvatinib and Sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world study

OBJECTIVE

Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Lenvatinib compared with Sorafenib for treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients under real-world setting.

METHODS

We retrieved relevant literature through the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from 1 January 2000 to 25 June 2022. The differences in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) as well as treatment adverse related events were evaluated between HCC patients treated with Lenvatinib and Sorafenib using fixed or random-effects models. The MINORS evaluation questionnaire was used to assess the quality of the included literature.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included a total of 9 single-arm studies and 6 comparative studies. In the meta-analysis, Lenvatinib showed significantly longer median OS than Sorafenib ( P  < 0.01, MD = 1.20, 95% CI [0.92-1.48]), as well as median PFS ( P  < 0.01, OR = 2.68, 95% CI [1.59-3.76]), and higher ORR( P  < 0.01, OR = 5.36, 95% CI [3.42-8.40]), DCR( P  < 0.01, OR = 2.17, 95% CI [1.64-2.86]). The occurrence of Hypertension was higher in Lenvatinib than in Sorafenib treatment ( P  < 0.01, MD = 5.27, 95% CI [2.38-11.66]), and there was no significant difference in Hand-foot syndrome between Lenvatinib and Sorafenib.

CONCLUSION

We found that treatment with Lenvatinib in HCC patients resulted in better OS, PFS, and higher ORR and DCR compared to Sorafenib. However, safety data indicated that Lenvatinib did not exhibit a significant advantage.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Past and Present Challenges and Progress in Molecular Classification and Precision Oncology

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common solid tumor malignancies in the world and represents roughly 90% of all primary malignancies of the liver. The most common risk factors for HCC include hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, alcohol, and increasingly, fatty liver. Most HCC is diagnosed at advanced stages, excluding the possibility of curative resection, which leaves systemic therapy as the only treatment option. However, given the extreme mutational diversity and heterogenous nature of HCC, efforts to develop new targeted systemic therapies were largely unsuccessful until recently. HCC pathogenesis is thought to be a multistage process driven by a wide array of nonmutually exclusive driver mutations accompanied by many passenger mutations, with the average tumor possessing approximately 40 genomic aberrations. Over the past two decades, several efforts to categorize HCC prognostically and therapeutically according to different molecular subclassifications with the intent to guide treatment and identify drug targets have emerged, though, no single consensus has been reached. Recent breakthroughs in drug development have greatly expanded treatment options, but the ideal of uniting each patient's unique HCC with a targeted systemic therapy remains elusive.

Conversion therapy for massive hepatocellular carcinoma: A case report and literature review

Key Clinical Message

For potentially resectable HCC, a more aggressive conversion therapy strategy (high-intensity combined with multiple treatment modalities) can be used.

Abstract

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most common malignancy worldwide. The best treatment for HCC is radical surgical resection, but 70%-80% of patients are ineligible for surgery. Although conversion therapy is an established treatment strategy for various solid tumors, there is no uniform protocol for treating HCC. In this case, we present a 69-year-old male patient diagnosed with massive HCC with Barcelona clinical liver cancer (BCLC) stage B. Because of the insufficient volume of the future liver remnant, we believed radical surgical resection was temporarily impossible. Therefore, the patient received conversion therapy, including four cycles of transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC-Folfox), lenvatinib (8 mg orally once a day), and tislelizumab (an anti-PD-1 antibody, 200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks). Fortunately, the patient achieved a good treatment response (smaller lesions and improved liver function) and underwent radical surgery finally. There was no clinical evidence of recurrence at 6 months of follow-up. For potentially resectable HCC, this case reveals that a more aggressive conversion therapy strategy (high-intensity combined with multiple treatment modalities) can be used.

Five years of lenvatinib in hepatocellular carcinoma: are there any predictive and/or prognostic factors?

INTRODUCTION

Lenvatinib was the first drug approved in 2017 for first-line treatment of hepatocarcinoma (HCC) after 10 years of Sorafenib as exclusive standard of care. The therapeutic armamentarium has recently expanded following the approval of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

AREAS COVERED

Numerous studies have been conducted during the past 5 years on Lenvatinib use in real-world settings in an effort to determine prognostic and predictive factors of Lenvatinib efficacy. In order to choose the most effective therapeutic approach, it may be helpful to summarize these results in this review.

EXPERT OPINION

A subgroup that appears to benefit most from Lenvatinib therapy are patients with non-viral cirrhosis. This aspect is of great importance today considering the increase in NASH prevalence. Also, a significant proportion of BCLC B patients appear to respond well to Lenvatinib therapy. The biological heterogeneity highlighted in HCC patients, along with the growing number of therapeutic options, makes the identification of stratification tools able to define which patients are more likely to respond to a treatment rather than another one of crucial interest. Further investigation deepening the biological pathways underlying HCC carcinogenesis are of particular interest in order to pave the way for precision medicine even for HCC patients.

Targeted Therapies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment: A New Era Ahead-A Systematic Review

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains one of the most common malignancies and the third cause of cancer-related death worldwide, with surgery being the best prognostic tool. Among the well-known causative factors of HCC are chronic liver virus infections, chronic virus hepatitis B (HBV) and chronic hepatitis virus C (HCV), aflatoxins, tobacco consumption, and non-alcoholic liver disease (NAFLD). There is a need for the development of efficient molecular markers and alternative therapeutic targets of great significance. In this review, we describe the general characteristics of HCC and present a variety of targeted therapies that resulted in progress in HCC therapy.

Safety and Efficacy of Liver-Directed Radiotherapy in Combination With Lenvatinib for Hepatocelluar Carcinoma With Macroscopic Tumor Thrombosis

Background

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and macroscopic tumor thrombosis who were treated with lenvatinib with or without combined liver-directed radiotherapy (LRT).

Methods

From the institutional registry, we enrolled 82 patients diagnosed with HCC involving macroscopic tumor thrombosis and treated with lenvatinib monotherapy (non-LRT group, n = 54, 65.9%) or lenvatinib in combination with LRT (LRT group, n = 28, 34.1%). Patients were classified into the LRT group if LRT was performed within 8 weeks of lenvatinib initiation.

Results

During the median follow-up period of 5.4 (range 1.4 to 17.5) months, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of overall adverse events. Although there was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of overall response rate (32.1% vs. 20.4%, p = 0.15), a significantly higher treatment response was observed in the LRT group in terms of intrahepatic tumor response (67.9% vs. 20.4%, p < 0.001). In the LRT group, there was a slight difference in overall survival compared to the non-LRT group (64.1% in the LRT group vs. 37.7% in the non-LRT group at 12 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28–1.03; p = .06), although it did not reach a statistically significant level. However, progression-free survival (PFS, 67.2% in the LRT group vs. 35.0% in the non-LRT group at 6 months, HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.27–0.82; p = 0.008) and intrahepatic progression-free survival (IHPFS, 74.3% in the LRT group vs. 43.3% in the non-LRT group at 6 months, HR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25–0.81; p = 0.008) were significantly superior in the LRT group. This result was also reproduced in the multivariate analysis adjusted for α-fetoprotein, another significant prognostic factor in this study, and the well-known prognostic factors, namely the presence of main portal vein tumor thrombosis and albumin-bilirubin grade.

Conclusions

The combination of lenvatinib and LRT is relatively safe and effective in increasing the intrahepatic tumor response and improving PFS and IHPFS in patients with HCC and macroscopic tumor thrombosis.

Long non-coding RNA PAARH promotes hepatocellular carcinoma progression and angiogenesis via upregulating HOTTIP and activating HIF-1α/VEGF signaling

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading lethal malignancies and a hypervascular tumor. Although some long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) have been revealed to be involved in HCC. The contributions of lncRNAs to HCC progression and angiogenesis are still largely unknown. In this study, we identified a HCC-related lncRNA, CMB9-22P13.1, which was highly expressed and correlated with advanced stage, vascular invasion, and poor survival in HCC. We named this lncRNA Progression and Angiogenesis Associated RNA in HCC (PAARH). Gain- and loss-of function assays revealed that PAARH facilitated HCC cellular growth, migration, and invasion, repressed HCC cellular apoptosis, and promoted HCC tumor growth and angiogenesis in vivo. PAARH functioned as a competing endogenous RNA to upregulate HOTTIP via sponging miR-6760-5p, miR-6512-3p, miR-1298-5p, miR-6720-5p, miR-4516, and miR-6782-5p. The expression of PAARH was significantly positively associated with HOTTIP in HCC tissues. Functional rescue assays verified that HOTTIP was a critical mediator of the roles of PAARH in modulating HCC cellular growth, apoptosis, migration, and invasion. Furthermore, PAARH was found to physically bind hypoxia inducible factor-1 subunit alpha (HIF-1α), facilitate the recruitment of HIF-1α to VEGF promoter, and activate VEGF expression under hypoxia, which was responsible for the roles of PAARH in promoting angiogenesis. The expression of PAARH was positively associated with VEGF expression and microvessel density in HCC tissues. In conclusion, these findings demonstrated that PAARH promoted HCC progression and angiogenesis via upregulating HOTTIP and activating HIF-1α/VEGF signaling. PAARH represents a potential prognostic biomarker and therapeutic target for HCC.

Pattern of progression of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Implications for second-line clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is the second most frequent liver cancer. The overall survival of iCCA and other biliary tract cancers (BTC) remains poor. Recently, the ABC-06 trial reported the superiority of FOLFOX vs clinical observation as a second-line treatment. Still, the survival benefit was less than expected. We hypothesized that the pattern of progression of iCCA can drive post-progression survival (PPS), similar to hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

Multicentre retrospective evaluation of consecutive iCCA patients who progressed after frontline systemic treatment with gemcitabine as monotherapy or in combination with platinum. Radiological assessment of progression was evaluated according to RECIST 1.1. The progression pattern was divided according to the presence/absence of new extrahepatic lesions (NEH).

RESULTS

We included 206 patients from 5 centres. The median OS was 14.1 months and its independent predictors (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]) were previous surgery 0.699 [0.509-0.961], performance status >2.445 [1.788-3.344], permanent first-line discontinuation 16.072 [5.102-50.633], registration of ascites 2.226 [1.448-3.420] or bilirubin >3 mg/dl 3.004 [1.935-4.664] during the follow-up, and disease progression 2.523 [1.261-5.050]. The appearance of NEH independently predicted OS 2.18 [1.55-3.06] in patients with radiological progression. Amongst 138 patients eligible for second-line treatment, PPS was 16.8 and 5.9 months in cases without and with NEH, respectively (P = .001). Progression owing to NEH lesions was an independent predictor of PPS 1.873 [1.333-2.662], together with performance status, time to progression to the frontline treatment, bilirubin >3 mg/dl and ascites.

CONCLUSIONS

PPS of iCCA is influenced by progression pattern, with important implications for second-line trial design and analysis.

Is There Still a Place for Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors for the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma at the Time of Immunotherapies? A Focus on Lenvatinib

The systemic treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma is changing rapidly. Three main classes of treatment are now available. Historically, multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (sorafenib and lenvatinib as first-line; regorafenib and cabozantinib as second-line) were the first to show an improvement in overall survival (OS). Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) antibodies can be used in first-line (bevacizumab) or second-line (ramucirumab) combination therapy. More recently, immuno-oncology (IO) has profoundly changed therapeutic algorithms, and the combination of atezolizumab-bevacizumab is now the first-line standard of care. Therefore, the place of TKIs needs to be redefined. The objective of this review was to define the place of TKIs in the therapeutic algorithm at the time of IO treatment in first-line therapy, with a special focus on lenvatinib that exhibits one of the higher anti-tumoral activity among TKI in HCC. We will discuss the place of lenvatinib in first line (especially if there is a contra-indication to IO) but also after failure of atezolizumab and bevacizumab. New opportunities for lenvatinib will also be presented, including the use at an earlier stage of the disease and combination with IOs.

Sorafenib and hepatocellular carcinoma: is alpha-fetoprotein a biomarker predictive of tumor biology and primary resistance?

Background: Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) is the only biomarker with proven prognostic value in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Preliminary data indicate crosstalk between AFP and VEGF signaling. Methods: The authors looked at 69 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who were previously tested for VEGFR2 expression, had available baseline AFP serum concentrations and were treated with sorafenib within clinical trials. Results: Shorter progression-free survival and overall survival were associated with increased AFP level and elevated VEGFR2 staining. At multivariate analysis of AFP level was the only independent prognostic factor for progression-free survival and overall survival. Conclusion: The authors' study confirms the adverse prognostic role of elevated baseline AFP and also suggests a possible role of AFP in primary resistance to sorafenib therapy.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: An inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis

PURPOSE

Data from common clinical practice were used to generate balanced cohorts of patients receiving either sorafenib or lenvatinib, for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, with the final aim to investigate their declared equivalence.

METHODS

Clinical features of lenvatinib and sorafenib patients were balanced through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methodology, which weights patients' characteristics and measured outcomes of each patient in both treatment arms. Overall survival was the primary endpoint and occurrence of adverse events was the secondary.

RESULTS

The analysis included 385 patients who received lenvatinib, and 555 patients who received sorafenib. In the unadjusted cohort, lenvatinib did not show a survival advantage over sorafenib (HR: 0.85, 95% CI 0.70-1.02). After IPTW adjustment, lenvatinib still not returned a survival advantage over sorafenib (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.62-1.07) even in presence of balanced baseline characteristics. Lenvatinib provided longer survival than sorafenib in patients previously submitted to TACE (HR: 0.69), with PS of 0 (HR: 0.73) or without extrahepatic disease (HR: 0.69).

CONCLUSION

Present results confirmed randomized controlled trial in the real-life setting, but also suggests that in earlier stages some benefit can be expected.

Role of modern radiotherapy in managing patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common type of primary liver cancer. Several treatment options are available for managing HCC patients, classified roughly as local, local-regional, and systemic therapies. The high post-monotherapy recurrence rate of HCC urges the need for the use of combined modalities to increase tumor control and patient survival. Different international guidelines offer treatment recommendations based on different points of view and classification systems. Radiotherapy (RT) is a well-known local-regional treatment modality for managing many types of cancers, including HCC. However, only some of these treatment guidelines include RT, and the role of combined modalities is rarely mentioned. Hence, the present study reviewed clinical evidence for the use of different combined modalities in managing HCC, focusing on modern RT's role. Modern RT has an increased utility in managing HCC patients, mainly due to two driving forces. First, technological advancement (e.g., stereotactic body radiotherapy and advanced proton-beam therapy) enables precise delivery of radiation to increase tumor control and reduce side effects in the surrounding normal tissue. Second, the boom in developing target therapies and checkpoint-blockade immunotherapy prolongs overall survival in HCC patients, re-emphasizing the importance of local tumor control. Remarkably, RT combines with systemic therapies to generate the systemic therapy augmented by radiotherapy effect, a benefit now being actively investigated.

Is Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Superior Even to Lenvatinib? A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

BACKGROUND

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed superior progression-free and overall survival compared to sorafenib in the IMbrave150 trial. It would therefore be useful to compare the efficacy of lenvatinib and that of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab to determine if a benefit of one therapy against the other exists.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present report was to apply a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) to individual participant data (IPD) from patients treated with lenvatinib outside of randomized trials, to aggregate results derived from the IMbrave150 trial.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from 455 patients who received lenvatinib as first-line systemic therapy for unresectable HCC represented the present IPD. Data inclusion were adapted to those reported in the IMbrave150 trial.

RESULTS

Overall survival on atezolizumab plus bevacizumab proved to be superior to lenvatinib (log-rank: 0.001) with a hazard ratio of 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.46-0.75). The number needed to treat ranged between seven in the first 12 months and five at the 15th month.

CONCLUSIONS

The present MAIC highlights that the combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is superior to lenvatinib. However, updated data or sub-analyses of the IMbrave150 trial would provide more robust estimates for such a treatment comparison.