Lenvatinib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed to Child-Pugh B liver function

Background:

Lenvatinib is an approved first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). We evaluated the safety and efficacy of lenvatinib versus sorafenib in patients with uHCC who deteriorated to Child-Pugh class B (CP-B) on treatment.

Methods:

We retrospectively evaluated patients from REFLECT who deteriorated to CP-B versus those who remained Child-Pugh class A (CP-A) within 8 weeks after randomization. Best overall response and objective response rate (ORR) per modified Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (mRECIST) were assessed from baseline. Progression-free survival (PFS) per mRECIST and overall survival (OS) were assessed beginning at week 8.

Results:

Patients with CP-B versus CP-A classification receiving lenvatinib had ORRs of 28.3 and 42.9%, respectively; patients with CP-B versus CP-A classification receiving sorafenib had ORRs of 8.5 and 12.9%, respectively. Median PFS and OS (landmark analyses beginning at week 8) in patients receiving lenvatinib were 3.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.8–7.4] and 6.8 months (95% CI: 2.6–10.3) in the CP-B subgroup versus 6.5 months (95% CI: 5.6–7.4) and 13.3 months (95% CI: 11.6–16.1) in the CP-A subgroup, respectively. Median PFS and OS in patients receiving sorafenib were 0.5 months (95% CI: 0.1–3.6) and 4.5 months (95% CI: 2.9–6.1) in the CP-B subgroup versus 3.6 months (95% CI: 2.7–3.7) and 12.0 months (95% CI: 10.2–14.0) in the CP-A subgroup, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events in the lenvatinib cohort were hypertension (both subgroups) and decreased appetite (CP-B subgroup).

Conclusion:

Results suggest that patients with uHCC whose liver function deteriorates to CP-B after initiation of therapy may continue to receive lenvatinib.

Trial registration:

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01761266, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01761266.

Association between sustained virological response and clinical outcomes in patients with hepatitis C infection and hepatocellular carcinoma

Background

Sustained viral response (SVR) improves survival for patients with hepatitis C (HCV) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after curative treatment; however, the benefit of SVR in those with active HCC with a significant competing risk of mortality is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the association between SVR and outcomes in patients with active HCC.

Methods

The authors performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort study including consecutive adults with HCV cirrhosis and treatment‐naive HCC diagnosed between 2014 and 2018. Patients were stratified into two groups: active viremia (n = 431) and SVR before HCC diagnosis (n = 135). All patients underwent nonsurgical therapy as their initial treatment and were followed until liver transplantation, last follow‐up, or death. The primary outcome was incident or worsening hepatic decompensation within 6 months and the secondary outcome was overall survival. All analyses used inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) to account for differences between the nonrandomized cohorts.

Results

Post‐SVR patients had significantly lower odds of hepatic decompensation compared to viremic patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.06–0.59). Results were consistent among subgroups of patients with Child Pugh A cirrhosis (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.04–0.77), Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B/C HCC (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04–0.65), and those receiving nonablative HCC therapies (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07–0.67). However, in IPTW multivariable Cox regression, SVR was not associated with improved survival (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.56–1.12).

Conclusions

Patients with HCV‐related HCC and SVR are less likely to experience hepatic decompensation than viremic patients, suggesting patients with HCC who are undergoing nonsurgical therapies may benefit from DAA treatment.

Hepatitis C virus‐related hepatocellular carcinoma remains prevalent in clinical practice, however, whether treatment of hepatitis C improves outcomes is unknown. The authors have shown an association between hepatitis C sustained virological response and decreased risk of hepatic decompensation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, across stages of disease and types of therapy received. See also pages 000–000.

Therapeutic Management of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Review

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) usually occurs in the setting of liver cirrhosis and more rarely in a healthy liver. Its incidence has increased in the past years, especially in western countries with the rising prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. The prognosis of advanced HCC is low. In the first-line setting of advanced HCC, sorafenib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, was the only validated treatment for many years. In 2020, the combination of atezolizumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, and bevacizumab showed superiority to sorafenib alone in survival, making it the first-line recommended treatment. Regorafenib and lenvatinib, other multikinase inhibitors, were also validated in the second and first-line settings, respectively. Transarterial chemoembolization can be an alternative treatment for patients with intermediate-stage HCC and preserved liver function, including unresectable multinodular HCC without extrahepatic spread. The current challenge in advanced HCC lies in the selection of a patient for the optimal treatment, taking into account the underlying liver disease and liver function. Indeed, all trial patients present with a Child-Pugh score of A, and the optimal approach for other patients is still unclear. Furthermore, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab should be considered in the absence of medical contraindication. Many trials testing immune checkpoint inhibitors in association with anti-angiogenic agents are ongoing, and primary results are promising. The landscape in advanced HCC management is undergoing profound change, and many challenges remain for optimal patient management in the years to come. This review aimed to provide an overview of current systemic treatment options for patients with advanced unresectable HCC who are not candidates for liver-directed therapy.

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.