Real-World Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib in Korean Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis

Real-world safety and effectiveness of lenvatinib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in Korea: post-marketing study

Aim: This post-marketing surveillance study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of lenvatinib as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in Korea.Materials & methods: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and other safety and effectiveness end points were assessed in patients who initiated lenvatinib according to the approved label in republic of Korea.Results: Among 658 lenvatinib-treated patients, ADRs were reported in 57.8%; ADRs grade ≥3 in 13.5%. The most common grade ≥3 ADRs were asthenia (1.2%) and hepatic encephalopathy (1.2%). Physician-reported tumor responses (n = 511) were complete (1.0%) or partial (12.9%) response and stable (45.2%) or progressive disease (40.9%); objective response rates were higher with longer lenvatinib treatment duration (p < 0.001).Conclusion: Lenvatinib was generally well tolerated and effective in real-world clinical practice in Korea.Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05225207.

Phase I-IV Drug Trials on Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Asian Populations: A Systematic Review of Ten Years of Studies

Despite advances in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) over the last few decades, treatment opportunities for patients with HCC remain limited. HCC is the most common form of liver cancer, accounting for approximately 90% of all cases worldwide. Moreover, apart from the current pharmacological interventions, hepatic resection and liver transplantation are the mainstay curative approaches for patients with HCC. This systematic review included phase I, II, III, and IV clinical trials (CTs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on current treatments for patients with HCC in Asian populations (2013-2023). A total of 427 articles were screened, and 184 non-duplicate publications were identified. After screening the titles and abstracts, 96 publications were excluded, and another 28 were excluded after full-text screening. The remaining 60 eligible RCTs/CTs were finally included. A total of 60 clinical trials fulfilled our inclusion criteria with 36 drugs used as monotherapy or combination therapy for HCC. Most studies used sorafenib alone or in combination with any of the treatment regimens. Lenvatinib or atezolizumab with bevacizumab was used for HCC after initial sorafenib treatment. Eighteen studies compared the efficacy of sorafenib with that of other drugs, including lenvatinib, cabozantinib, tepotinib, tigatuzumab, linifanib, erlotinib, resminostat, brivanib, tislelizumab, selumetinib, and refametinib. This study provides comprehensive insights into effective treatment interventions for HCC in Asian populations. The overall assessment indicates that sorafenib, used alone or in combination with atezolizumab and bevacizumab, has been the first treatment choice in the past decade to achieve better outcomes in patients with HCC in Asian populations.

Small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors approved for systemic therapy of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: recent advances and future perspectives

Liver cancer is the sixth most commonly diagnosed cancer and the third leading cause of cancer death in the world, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common form of liver cancer. More than half of the HCC patients are diagnosed at an advanced stage and often require systemic therapy. Dysregulation of the activity of receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) is involved in the development and progress of HCC, RTKs are therefore the potential targets for systemic therapy of advanced HCC (aHCC). Currently, a total of six small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have been approved for aHCC, including first-line sorafenib, lenvatinib, and donafenib, and second-line regorafenib, cabozantinib, and apatinib. These TKIs improved patients survival, which are associated with disease stage, etiology, liver function, tumor burden, baseline levels of alpha-fetoprotein, and treatment history. This review focuses on the clinical outcomes of these TKIs in key clinical trials, retrospective and real-world studies and discusses the future perspectives of TKIs for aHCC, with an aim to provide up-to-date evidence for decision-making in the treatment of aHCC.

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.

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.

Transarterial chemoembolization combined donafenib with/without PD-1 for unresectable HCC in a multicenter retrospective study

Background & aims

This multicenter retrospective study evaluated the efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) combined with donafenib and a programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor (TACE+DP) and TACE combined with donafenib (TACE+D) for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC).

Methods

The clinical data of 388 patients with uHCC who received TACE+DP or TACE+D as first-line treatment at six Chinese academic centers from July 2021 to July 2022 were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Patients in the TACE+DP group received an intravenous administration of a PD-1 inhibitor every three weeks and oral donafenib (0.2 g) twice daily until intolerable toxicity or disease progression. Patients in the TACE+D group received the same dose of donafenib for 3-5 days after TACE. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS)were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. The tumor response was compared between the two groups according to modified RECIST criteria. Adverse events were also analyzed between the two groups.

Results

The TACE+D group included 157 patients and the TACE+DP group included 166 patients. Patients in the TACE+DP group had a longer median OS (18.1 vs. 13.2 months, P<0.001) and longer median PFS (10.6 vs. 7.9 months, P<0.001) than those in the TACE+D group. Patients in the TACE+DP group achieved a greater objective response rate (ORR; 50.6% vs. 41.4%, P=0.019) and greater disease control rate (DCR) (89.2% vs. 82.8%, P=0.010) than those in the TACE+D group. No significant differences were found in the incidence or severity of adverse events between the TACE+DP and TACE+D groups (any grade: 92.9% vs. 94.6%, P=0.270; grade 3 or 4: 33.8% vs. 37.3%, P=0.253).

Conclusion

With favorable safety and tolerability, TACE combined with donafenib and PD-1 inhibitors significantly improved PFS, OS, and ORR compared to TACE combined with donafenib.

Population Sensitive to Lenvatinib Plus Anti-PD-1 for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Infected with Hepatitis B Virus

Background

We explore the dose-efficacy relationship of lenvatinib plus anti-PD-1 in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC) infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV) in real-world practice. Furthermore, we identify the population sensitive to lenvatinib plus anti-PD-1 treatments.

Methods

This retrospective study included 70 patients treated with lenvatinib plus at least 3 cycles of anti-PD-1 and 140 with lenvatinib alone. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting (SIPTW) was used to balance clinical features between the two groups. The overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events (AEs) were analyzed. Subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot (STEPP) estimated treatment-effect differences between the two groups.

Results

The median age was 54 years, and 189 (90%) cases were male. A total of 180 (85%) patients were infected with HBV. A slowly increasing 12-month survival rate was with the cycles of anti-PD-1, and 5 cycles and more of anti-PD-1 appeared the most beneficial and stable survival rate. The lenvatinib plus at least 3 cycles anti-PD-1 group had better OS (21.4 vs 14 months, p = 0.041), PFS (8.0 vs 6.3 months, p = 0.015) than the lenvatinib alone group in unadjusted cohorts, and the SIPTW adjusted cohorts had confirmed it. For patients with portal vein trunk invasion (PVTI) or extrahepatic spread (EHS) combined with Child-Pugh class B (CPB), lenvatinib plus anti-PD-1 made the 12-month survival rate increase by 38%, while, in the other population, it did only 18%. The two groups had similar AEs (p ≥ 0.05).

Conclusion

The lenvatinib combined with at least 3 cycles of anti-PD-1 was efficacy and safe for u-HCC patients infected with HBV. Especially, patients with PVTI or EHS combined with CPB may benefit most from the combination therapy.

Effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib plus anti-programmed death-1 antibodies in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A real-world cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Lenvatinib plus anti-programmed death-1 (anti-PD-1) antibody combinations have shown potent anti-tumor effect in phase I/II trials in advanced or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but real-world data are limited.

METHODS

To investigate the effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib plus anti-PD-1 antibodies in a real-world cohort, we retrospectively evaluated 210 patients with unresectable or advanced HCC treated with these regimens between October 2018 and February 2022.

RESULTS

The objective response rate and disease control rate per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 were 28.1% and 75.2%. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in the overall cohort were 17.2 and 8.4 months, respectively. Median OS and PFS of patients receiving first-line treatment reached 18.9 and 9.6 months. Median OS was significantly longer in patients with Child-Pugh class A versus B (18.8 vs. 5.9 months, respectively), as was median PFS (9.1 vs. 4.4 months). Patients with albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade 1 versus grade 2/3 also had significantly greater median OS (23.5 vs. 13.4 months). Treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 79.5% of patients. Patients with ALBI grade 2/3 had a higher rate of grade 3/4 AEs than patients with ALBI grade 1 (57.5% vs. 38.5%).

CONCLUSION

Lenvatinib combined with anti-PD-1 antibody therapy was effective in patients with sufficient liver function reserve. Further study is needed to improve therapeutic efficacy and AE management in patients with Child-Pugh class B or ALBI grade 2/3.

2022 KLCA-NCC Korea practice guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer worldwide and the fourth most common cancer among men in South Korea, where the prevalence of chronic hepatitis B infection is high in middle and old age. The current practice guidelines will provide useful and sensible advice for the clinical management of patients with HCC. A total of 49 experts in the fields of hepatology, oncology, surgery, radiology, and radiation oncology from the Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center Korea Practice Guideline Revision Committee revised the 2018 Korean guidelines and developed new recommendations that integrate the most up-to-date research findings and expert opinions. These guidelines provide useful information and direction for all clinicians, trainees, and researchers in the diagnosis and treatment of HCC.

Sorafenib versus nivolumab after lenvatinib treatment failure in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIM

An optimal sequential anti-hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) agent that can be used after failed lenvatinib treatment has not been established. Here, we compared the outcomes of sorafenib and nivolumab as second-line agents after failed lenvatinib treatment in patients with advanced HCC.

METHODS

Patients with advanced HCC who had received sorafenib or nivolumab as second-line agents after failed lenvatinib treatment were recruited from two Korean tertiary institutions between November 2018 and June 2020.

RESULTS

The median age of the 60 participants (52 treated with sorafenib and eight treated with nivolumab) at baseline was 56.8 years. The demographic, laboratory and tumor variables, as well as lenvatinib treatment duration, were similar between the two groups. The median durations of sorafenib and nivolumab treatment were 1.2 and 2.6 months, respectively ( P  = 0.164). Twenty-four (40.0%) patients died during the follow-up period (median, 15.8 months). The median overall survival (OS) of the study population was 5.8 months. The median OS of patients treated with sorafenib was significantly longer than the median OS of patients treated with nivolumab (8.7 vs. 3.0 months; P  = 0.046). Sorafenib treatment (vs. nivolumab) was independently associated with a lower risk of mortality (hazard ratio = 0.194; 95% confidence interval, 0.053-0.708; P  = 0.013). Worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, larger maximal tumor size, lymph node metastases and higher total bilirubin levels were independently associated with increased mortality risk (all P  < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Lenvatinib-sorafenib sequential treatment resulted in significantly better survival did than lenvatinib-nivolumab sequential treatment in patients with advanced HCC. Larger studies are needed to validate our results.

Efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Lenvatinib is approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, clinical outcomes of lenvatinib therapy in patients with post-liver transplantation (LT) HCC recurrence remain unclear. We investigated the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in patients with post-LT HCC recurrence.

METHODS

This multinational, multicenter, retrospective study included 45 patients with recurrent HCC after LT who received lenvatinib at six institutions in three countries (Korea, Italy, and Hong Kong) from June 2017 to October 2021.

RESULTS

At the time of lenvatinib initiation, 95.6% (n = 43) of patients had Child-Pugh A status, and 35 (77.8%) and 10 (22.2%) participants were classified as having albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grades 1 and 2, respectively. The objective response rate was 20.0%. With a median follow-up duration of 12.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.2-14.7), the median progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) were 7.6 (95% CI: 5.3-9.8) months, and 14.5 (95% CI: 0.8-28.2) months, respectively. Patients with ALBI grade 1 showed significantly better OS (52.3 months, [95% CI: not assessable]) than patients with ALBI grade 2 (11.1 months [95% CI: 0.0-30.4 months], p = 0.003). The most common adverse events were hypertension (n = 25, 55.6%), fatigue (n = 17, 37.8%), and anorexia (n = 14, 31.1%).

CONCLUSION

Lenvatinib showed consistent efficacy and toxicity profiles in patients with post-LT HCC recurrence that were comparable to those reported from previous studies among non-LT HCC patients. The baseline ALBI grade correlated with better OS in post-LT lenvatinib-treated patients.

Comparison of the effects of lenvatinib and sorafenib on survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The first-line systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) involves the use of sorafenib and lenvatinib. The present meta-analysis attempted to compare the therapeutic safety and effectiveness of the two drugs in advanced HCC.

METHODS

The library databases of Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched to identify eligible studies comparing the long-term outcomes of sorafenib and lenvatinib use in advanced HCC patients. Overall survival (OS) was considered the primary endpoint, whereas the progression-free survival (PFS), severe adverse events (AEs), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) were considered the secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

The present systematic review included 8 nonrandomized studies and 1 randomized controlled trial, comprising a total of 1, 914 cases. OS in patients receiving lenvatinib was better than that in patients receiving sorafenib [hazard ratio (HR): 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04-1.45]. Additionally, patients who received lenvatinib exhibited better PFS, ORR, and DCR (HR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.79-0.99), [odds ratio (OR: 7.50, 95% CI: 4.43-12.69)], (OR: 7.50, 95% CI: 4.43-12.69), but higher incidences of AEs than those receiving sorafenib (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.08-1.53).

CONCLUSION

Lenvatinib is superior to sorafenib in treating unresectable HCC patients.

Risk Factors for Hepatic Encephalopathy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Sorafenib or Lenvatinib Treatment: A Real-World Study

Purpose

This study aimed to investigate the incidence rate and risk factors for hepatic encephalopathy (HE) among unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) patients with liver cirrhosis who received sorafenib or lenvatinib treatment.

Patients and Methods

uHCC patients with cirrhosis who received first-line sorafenib or lenvatinib treatment between September 2014 and February 2021 were continually reviewed in our single-center retrospective study. The Hepatic Encephalopathy Scoring Algorithm was used to evaluate the occurrence and grade of HE during treatment, and logistic regression models were used to further explore the risk factors for HE.

Results

A total of 454 eligible patients were enrolled in our study, with 214 and 240 patients in the sorafenib and lenvatinib groups, respectively. At time of data cut-off (2021-12), the incidence of HE in sorafenib group (4.2%, 95% CI:2-7%) was significantly lower than that in lenvatinib group (11.3%,95% CI:7-15%) (p = 0.006), with alcoholic cirrhosis [OR: 5.857 (95% CI: 1.519-22.591)], Child-Pugh >7 [OR: 3.023 (95% CI: 1.135-8.053)], blood ammonia ≥38.65 μmol/L [OR: 4.693 (95% CI: 1.782-12.358)], total bile acid ≥29.5 μmol/L [OR: 11.047 (95% CI: 4.414-27.650)] and duration of treatment ≥5.6 months [OR: 4.350 (95% CI: 1.701-11.126)] to be risk factors for the occurrence of HE during first-line systemic therapy.

Conclusion

In our study, for off-label uHCC patients (Child-Pugh >7) with alcoholic cirrhosis, hyperammonemia, hypercholesterolemia, and estimated longer duration of treatment, the application of lenvatinib has to be cautious, which needs to be confirmed in future clinical trials.

An overview: Management of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has constituted a significant health burden worldwide, and patients with advanced HCC, which is stage C as defined by the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system, have a poor overall survival of 6-8 months. Studies have indicated the significant survival benefit of treatment based on sorafenib, lenvatinib, or atezolizumab-bevacizumab with reliable safety. In addition, the combination of two or more molecularly targeted therapies (first- plus second-line) has become a hot topic recently and is now being extensively investigated in patients with advanced HCC. In addition, a few biomarkers have been investigated and found to predict drug susceptibility and prognosis, which provides an opportunity to evaluate the clinical benefits of current therapies. In addition, many therapies other than tyrosine kinase inhibitors that might have additional survival benefits when combined with other therapeutic modalities, including immunotherapy, transarterial chemoembolization, radiofrequency ablation, hepatectomy, and chemotherapy, have also been examined. This review provides an overview on the current understanding of disease management and summarizes current challenges with and future perspectives on advanced HCC.

Efficacy and safety of lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis

Objective

Lenvatinib and sorafenib are first-line oral multikinase inhibitors approved for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the choice of the primary therapeutic agent among these two remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched for relevant research published up to June 30, 2022. After quality assessment and data extraction of the included studies, RevMan 5.3 software was used for analysis. Odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a fixed-effects or random-effects model.

Results

Fifteen studies containing 3908 patients were included after final scrutiny. Our meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between the lenvatinib and sorafenib groups (HR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.72-1.02; p = 0.09); however, the progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.53-0.74; p < 0.00001), complete response (CR) (OR = 5.61; 95% CI: 2.71-11.64; p < 0.00001), partial response (PR) (OR = 4.62; 95% CI: 3.06-6.98; p < 0.00001), objective response rate (ORR) (OR = 5.61; 95% CI: 3.90-8.09; p < 0.00001), and disease control rate (DCR) (OR = 2.42; 95% CI: 1.79-3.28; p < 0.00001) in the lenvatinib group were significantly better than those in the sorafenib group. In terms of treatment safety, lenvatinib had similar incidences of any grade adverse events (AEs) (OR = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.47-2.09; p = 0.98) and grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR = 1.17, 95% CI; 1.00-1.37; p = 0.05) compared to sorafenib. Besides, lenvatinib was significantly associated with a higher incidence of hypertension, proteinuria, fatigue, decreased appetite, and weight loss, whereas sorafenib was associated with a higher incidence of diarrhea and hand-foot skin reaction (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Given its potential survival benefit and good tolerability, lenvatinib is an appropriate and promising alternative to sorafenib as first-line systemic therapy in patients with advanced HCC.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD 42022327398.

Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors plus molecular targeted agents after the progression of lenvatinib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Background

Lenvatinib is a standard first-line systemic therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) and is widely used in all lines. However, the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) plus molecular targeted agents (MTAs) after the progression of lenvatinib treatment are unclear.

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the anticancer effects of ICI plus MTA in patients with aHCC who progressed after lenvatinib.

Methods

We retrospectively included aHCC patients treated with ICI plus MTA after the progression of lenvatinib from two medical centers. Participants who continued lenvatinib treatment were classified into the "ICI+Lenva" group, while the "ICI+Others" group included patients receiving other MTAs. The efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival (PPS), overall survival (OS), and tumor response following RECIST v1.1. Safety was evaluated according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0.

Results

In this study, 85 eligible aHCC patients were enrolled, including 58 in the ICI+Lenva group and 27 in the ICI+Others group. At a median follow-up time of 22.8 months, the median PPS and PFS were 14.0 (95% CI: 9.0-18.2) and 4.5 months (95% CI: 3.5-8.3), respectively. The objective response and disease control rates were 10.6% and 52.9%, respectively. No significant differences were observed in any of the efficacy endpoints between the two groups. Prolonged PPS was associated with Child-Pugh grade A, AFP < 400 IU/ml, and concomitant locoregional treatment. All patients experienced adverse events (AEs), but no fatal AEs were observed.

Conclusion

ICI plus MTA in aHCC patients after the progression of lenvatinib presented high antitumor activity and safety. Patients could continue lenvatinib treatment and receive ICIs as well as locoregional treatment to achieve better OS.

2022 KLCA-NCC Korea Practice Guidelines for the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer worldwide and the fourth most common cancer among men in South Korea, where the prevalence of chronic hepatitis B infection is high in middle and old age. The current practice guidelines will provide useful and sensible advice for the clinical management of patients with HCC. A total of 49 experts in the fields of hepatology, oncology, surgery, radiology, and radiation oncology from the Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center Korea Practice Guideline Revision Committee revised the 2018 Korean guidelines and developed new recommendations that integrate the most up-to-date research findings and expert opinions. These guidelines provide useful information and direction for all clinicians, trainees, and researchers in the diagnosis and treatment of HCC.

Real-World Study: A Powerful Tool for Malignant Tumor Research in General Surgery

Real-world study (RWS) is a method to draw conclusions by collecting and analyzing real-world data under a real clinical background. Compared with traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs), RWSs are favored by clinicians because of their low cost and good extrapolation. In recent years, RWS has made remarkable achievements in the field of general surgery, especially in the drug treatment of advanced malignant tumors. Therefore, to further understand the main contents of the existing RWS and the application prospect of RWS in the future, this paper systematically reviews the clinical application of RWS in malignant tumors in general surgery in the past three years.

2022 KLCA-NCC Korea practice guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer worldwide and the fourth most common cancer among men in South Korea, where the prevalence of chronic hepatitis B infection is high in middle and old age. The current practice guidelines will provide useful and sensible advice for the clinical management of patients with HCC. A total of 49 experts in the fields of hepatology, oncology, surgery, radiology, and radiation oncology from the Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center Korea Practice Guideline Revision Committee revised the 2018 Korean guidelines and developed new recommendations that integrate the most up-to-date research findings and expert opinions. These guidelines provide useful information and direction for all clinicians, trainees, and researchers in the diagnosis and treatment of HCC.

Effectiveness of Lenvatinib Versus Sorafenib for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Hepatic Decompensation

BACKGROUND/AIM

Lenvatinib and sorafenib are currently available to treat patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, since the clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of lenvatinib and sorafenib included only patients with Child-Pugh class A, little is known about the effectiveness of the treatments in patients with hepatic decompensation. We compared the effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib in decompensated patients with unresectable HCC.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who were classified as Child-Pugh class B or C and received lenvatinib or sorafenib as first-line systemic therapy for unresectable HCC between November 2018 and April 2020 at a tertiary referral center were included in this retrospective study. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), and the secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-progression, best overall tumor response, and safety profiles.

RESULTS

Among 94 patients, 34 received lenvatinib and 60 received sorafenib. The median OS was 4.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9-5.2): 4.2 months (95% CI, 2.9-5.3) for lenvatinib and 4.1 months (95% CI, 2.7-6.4) for sorafenib. The treatment regimen was not associated with significant improvement in OS after adjusting for covariables (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.54-1.54; P = 0.74). The treatment regimen was not an independent predictor of PFS (lenvatinib vs. sorafenib; aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.48-1.24; P = 0.28). HRs were maintained even after balancing with the inverse probability treatment weighting method. Objective response rates were 11.8% and 6.7% in patients receiving lenvatinib and sorafenib, respectively (P = 0.45). Ten patients in both groups (five in the lenvatinib group and five in the sorafenib group) underwent dose modification due to adverse events, and significant difference was not observed between the treatment groups (P = 0.49).

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib was comparable for the treatment of unresectable HCC in decompensated patients.

Lenvatinib for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma-a real-world multicenter Australian cohort study

Introduction

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a serious complication of chronic liver disease. Lenvatinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor registered to treat advanced HCC. This study evaluates the real-world experience with lenvatinib in Australia.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients treated with lenvatinib for advanced HCC between July 2018 and November 2020 at 11 Australian tertiary care hospitals. Baseline demographic data, tumor characteristics, lenvatinib dosing, adverse events (AEs) and clinical outcomes were collected. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcome. Progression free survival (PFS) and AEs were secondary outcomes.

Results

A total of 155 patients were included and were predominantly male (90.7%) with a median age of 65 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 59–75). The main causes of chronic liver disease were hepatitis C infection (40.0%) and alcohol-related liver disease (34.2). Median OS and PFS were 7.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.8–14.0) and 5.3 months (95% CI: 2.8–9.2) respectively. Multivariate predictors of mortality were the need for dose reduction due to AEs (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.41, p < 0.01), new or worsening hypertension (HR 0.42, p < 0.01), diarrhoea (HR 0.47, p = 0.04) and more advanced BCLC stage (HR 2.50, p = 0.04). Multivariable predictors of disease progression were higher Child–Pugh score (HR 1.25, p = 0.04), the need for a dose reduction (HR 0.45, p < 0.01) and age (HR 0.96, p < 0.001). AEs occurred in 83.9% of patients with most being mild (71.6%).

Conclusions

Lenvatinib remains safe and effective in real-world use. Treatment emergent diarrhoea and hypertension, and the need for dose reduction appear to predict better OS.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12072-022-10398-5.

Real-world effectiveness of lenvatinib monotherapy in previously treated unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in US clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Lenvatinib monotherapy was approved in the United States for first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) in 2018. This study assessed real-world treatment patterns and outcomes of lenvatinib beyond first-line systemic treatment in the United States.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted among US adults (≥18 years) with uHCC. Eligible patients initiated lenvatinib monotherapy as second- or later-line systemic therapy (2L-plus) from August 2018 to September 2019. Clinical outcomes included physician-reported best response, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Of 164 patients who received lenvatinib in 2L-plus, most (n = 133; 81.1%) received lenvatinib in 2 L. There were 109 patients (66.4%) who initiated lenvatinib after immunotherapy. At lenvatinib initiation, only 31.1% of patients had Child-Pugh class A, while half (49.4%) had Child-Pugh class B. Most patients had Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B (23.8%) or C (38.4%) uHCC. Median duration of lenvatinib treatment was 6.9 months, with 42.7% of patients still on treatment at the end of follow-up. Physician-reported best response was complete and partial response for 8.5% and 44.5% of patients, respectively. PFS and OS rate estimates from lenvatinib initiation at 12 months were 51.7% and 57.8%, respectively. Among patients treated after immunotherapy, complete and partial responses were 10.1% and 43.1%, respectively, and PFS and OS estimates from lenvatinib initiation at 12 months were 52.8% and 60.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This retrospective study suggests clinical effectiveness of lenvatinib monotherapy in a real-world setting among previously treated patients with uHCC, including among those previously treated with immunotherapy.

Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib Combined With PD-1 Inhibitors Plus TACE for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients in China Real-World

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib combined with programmed death receptor-1 signaling inhibitors plus transarterial chemoembolization (LePD1-TACE) for treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) in a real-world setting in China.

Methods

This was a retrospective study involving consecutive patients with uHCC (n =114) receiving LePD1-TACE treatment from June 2019 to May 2021. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) were calculated to evaluate the antitumor efficacy. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were analyzed to assess the safety profiles. In addition, we also evaluated prognostic factors related to survival and disease progression.

Results

A total of 114 patients with a median age of 53 years were analyzed during a median follow-up duration of 10.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.5 -12.8). The Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the median OS was 18.0 months (95% CI: 14.1 - Not reached), the median PFS was 10.4 months (95% CI: 6.6 - 12.4). Based on modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, the best ORR was 69.3% and DCR was 80.7%. Almost all patients suffered from TRAEs, the most common grade 3-4 TRAEs were hypertension (8.8%), proteinuria (3.6%), hyperbilirubinemia (1.8%), leukopenia (4.4%) and alanine aminotransferase elevation (3.6%) across all patients. The independent treatment factors associated with OS and PFS were tumor number, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and the early tumor response. In the early tumor response (CR+PR) patients, median OS and PFS were 25.1 months (95% CI: 13.8 - Not reached) and 15.2 months (95% CI: 10.5 - 19.1). The patients with tumor number < 3 had a superior median OS and PFS (25.1, 16.4 months) compared to patients with tumor number ≥ 3 (14.1 months, P = 0.012; 6.6 months, P = 0.007). The patients with NLR ≤ 2.165 had a longer median OS and PFS (Not reached, 15.2 months) than those with NLR > 2.165 (17.7 months, P = 0.003; 7.5 months, P = 0.047).

Conclusion

In this real-world study, LePD1-TACE triple therapy showed encouraging efficiency and manageable safety in patients with uHCC. The tumor number (< 3), NLR (≤ 2.165) and early tumor response (CR+PR) could be one of the prognostic markers.

Systemic Treatment of Advanced Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma after First-Line Therapy: Expert Recommendations from Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan

BACKGROUND

Asia has a high burden of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) due to the high rates of chronic hepatitis B infection and accounts for 70% of HCC cases globally. In the past 20 years, the systemic treatment landscape of advanced HCC has evolved substantially - from tyrosine kinase inhibitors to immune-oncology agents plus anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents. The appropriate sequence of therapies has become critical in optimizing patient outcomes given the increase in systemic therapeutic options. This article evaluates the evidence and provides expert recommendations for the use of systemic therapies after first-line treatment in patients with advanced HCC.

SUMMARY

Based on three virtual meetings held in early 2021, a team of 17 experts comprising oncologists, a hepatologist, and a hepatobiliary surgeon from Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan reviewed available data about systemic treatments for HCC after first line and formulated 28 statements. These statements aimed to provide expert guidance on selecting first and subsequent lines of therapies as well as recommending therapies in special circumstances, such as poor liver function, posttransplantation, recent gastrointestinal bleeding, or autoimmune diseases. Data supporting the statements were drawn from clinical trials and real-world studies. The 28 statements were then evaluated anonymously using a 5-point Likert scale, and 24 reached consensus, predefined as achieving 75% agreement. Statements generated covered the selection of first-line systemic therapy, considerations and goals of second-line systemic therapies, treatment selection following first-line therapy, and treatment recommendations following first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors, immune-oncology monotherapy, or immune-oncology combination therapy. The authors also shared expert opinion on the use of second-line systemic therapy in patients with liver dysfunction, liver transplantation, and recent gastrointestinal or autoimmune disease.

KEY MESSAGES

These expert statements summarize the latest data and expert opinion on selecting systemic treatment following first-line therapy in patients with unresectable advanced or metastatic HCC.

Efficacy and safety of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization-lenvatinib sequential therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a single-arm clinical study

Background

Repeated transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) could cause ischemia of the tumor tissue and increases production of angiogenic factors in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Lenvatinib can inhibit the expression of angiogenic factors induced by ischemia after TACE and reduce angiogenesis and tumor recurrence. TACE-lenvatinib sequential therapy may improve clinical outcomes. There have been few investigations of TACE-lenvatinib sequential therapy for the treatment of unresectable HCC. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TACE-lenvatinib sequential therapy for unresectable HCC.

Methods

From May 2018 to May 2021, 53 consecutive patients who underwent TACE-lenvatinib sequential therapy were retrospectively reviewed. Of these, 30 patients who met the inclusion criteria were selected. Lenvatinib treatment started within 1 or 2 weeks after TACE at a dose of 8 or 12 mg once daily. Treatment response was assessed using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) according to the modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumor (mRECIST). Blood tests were also performed at every response evaluation. Patients with complete response (CR) or partial response (PR) and stable disease (SD) received continuous lenvatinib therapy, and patients with progressive disease (PD) received repeated TACE. The progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events (AEs) were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

The median age was 58.5±9.1 years, and 16.7% (5/30) of patients were female. A total of 12 patients were categorized as Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) Stage B and 18 were BCLC Stage C. The mean follow-up time was 15.7 months. The ORR was 76.7% (23/30), and the DCR was 96.7% (29/30). The median PFS was 6.1 months, and the median OS was 20.7 months. The most common lenvatinib-related AE was rash, and the most common TACE-related AE was elevated aspartate aminotransferase (AST). No treatment-related mortality was observed.

Conclusions

From our findings, TACE-lenvatinib sequential therapy may prolong OS and PFS in patients with unresectable HCC, and the side effects are acceptable. The efficacy and safety of the sequential therapy should be confirmed in multiple center randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a large sample and sufficient follow-up period.

Efficacy of Lenvatinib and Sorafenib in the Real-World First-Line Treatment of Advanced-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma in a Taiwanese Population

Aim: Currently, atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab is the standard first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but lenvatinib or sorafenib are still recommended for these patients for some reasons. The aim of the study was to determine the outcomes of Taiwanese patients with advanced-stage HCC who received lenvatinib or sorafenib. Methods: Data on patients with BCLC stage C HCC who were receiving lenvatinib or sorafenib as the first-line therapy from May 2018 to August 2020 was collected. The individuals with lenvatinib and sorafenib were propensity score-matched at a ratio of 1:2. Results: A total of 22 patients with lenvatinib and 44 patients with sorafenib were enrolled. The ORR (36.4% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.023) and DCR (81.9% vs. 56.9%, p = 0.039) were both higher in the lenvatinib group compared with the sorafenib group. The median overall survival (OS) of the lenvatinib group and the sorafenib group was 9.36 months and 8.36 months, respectively. The best median OS was detected in patients receiving lenvatinib and having an objective tumor response (11.29 months), with a significant difference (p = 0.031) compared with the other groups. Conclusion: Lenvatinib, compared to sorafenib, had better ORR and DCR, but similar OS, in Taiwanese patients with advanced-stage HCC. The patients with an objective tumor response had a better OS.

Expert consensus on the management of adverse events in patients receiving lenvatinib for hepatocellular carcinoma

Lenvatinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor approved for use as first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, like other agents in this drug class, lenvatinib is associated with clinically important adverse events (AEs) that could adversely affect patient outcomes. Hypertension, diarrhea, decreased appetite/weight, hand-foot skin reaction, and proteinuria are among the most common AEs associated with lenvatinib therapy. This article provides strategies for the effective management of lenvatinib-associated AEs based on the expert opinion of authors and currently available literature. Due to the high risk of AEs in patients receiving lenvatinib, prophylactic measures and regular monitoring for AEs are recommended. Lenvatinib dose interruption, adjustment, or discontinuation of treatment may be required for patients who develop AEs. For grade 1 or 2 AEs, dose interruption is generally not required. For persistent or intolerable grade 2 or 3 AEs, lenvatinib treatment should be interrupted until symptoms improve/resolve to grade 0-1 or baseline levels. Thereafter, treatment should be resumed at the same or a lower dose. Disease progression may occur in patients who do not initially respond to treatment or receive a suboptimal lenvatinib dose following dose reduction, resulting in lack of efficacy. Therefore, to derive maximum treatment benefit and ensure long-term disease control, lenvatinib should be maintained at the highest possible dose when managing AEs. To conclude, lenvatinib-associated AEs can be managed with prophylactic measures, regular monitoring and symptomatic management, which can ensure continued treatment and maximum survival benefit in patients with advanced HCC receiving first-line lenvatinib therapy.

Lenvatinib Plus Camrelizumab vs. Lenvatinib Monotherapy as First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

Combining an antiangiogenic agent with an anti-PD-1 agent is a promising strategy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Aims

To explore the effectiveness and tolerability of lenvatinib plus camrelizumab vs. lenvatinib monotherapy as a first-line treatment for unresectable HCC.

Methods

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included patients with unresectable HCC treated with oral lenvatinib 8 mg daily and intravenous camrelizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks (L+C group) or lenvatinib 12 mg or 8 mg daily (L group) in four Chinese centers between September 2018 and February 2020. Tumor response was evaluated according to RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST. The outcomes included objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), 1-year OS rate, progression-free survival (PFS), and safety.

Results

By March 31, 2021, 92 patients were finally included, with 48 and 44 in the L+C and L groups, respectively. ORR was significantly higher in the L+C group than in the L group (RECIST 1.1: 37.5% vs. 13.6%, P=0.009; mRECIST: 41.7% vs. 20.5%, P=0.029). Median OS and 95% confidence interval (CI) was 13.9 (13.3-18.3) months in the L group and not reached in the L+C group (P=0.015). The 1-year survival rate was 79.2% and 56.8% in the L+C and L groups, respectively. Median PFS was 10.3 (6.6-14.0) months and 7.5 (5.7-9.3) months in the L+C and L groups, respectively (P=0.0098). Combined therapy vs. monotherapy was independently associated with a prolonged OS (hazard ratio=0.380, 95% CI=: 0.196-0.739, P=0.004) and a prolonged PFS (hazard ratio=0.454, 95%CI=0.282-0.731, P=0.001). The safety profile was comparable between the two groups. The most common adverse event in the L+C and L groups was loss of appetite (41.7% vs. 40.9%, P=0.941). Three patients in the L+C group and two in the L group terminated treatment owing to adverse events.

Conclusion

First-line lenvatinib plus camrelizumab showed better effectiveness than lenvatinib alone in patients with unresectable HCC.

Combination of Ablation and Immunotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Where We Are and Where to Go

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide and is increasing in incidence. Local ablative therapy plays a leading role in HCC treatment. Radiofrequency (RFA) is one of the first-line therapies for early local ablation. Other local ablation techniques (e.g., microwave ablation, cryoablation, irreversible electroporation, phototherapy.) have been extensively explored in clinical trials or cell/animal studies but have not yet been established as a standard treatment or applied clinically. On the one hand, single treatment may not meet the needs. On the other hand, ablative therapy can stimulate local and systemic immune effects. The combination strategy of immunotherapy and ablation is reasonable. In this review, we briefly summarized the current status and progress of ablation and immunotherapy for HCC. The immune effects of local ablation and the strategies of combination therapy, especially synergistic strategies based on biomedical materials, were discussed. This review is hoped to provide references for future researches on ablative immunotherapy to arrive to a promising new era of HCC treatment.

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.

Lenvatinib versus Sorafenib as first-line treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma: A multi-institutional matched case-control study

BACKGROUND

Advanced Hepatocarcinoma (HCC) is an important health problem worldwide. Recently, the REFLECT trial demonstrated the non-inferiority of Lenvatinib compared to Sorafenib in I line setting, thus leading to the approval of new first-line standard of care, along with Sorafenib.

AIMS AND METHODS

With aim to evaluate the optimal choice between Sorafenib and Lenvatinib as primary treatment in clinical practice, we performed a multicentric analysis with the propensity score matching on 184 HCC patients.

RESULTS

The median overall survival (OS) were 15.2 and 10.5 months for Lenvatinib and Sorafenib arm, respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.0 and 4.5 months for Lenvatinib and Sorafenib arm, respectively. Patients treated with Lenvatinib showed a 36% reduction of death risk (p = 0.0156), a 29% reduction of progression risk (p = 0.0446), a higher response rate (p < 0.00001) and a higher disease control rate (p = 0.002). Sorafenib showed to be correlated with more hand-foot skin reaction and Lenvatinib with more hypertension and fatigue. We highlighted the prognostic role of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS), bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase and eosinophils for Sorafenib. Conversely, albumin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alkaline phosphatase and Neutrophil-Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) resulted prognostic in Lenvatinib arm. Finally, we highlighted the positive predictive role of albumin > Normal Value (NV), ECOG > 0, NLR < 3, absence of Hepatitis C Virus positivity, and presence of portal vein thrombosis in favor of Lenvatinib arm. Eosinophil < 50 and ECOG > 0 negatively predicted the response to Sorafenib.

CONCLUSION

SLenvatinib showed to better perform in a real-word setting compared to Sorafenib. More researches are needed to validate the predictor factors of response to Lenvatinib rather than Sorafenib.

Real-World Lenvatinib Versus Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Background

Lenvatinib is approved for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) due to its non-inferiority to sorafenib of overall survival (OR) in clinical trials. This study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib and sorafenib in the real world.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated 338 patients with unresectable HCC who had undergone lenvatinib or sorafenib treatment between January 2018 and August 2020. Propensity-score matching analysis was performed with a 1:2 ratio to reduce the real-life baseline difference between the two groups.

Results

A total of 210 patients (Male/Female: 150/60, mean age: 65.8 years) were recruited including 70 patients in the Lenvatinib group and 140 patients in the Sorafenib group. Compared with sorafenib, lenvatinib had significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS) (5.2 vs 3.3 months, p=0.019) but similar OR (13.3 vs 11.8 months, p=0.714). Additionally, lenvatinib had better disease control rates (62.3 vs 48.6%, p=0.029) and equivalent incidences of treatment-related adverse events over sorafenib. In multivariate analysis, lenvatinib was associated with better PFS over sorafenib (hazard ratio: 0.49, 95% confidence interval: 0.3–0.79, p=0.004) after adjustments of albumin-bilirubin grade and alpha-fetoprotein level; however, different agents using lenvatinib or sorafenib did not contribute to OS, whether in univariate or multivariate analysis. Patients who failed lenvatinib had a lower proportion of having sequential systemic therapies compared with the Sorafenib group (36.2 vs 47.8%, p=0.02). The most frequently used sequential therapy following lenvatinib and sorafenib was chemotherapy (n=9, 42.8%) and regorafenib (n=33, 50.8%), respectively.

Conclusions

In clinical real-life practice, lenvatinib illustrated promising survival benefits and acceptable safety for patients with unresectable HCC, while reducing the risk of progression disease compared with sorafenib. Additionally, lack of approved post-lenvatinib systemic therapies is a serious issue in the real world.

Overview of lenvatinib as a targeted therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common malignancy worldwide. Patients commonly present with advanced/unresectable HCC where several treatment options are not effective. In this review, the authors discuss the indications and usage of lenvatinib, a multikinase inhibitor, as first-line therapy for advanced/unresectable HCC, its mode of action, efficacy, drug reactions, response to treatment and adverse effects. Since its approval in 2007, sorafenib has been used as first-line therapy for unresectable HCC. In 2018, a phase III multinational REFLECT trial on subjects with unresectable HCC (Child-Pugh class A) demonstrated that lenvatinib was non-inferior compared to sorafenib for overall survival, with a controllable toxicity profile, leading to its approval. In addition, our review discusses studies that compare the safety and efficacy profile of lenvatinib especially in patients who have a decline in their liver function to Child-Pugh class B. A current real world analysis of lenvatinib approval for unresectable HCC worldwide is reported.

Long-term complete response to lenvatinib in a patient with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

A 36-year-old man had been diagnosed with a solitary hepatocellular carcinoma in the right lobe of the liver by computed tomography, and right hemihepatectomy was performed 16 years previously. Approximately 13 years later, he underwent partial hepatectomy because of intrahepatic recurrence in segment 4. Multinodular intrahepatic recurrences in the remnant liver were identified 19 months after repeat hepatectomy, and he underwent transcatheter arterial chemoembolization therapy. Ultimately, six transcatheter arterial chemoembolization therapies were required because of multiple repeat multinodular intrahepatic recurrences. The patient was refractory to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, and therefore, he participated in a trial of lenvatinib monotherapy. At lenvatinib initiation, his liver function was Child-Pugh class A. Enhanced abdominal computed tomography detected four tumors in the remnant liver. Enhanced abdominal computed tomography findings at the first evaluation showed no residual contrast uptake on arterial phase images, corresponding to a complete response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors at 4 months after initiation of lenvatinib. The patient was able to continue long-term lenvatinib therapy with well-controlled general health, and he maintained a complete response for two years and three months. Here, we describe his clinical course and radiological results during lenvatinib monotherapy.

Lenvatinib: established and promising drug for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

: The evolving therapeutic landscape of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) includes the increasing implementation of target-therapy and immunotherapy. Lenvatinib, a multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is an emerging first-line therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Its approval has changed the scenario of first-line therapies for advanced HCC, where just sorafenib proved clinical efficacy for over a decade.

AREAS COVERED

: The current evidence on the role of lenvatinib for patients with advanced HCC is reviewed in this article. Particularly, therapeutic mechanisms and clinical efficacy of lenvatinib are summarized and the management of adverse events is discussed. In addition, future perspectives on the emerging role of combine therapy for HCC are highlighted.

EXPERT OPINION

In the first line, lenvatinib was found to be non-inferior to sorafenib for overall survival, with significantly better progression-free survival and objective response rate. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are now part of HCC treatment, and recently the combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has become the recommended standard of care first-line therapy for selected patients. The antitumor and immunomodulatory activities that lenvatinib shows in preclinical studies, and the positive outcomes achieved using a combination of lenvatinib plus ICIs, open new perspectives for advanced HCC treatment.

Recent Progress in Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Cancer (HCC)

Purpose of Review

The management of advanced hepatocellular (HCC) has drastically changed in the past few years with approval of several first line and second line systemic therapies. In this review we present an overview of the recent progress in the treatment of advanced HCC and discuss future perspectives.

Recent Findings

The phase 3 clinical trial IMBRAVE150 has recently shown the combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor, atezolizumab, with an anti-angiogenic agent, bevacizumab, to be superior to sorafenib monotherapy for treatment-naive advanced HCC. Moreover, patients now have multiple options available in second-line therapy including targeted therapies like sorafenib, lenvatinib, regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab and immunotherapies like atezolizumab, and nivolumab either alone or combined with ipilimumab.

Summary

There has been tremendous recent progress in the management of advanced HCC. Combination therapy with atezolizumab-bevacizumab has recently become the standard first line of therapy for patients with advanced HCC. Additionally, immunotherapy agents are poised to play a significant role in the management of HCC either alone or in combination with molecular targeted therapies.

Posttreatment after Lenvatinib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

There is no standard posttreatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in whom lenvatinib therapy has failed. This study aimed to investigate rates of migration to posttreatment after lenvatinib and to explore candidates for second-line agents in the patients with failed lenvatinib therapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data on patients with advanced HCC who received lenvatinib as the first-line agent in 7 institutions.

RESULTS

Overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) of 178 patients who received lenvatinib as the first-line agent were 13.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.5-15.2) and 6.7 months (95% CI, 5.6-7.8), respectively. Sixty-nine of 151 patients (45.7%) who discontinued lenvatinib moved on to posttreatment. The migration rates from lenvatinib to the second-line agent and from the second-line agent to the third-line agent were 41.7 and 44.4%, respectively. Based on multivariate analysis, response to lenvatinib (complete or partial response according to modified RECIST) and discontinuation of lenvatinib due to radiological progression, as well as male were associated with a significantly higher probability of migration to posttreatment after lenvatinib. On the other hand, alpha-fetoprotein levels of 400 ng/mL or higher was correlated with a significantly lower probability of migration to posttreatment after lenvatinib. Of 63 patients who received second-line systemic therapy, 53 (84.2%) were administered sorafenib. PFS, objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) for sorafenib treatment were 1.8 months (95% CI, 0.6-3.0), 1.8%, and 20.8%, respectively. According to the Cox regression hazard model, Child-Pugh class B significantly contributed to shorter PFS. PFS, ORR, and DCR of 22 patients who received regorafenib after lenvatinib in any lines were 3.2 months (range, 1.5-4.9 months), 13.6%, and 36.3%, respectively. Similarly, PFS, ORR, and DCR of 17 patients who received regorafenib after lenvatinib in the third-line (after sorafenib) were 3.8 months (range, 1.1-6.5 months), 17.6%, and 41.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Sorafenib may not be a candidate for use as a posttreatment agent after lenvatinib, according to the results of the present study. Regorafenib has the potential to become an appropriate posttreatment agent after lenvatinib.

A Comparison of Lenvatinib versus Sorafenib in the First-Line Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Selection Criteria to Guide Physician's Choice in a New Therapeutic Scenario

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common malignancy across the world. Alongside improvement in local approaches for early stages, the prognosis of patients with advanced disease remains poor. The tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib was the first drug approved for advanced HCC. During the past decade, this has been extensively explored in real-life settings, such as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 2, Child-Pugh B liver function, chronic kidney disease, HIV infection, transplant recipients and the elderly. After 10 years, the multikinase inhibitor lenvatinib was approved in first-line setting. The Phase III REFLECT trial established the non-inferiority of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib in terms of overall survival, meanwhile exploratory analysis suggests a potential benefit over sorafenib for patients with HBV chronic infection and positive alpha-fetoprotein value. Experience with lenvatinib for patients not matching the REFLECT trial criteria remains promising but still retrospective. Indeed, the treatment sequence after lenvatinib still remains a crucial issue, considering that standard second-line options were tested only in patients who progressed to sorafenib. Overall, the choice between lenvatinib and sorafenib should take into account key selection criteria from randomized trials, evidence to date in special clinical situations, the physician's experience and patient's preference. Fast approval of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for advanced HCC brought an additional element in this scenario. Undoubtedly, lenvatinib and sorafenib remain available options for patients who are not suitable or those progressed to combination immunotherapy. It is conceivable that new systemic options will contribute to design a new treatment algorithm for HCC in the near future. Meanwhile, prospective studies and biomarker analysis are needed to help physicians in the choice between lenvatinib and sorafenib.

Real-world effectiveness of lenvatinib monotherapy among unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients in the USA

Aim: This study evaluated the effectiveness of lenvatinib monotherapy for first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) in a real-world setting. Materials & methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients who initiated lenvatinib monotherapy as first-line treatment for uHCC (n = 233). Clinical outcomes included provider-reported best response, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). PFS and OS were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods. Results: Most patients (67.8%) were male. A total of 44.6% had Child-Pugh A and 39.1% had Child-Pugh B. Dose reductions were reported in 9%. Median PFS and OS were not reached. At 6 and 12 months, landmark PFS were 85.1 and 64.9%, respectively; landmark OS were 91.8 and 72.6%, respectively. Conclusion: These results affirm the clinical effectiveness of first-line lenvatinib monotherapy in uHCC.

Clinical Outcomes with Multikinase Inhibitors after Progression on First-Line Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multinational Multicenter Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Atezolizumab-bevacizumab is the new standard of care for first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the optimal sequence of therapy after disease progression on atezolizumab-bevacizumab is unclear.

METHODS

This multinational, multicenter, and retrospective study assessed clinical outcomes of patients with advanced HCC who received subsequent systemic therapy after progression on atezolizumab-bevacizumab between July 2016 and April 2019.

RESULTS

Among 71 patients treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab, a total of 49 patients who received subsequent systemic therapy were included in this analysis; the median age was 60 years (range, 37-80) and 73.5% were male. All patients were classified as Child-Pugh A and Barcelona-Clinic Liver Cancer stage C. Multikinase inhibitors (MKIs), including sorafenib (n = 29), lenvatinib (n = 19), and cabozantinib (n = 1), were used as second-line therapy for all patients. The objective response rate and disease control rate were 6.1 and 63.3%, respectively, in all patients. With a median follow-up duration of 11.0 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-4.9) and 14.7 months (95% CI 8.1-21.2) in all patients. Median PFS with lenvatinib was significantly longer than that with sorafenib (6.1 vs. 2.5 months; p = 0.004), although there was no significant difference in median OS (16.6 vs. 11.2 months; p = 0.347). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade and grade 3 occurred in 42 (85.7) and 8 (16.3%) of patients. Common TRAEs included hand-foot syndrome (n = 26, 53.1%), fatigue (n = 14, 28.6%), hypertension (n = 14, 28.6%), and diarrhea (n = 12, 24.5%).

CONCLUSION

Second-line treatment with MKIs, mostly sorafenib and lenvatinib, showed comparable efficacy and manageable toxicities in patients with advanced HCC after disease progression on atezolizumab-bevacizumab.

Lenvatinib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Literature Review

Lenvatinib, which is an oral multikinase inhibitor, showed non-inferiority to the sorafenib in terms of overall survival (OS) and a higher objective response rate (ORR) and better progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A good liver function and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) intermediate stage were the key factors in achieving therapeutic efficacy. The management of adverse events plays an important role in continuing lenvatinib treatment. While sequential therapies contributed to prolonging overall survival, effective molecular targeted agents for the administration after lenvatinib have not been established. Repeated transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) was associated with a decline in the liver function and poor therapeutic response in BCLC intermediate patients. Recently, the Asia-Pacific Primary Liver Cancer Expert (APPLE) Consensus Statement proposed the criteria for TACE unsuitability. Upfront systemic therapy may be better for the BCLC intermediate stage HCC patients with a high tumor burden, while selective TACE will be recommended for obtaining a curative response in patients with a low tumor burden. This article reviews the therapeutic response, management of adverse events, post-progression treatment after Lenvatinib, and treatment strategy for BCLC intermediate stage HCC.

A Real-World Comparative Analysis of Lenvatinib and Sorafenib as a Salvage Therapy for Transarterial Treatments in Unresectable HCC

Background/Aims: Lenvatinib was recently approved as a first-line oral multikinase inhibitor for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable HCC in patients with prior failure of transarterial treatment. Methods: Between January 2019 and September 2020, 98 unresectable HCC patients treated with lenvatinib or sorafenib as salvage therapy were enrolled from five Korean university-affiliated hospitals. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate were calculated to assess the antitumor response. Results: A total of 43 and 55 patients were treated with lenvatinib and sorafenib, respectively, as salvage therapy after the failure of transarterial treatments. The median PFS was 4.97 months in the lenvatinib group and 2.47 months in the sorafenib group (p = 0.001, log-rank test). The ORR was significantly higher in the lenvatinib group (25.6%) than in the sorafenib group (3.6%, p = 0.002). Use of lenvatinib over sorafenib (hazard ratio: 0.359, 95% confidence interval: 0.203–0.635, p < 0.001) was the most significant factor for a favorable PFS after the failure of transarterial treatments in all enrolled patients. For favorable OS, achieving objective response was the significant factor (hazard ratio 0.356, 95% confidence interval: 0.132–0.957, p = 0.041). There were no significant differences in the safety profile between the two groups. Conclusions: In this real-world study, lenvatinib was demonstrated to be more efficacious than sorafenib as a salvage therapy for transarterial treatments in unresectable HCC.