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

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.

Well-controlled viremia reduces the progression of hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic viral hepatitis patients treated with lenvatinib

Lenvatinib has been approved as one of the first-line treatments for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) due to its high treatment efficacy being non-inferior to sorafenib. Previous studies have shown well-controlled viremia contributes to the prognosis of HCC patients receiving first-line sorafenib; hence, we postulated this association might also exist in HCC patients with lenvatinib treatment. From April 2018 to December 2021, 201 unresectable HCC patients with first-line lenvatinib treatment in our institute were assessed. High-effect nucleoside analogues were administered for hepatitis B virus (HBV) control, while direct-acting antivirals were used for hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination. Based on our previous study, well-controlled viremia was defined as patients who had undetectable viremia, or who had been receiving antivirals at least 6 months before lenvatinib. This study enrolled 129 patients, including 85 patients with HBV-related HCC (HBV-HCC) and 44 patients with HCV-related HCC (HCV-HCC), respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates between the two groups were not different. Before administration of lenvatinib, 57.1% of the HBV-HCC patients and 88.4% of the HCV-HCC patients had well-controlled viremia, and their PFS (8.8 vs. 3.1 months, p < 0.001) and OS (30.2 vs. 12.8 months, p = 0.041) were better than those who had uncontrolled viremia; moreover, well-controlled viremia reduced tumor progression in multivariate analysis (Hazard ratio: 0.41, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-0.68, p = 0.001) after adjusting for albumin-bilirubin grade and concurrent treatment. HBV or HCV infection was not associated with tumor progression of HCC patients receiving lenvatinib, but viremia, controlled or not, was.

Efficacy of lenvatinib versus sorafenib in the primary treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis

Background and Aim

Molecular-targeted agents such as lenvatinib and sorafenib have been approved to treat hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the choice between these two agents in the primary treatment for advanced HCC is still under debate with conflicting results. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of lenvatinib and sorafenib in patients with HCC.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for relevant articles from inception until February 10, 2023. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was overall survival (OS). The secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression, objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR).

Results

A total of 13 studies with 3705 patients (1635 on lenvatinib and 2070 on sorafenib) were included in our analysis. The mean age of the patients in both groups was comparable (66.81 vs 65.9 years). Pooled analysis of primary outcomes showed that, compared with sorafenib, lenvatinib was associated with significantly better OS in patients treated with these drugs (HR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.69-0.97, P = 0.02). Pooled analysis also showed that PFS (HR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.57-0.78, P < 0.00001) and time to progression (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.31-0.79; P = 0.004) were significantly better in the lenvatinib group compared to the sorafenib group. It also showed that the lenvatinib group had significantly better ORR (odds ratio [OR] 5.43, 95% CI: 3.71-7.97; P < 0.00001) and DCR (OR 2.35, 95% CI: 1.75-3.16; P < 00001) than the sorafenib group.

Conclusion

Our study shows that lenvatinib is superior to sorafenib regarding OS and PFS in patients with advanced HCC.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is undergoing a historic transformation with the approval of several new systemic therapies in the last few years. This study aimed to examine the impact of this changing landscape on survival and costs in a Western nationwide, real-world cohort.

METHODS

A nationwide representative claims database (InGef) was screened for HCC cases between 2015 and 2020. Survival in an era with only sorafenib (period A, January 2015 to July 2018) and after approval of lenvatinib and other systemic treatments (period B, August 2018 to December 2020) was analysed. Health care costs were assessed.

RESULTS

We identified 2876 individuals with HCC in the study period. The proportion of patients receiving systemic therapy increased significantly over time, from 11.8% in 2015 to 15.1% in 2020 (p < 0.0001). The median overall survival in period B was 6.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.9-8.9) and in period A was 5.3 months (95% CI: 4.5-6.3; p = 0.046). In period B, the median overall survival with lenvatinib was 9.7 months (95% CI: 6.3-18.4) versus 4.8 months with sorafenib (95% CI: 4.0-7.1, p = 0.008). Costs for prescription drugs per patient increased from €6150 in 2015 to €9049 in 2020 (p < 0.0001), and costs for outpatient care per patient increased from €1646 to €2149 (p = 0.0240).

CONCLUSION

The approval of new systemic therapies resulted in a survival benefit in patients with HCC. The magnitude of the effect is modest and associated with a moderate increase in health costs.

Clinical efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Assess the effectiveness and safety of treatment options atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) or lenvatinib in clinical practice for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.

METHODS

To compare the effectiveness of Atez/Bev and lenvatinib in treating advanced HCC, we systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. We utilized Review Manager 5.3 to extract and analyze the data.

RESULTS

The present systematic review included 8 nonrandomized studies comprising a total of 6628 cases. There was no significant difference in 0.5-, 1-, 1.5-year OS rates and 0.5-, 1-year PFS rates between the 2 groups. However, patients with HCC caused by viral hepatitis would benefit more from the Atez/Bev therapy (hazard ratio = 0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.63-0.89) but patients with a Child-Pugh class B liver function would benefit more from lenvatinib (hazard ratio = 1.70, 95% confidence interval: 1.07-2.70). At the same time, there are no major differences in safety between the 2 treatment options.

CONCLUSION

Our study did not find any significant difference in effectiveness and safety between Atez/Bev and lenvatinib. However, Additional verification is required to determine whether these 2 therapeutic approaches have varying effects on distinct populations.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a large real-life worldwide population

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib have not been compared in a randomised controlled trial. We conducted a retrospective multi-centre study to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and atezolizumab with bevacizumab as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable HCC in the real-world scenario.

METHODS

Clinical features of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab 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 (OS) was the primary end-point.

RESULTS

The analysis included 1341 patients who received lenvatinib, and 864 patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. After IPTW adjustment, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab did not show a survival advantage over lenvatinib HR 0.97 (p = 0.739). OS was prolonged by atezolizumab plus bevacizumab over lenvatinib in viral patients (HR: 0.76; p = 0.024). Conversely, OS was prolonged by lenvatinib in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (HR: 1.88; p = 0.014). In the IPTW-adjusted population, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab provided better safety profile for most of the recorded adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Our study did not identify any meaningful difference in OS between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib. Although some hints are provided suggesting that patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease might benefit more from lenvatinib therapy and patients with viral aetiology more from atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

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.

Plasma growth hormone is a potential biomarker of response to atezolizumab and bevacizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients

INTRODUCTION

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has limited systemic therapy options when discovered at an advanced stage. Thus, there is a need for accessible and minimally invasive biomarkers of response to guide the selection of patients for treatment. This study investigated the biomarker value of plasma growth hormone (GH) level as a potential biomarker to predict outcome in unresectable HCC patients treated with current standard therapy, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo/Bev).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study included unresectable HCC patients scheduled to receive Atezo/Bev. Patients were followed to determine progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Plasma GH levels were measured by ELISA and used to stratify the HCC patients into GH-high and GH-low groups (the cutoff normal GH levels in women and men are ≤3.7 μg/L and ≤0.9 μg/L, respectively). Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate median OS and PFS and Log rank test was used to compare survival outcomes between GH-high and -low groups.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients were included in this analysis, of whom 31 were males and 6 females, with a median age of 67 years (range: 37-80). At the time of the analysis, the one-year survival rate was 70% (95% CI: 0.51, 0.96) among GH low patients and 33% (95% CI: 0.16, 0.67) among GH high patients. OS was significantly superior in GH-low compared to GH-high patients (median OS: 18.9 vs. 9.3 months; p = 0.014). PFS showed a non-significant trend in favor of GH-low patients compared to the GH-high group (median PFS: 6.6 vs. 2.9 months; p = 0.053).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Plasma GH is a biomarker candidate for predicting treatment outcomes in advanced HCC patients treated with Atezo/Bev. This finding should be further validated in larger randomized clinical trials in advanced HCC patients.

Lenvatinib as First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lenvatinib was approved in 2018 as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to provide the most updated evidence about the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib as a first-line treatment for unresectable HCC. An electronic search of the PubMed database, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library was undertaken to identify all relevant studies up to May 2022. The pooled effect sizes were calculated based on the random-effects model. One phase III randomized controlled trial and 23 retrospective studies of 2438 patients were eligible for analysis. For patients treated with lenvatinib as first-line treatment, the pooled median overall survival (OS), median progression-free survival (PFS), 1-year OS rate, 1-year PFS rate, objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) were 11.36 months, 6.68 months, 56.0%, 27.0%, 36.0% and 75.0%, respectively. Lenvatinib showed a significantly superior efficacy compared with sorafenib (HR for OS, 0.85 and HR for PFS, 0.72; OR for ORR, 4.25 and OR for DCR, 2.23). The current study demonstrates that lenvatinib can provide better tumor responses and survival benefits than sorafenib as a first-line treatment for unresectable HCC, with a comparable incidence of adverse events.

Application and Impact of Antiviral Therapy for Patients with HBV-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma Receiving Sorafenib and Lenvatinib Treatment

Overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has improved in the era of multi-line sequential therapy. The application of antiviral therapy and its impact on survival for patients with HBV-related HCC needs to be reassessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the application and impact of antiviral therapy on survival for patients with HBV-related HCC receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. Patients with advanced HBV-related HCC treated with sorafenib or lenvatinib as first-line therapy with (n = 377) and without (n = 182) nucleos(t)ide analogue (NUC) therapy were retrospectively enrolled. Prognostic factors of OS were evaluated. Secular trends in the increased application of NUC therapy and improved survival were observed in the last decade. The HBV reactivation rate in patients without NUC therapy was 6.6%. By multivariate analysis, baseline low HBV viral load, achieving undetectable HBV DNA after TKI therapy, and ability to receive second-line therapy were found to be independent predictors of OS. In subgroup patients with NUC therapy, starting NUC before TKI was associated with a better OS. In conclusion, the application of antiviral therapy for patients with HBV-related HCC receiving TKI therapy has increased over time. Achieving complete virological suppression may contribute to a better OS in patients with advanced HBV-related HCC.