Search

Background and Aims: Deterioration of liver function is a leading cause of death in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We evaluated the impact of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-treatment on liver function and outcomes., Method: HCC patients receiving ICIs or sorafenib between 04/2003 and 05/2024 were included. Liver function (assessed by Child-Pugh score [CPS]) was evaluated at the start of ICI-treatment (baseline, BL) and 3 and 6 months thereafter. A ≥1 point change in CPS was defined as deterioration (-) or improvement (+), while equal CPS points were defined as stable (=)., Results: Overall, 182 ICI-treated patients (66.8 ± 11.8 years; cirrhosis: n = 134, 74%) were included. At BL, median CPS was 5 (IQR: 5-6; CPS-A: 147, 81%). After 3 months, liver function improved/stabilized in 102 (56%) and deteriorated in 61 (34%) patients, while 19 (10%) patients deceased/had missing follow-up (d/noFU). Comparable results were observed at 6 months (+/=: n = 82, 45%; -: n = 55, 30%; d/noFU: n = 45, 25%). In contrast, 54 (34%) and 33 (21%) out of 160 sorafenib patients achieved improvement/stabilization at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Radiological response was linked to CPS improvement/stabilization at 6 months (responders vs. non-responders, 73% vs. 50%; p = 0.007). CPS improvement/stabilization at 6 months was associated with better overall survival following landmark analysis (6 months: +/=: 28.4 [95% CI: 18.7-38.1] versus -: 14.2 [95% CI: 10.3-18.2] months; p < 0.001). Of 35 ICI-patients with CPS-B at BL, improvement/stabilization occurred in 16 (46%) patients, while 19 (54%) patients deteriorated/d/noFU at 3 months. Comparable results were observed at 6 months (CPS +/=: 14, 40%, -: 8, 23%). Importantly, 6/35 (17%) and 9/35 (26%) patients improved from CPS-B to CPS-A at 3 and 6 months., Conclusion: Radiological response to ICI-treatment was associated with stabilization or improvement in liver function, which correlated with improved survival, even in patients with Child-Pugh class B at baseline., (© 2024 The Author(s). United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.)

The tumour microenvironment (TME) of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is complex and plays a role in prognosis and resistance to treatments. We aimed to decipher the iCCA TME phenotype using multiplex sequential immunohistochemistry (MS-IHC) to investigate which cell types and their spatial location may affect its prognosis. This was a retrospective study of 109 iCCA resected samples. For all cases, we used an open-source software to analyse a panel of markers (αSMA, FAP, CD8, CD163) by MS-IHC for characterize the different TME cells and their location. RNA sequencing was performed to determine the main iCCA transcriptomic classes. The association of the TME composition with overall survival (OS) was assessed by univariate and multivariate analyses. A high proportion of activated fibroblasts (FAP +) was significantly associated with poor OS (HR = 2.33, 95%CI = 1.43-3.81, p = 0.001). CD8 T lymphocytes excluded from the epithelial compartment were significantly associated with worse OS (HR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.07-3.22, p = 0.014). The combination of a high proportion of FAP + fibroblasts and CD8 T lymphocytes excluded from the epithelial compartment, observed in 21 cases (19%), was significantly associated with poor OS on univariate (HR = 2.49, 95% CI = 1.44-4.28, p = 0.001) and multivariate analyses (HR = 2.77, 95% CI = 1.56-4.92, p < 0.001). In these cases, CD8 T lymphocytes were predominantly located at the tumour/non-tumour interface (19/21, 90%), and an association with the transcriptomic inflammatory stroma class was observed (10/21, 48%). Our results confirm the TME prognostic role in iCCA, highlighting the impact in the process of spatial heterogeneity, especially cell colocalization of immune and fibroblastic cells creating a peritumoural fibro-immune interface., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: In the preplanned interim analysis of the TOPAZ-1 study, durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin significantly improved overall survival versus placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin in participants with advanced biliary tract cancer. We aimed to report updated overall survival and safety data from TOPAZ-1 with additional follow-up and data maturity beyond the interim analysis., Methods: TOPAZ-1 was a phase 3, randomised, double-masked, placebo-controlled, global study done at 105 sites in 17 countries. Participants aged 18 years or older with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic biliary tract cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin or placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin using a computer-generated randomisation scheme, stratified by disease status and primary tumour location. Participants received durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo on day 1 of each cycle every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles, plus gemcitabine (1000 mg/m 2 ) and cisplatin (25 mg/m 2 ) intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles, followed by durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo monotherapy every 4 weeks until disease progression or other discontinuation criteria were met. Investigators and participants were masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. TOPAZ-1 met its primary endpoint at the preplanned interim analysis, and the study is active but no longer recruiting participants. Updated overall survival and safety data from TOPAZ-1, with additional follow-up (data cutoff Feb 25, 2022) and data maturity beyond the interim analysis, are reported here. Efficacy was assessed in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned participants). Safety was assessed in the safety analysis set (all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment). The TOPAZ-1 study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03875235., Findings: From April 16, 2019, to Dec 11, 2020, 914 participants were enrolled, 685 of whom were randomly assigned (341 to the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 344 to the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group). 345 (50%) participants were male and 340 (50%) were female. Median follow-up at the updated data cutoff was 23·4 months (95% CI 20·6-25·2) in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 22·4 months (21·4-23·8) in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. At the updated data cutoff, 248 (73%) participants in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 279 (81%) participants in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group had died (median overall survival 12·9 months [95% CI 11·6-14·1] vs 11·3 months [10·1-12·5]; hazard ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·64-0·91]). Kaplan-Meier-estimated 24-month overall survival rates were 23·6% (95% CI 18·7-28·9) in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 11·5% (7·6-16·2) in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. Maximum grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 250 (74%) of 338 participants in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 257 (75%) of 342 in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. The most common maximum grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (70 [21%] vs 86 [25%]), anaemia (64 [19%] vs 64 [19%]), and neutropenia (63 [19%] vs 68 [20%])., Interpretation: Durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin showed robust and sustained overall survival benefit with no new safety signals. Findings continue to support the regimen as a standard of care for people with untreated, advanced biliary tract cancer., Funding: AstraZeneca., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests D-YO reports advisory fees from Arcus Biosciences, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Halozyme, IQVIA, Merck Serono, Novartis, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Turning Point Therapeutics, Yuhan, and Zymeworks; and institutional research funding from Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eli Lilly, Handok, MSD, Novartis, and Servier. ARH reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Genentech/Roche; research funding from Genentech and Merck; and speakers bureau fees from Eisai and Bristol Myers Squibb. MB reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, MSD, Roche, and Sirtex Medical; speakers bureau fees from Bayer, Eisai, and Roche; and support for travel and attending meetings from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Sirtex Medical. TO reports advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Meiji Seika Pharma, Mundipharma, Nihon Servier, Nippon Shinyaku, Pfizer, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Takara Bio; and speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Baxter, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly, MSD, Nihon Servier, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Teijin Pharma, and Yakult Honsha. L-TC reports personal speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, CStone, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Ono Pharmaceutical, Novartis, PharmaEngine, and TTY; fees for medical monitoring for clinical trials for Taivex; fees received as a data and safety monitoring committee member for clinical trials for OBI Pharma; advisory fees from AstraZeneca, MSD, and SynCoreBio; speaker fees from AstraZeneca, HuniLife Biotechnology, Ono Pharmaceutical, ScinoPharm Taiwan, SynCoreBio, and TTY; and research funding from Celgene. MK reports research funding from AbbVie and Takeda; and honoraria from EA Pharma and AstraZeneca. JWK reports research funding from inno.N and Jeil Pharmaceutical; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BeyondBio, Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Eisai, GC Cell, MSD Ono, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, and TCUBEit. TS reports speaker fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Baxter, Eli Lilly, Mundipharma (Thailand), Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Roche, and Takeda; and advisory fees from Novartis and Roche. MI reports grant or research support from Aslan Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiome Bioscience, Chugai Pharma, Delta-Fly Pharma, EA Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, J-Pharma, Merck, Merus NV, Nihon Servier, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Takeda, and Yakult; fees or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, MSD, Nihon Servier, Novartis, Otsuka, Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Teijin Pharma, and Yakult; and fees for participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai Pharma, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, GlaxoSmithKline, Nihon Servier, Novartis, and Takeda. J-SC reports grant or research support from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck KGaA, MSD, MSD Oncology, Oncologie, Ono Pharmaceutical, Roche, Senhwa Biosciences, SynCore, and TTY; and consulting fees from Ono Pharmaceutical. PP reports personal fees for an advisory board from AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen Oncology, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Servier; personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Pierre Fabre, and Merck; and being a principal investigator for AstraZeneca and Roche. HAB reports research funding from AbbVie, Agios, Arch Pharmalabs, ARMO BioSciences, Array BioPharma, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BIND Therapeutics, BioAtla, BioMed Valley Discoveries, Biotheryx, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CALGB, CicloMed, Coordination Pharmaceuticals, CytomX, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Foundation Medicine, Gossamer Bio, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Harpoon Therapeutics, Incyte, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, Jounce Therapeutics, Kymab, MacroGenics, MedImmune, Merck, Millennium/Takeda, miRNA Therapeutics, Moderna, NGM Bio, Novartis, Pfizer, Revolution Medicine, Roche/Genentech, Ryvu Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Tesaro, TG Therapeutics, Verastem Oncology, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, XBiotech, and Zymeworks; and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Forma Therapeutics, Grail, Incyte, Novartis, Pfizer, and Vincerx Pharma. VO reports grant or research support from Dr Reddy's Laboratories and Zydus Cadila; institutional fees for advisory board participation from AstraZeneca, Panacea Biotec, Dr Reddy's Laboratories, and Zydus Cadila; travel reimbursement as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca; other institutional financial interests with Alkem Laboratories, Eisai, Intas Pharmaceuticals, and Micro Labs; and non-financial interests with the Indian Association of Supportive Care in Cancer. ST reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, MSD, Novartis, and Roche; speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, and Novartis; and non-financial interests with AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Janssen, and Roche. CM reports institutional grant or research support from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, J-Pharma, Hitachi, Merck BioReliance, MSD, Kyowa Kirin, Ono Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Yakult Honsha; personal fees for advisory board participation from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck BioReliance, MSD, Servier, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Yakult; and personal fees received as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Kyowa Kirin, MSD, Novartis, Servier, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Teijin Pharma, and Yakult Honsha. REZ reports speaker fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, and Novartis; and travel grants from Pierre Fabre. MGM reports grant or research support from Ipsen, NuCana, and Servier; consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Incyte; and honoraria from Advanced Accelerator Applications and AstraZeneca. AA reports research funding from Amgen, Bayer, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Eisai, and MSD. JEC reports advisory fees from MSD; and fees as an invited speaker for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Takeda, and Roche. VB reports consulting fees from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb Russia, Eisai, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche Russia, and Takeda; and travel expenses from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb Russia, MSD, and Roche Russia. BT reports research funding from Adaptimmune, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Exelixis. SS reports grant or research support from Delta-Fly Pharma and Incyte. DT reports personal fees for advisory board participation from Amgen, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier. LE reports personal fees for advisory board participation from Amgen, Merk, MSD, and Servier. MP reports personal fees for advisory board participation from Roche and Servier; personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Ewopharma, and Takeda; and non-financial interests with AstraZeneca and Sanofi. DBZ reports advisory fees from Cornerstone Pharmaceuticals, Ipsen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals/Zymeworks, and QED Therapeutics; and research funding from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Cornerstone Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lily, Ipsen, Roche/Genentech, Legend Biotech, Merck, and Seagen. VGG holds stock in RPG Life Sciences and Zydus Lifesciences. FD reports grant or research support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Genentech, Ipsen, Signatera, and Taiho Pharmaceutical; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech, and Ipsen; and payment or honoraria from Astellas, Eisai, Exelixis, Ipsen, Servier, and Sirtex Medical. JOP reports advisory board fees from Adicet Bio, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene), MediRama, MedPacto, Merck Serono, and Servier; support for travel to meetings from Minneamrita Therapeutics; and grant or research support from ABL Bio, Bristol Myers Squibb (Celgene), Eutilex, MedPacto, and Servier. HK, CM, and MŻ are employees of AstraZeneca. JW and NR are employees of and hold stock in AstraZeneca. AV reports speaker fees from BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Imaging Equipment, Incyte, Ipsen, Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, and Roche; and advisory fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Ipsen, Incyte, Lilly, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Sirtex Medical. JWV reports advisory fees from Agios, AstraZeneca, Autem Therapeutics, Baxter, Hutchison MediPharma, Image Equipment, NuCana, QED Therapeutics, Sirtex Medical, Servier, and Zymeworks; speaker fees from Incyte, Ipsen, and Mylan; and research funding from AstraZeneca and Redx. All other authors declare no competing interests., (2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Backgrounds: The efficacy of atezolizumab/bevacizumab has never been reported in patients with metastatic/unresectable combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA)., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively included patients with a histological diagnosis of unresectable/metastatic cHCC-CCA and treated with atezolizumab/bevacizumab (2020-2022) in 7 centers. Clinical and radiological features were collected at the beginning of atezolizumab/bevacizumab. We reported the radiological response using RECIST criteria, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: Sixteen patients with cHCC-CCA were included and were predominantly male (75%) with advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis (69%). Nine patients received atezolizumab/bevacizumab as a first-line systemic treatment, 5 as a second line, 1 as a third line and 1 as a fifth line. Severe digestive bleeding occurred in 2 patients. Among the 9 patients treated in the first line, 4 experienced radiological progression, 3 partial response and 1 had stable disease. Patients treated with atezolizumab/bevacizumab in the first line had a median OS of 13 months and a median PFS of 3 months. Among the 7 patients receiving atezolizumab/bevacizumab as a second line or more, 4 patients harbored a stable disease, 2 a partial response, and 1 a progressive disease., Conclusions: The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab showed signs of anti-tumor efficacy in patients with unresectable/metastatic cHCC-CCA., (© 2023 The Authors. United European Gastroenterology Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of United European Gastroenterology.)

Purpose: Steatohepatitic hepatocellular carcinoma (SH-HCC) is characterized by intratumoral fat with > 50% inflammatory changes. However, intratumoral fat (with or without inflammation) can also be found in not-otherwise specified HCC (NOS-HCC). We compared the imaging features and outcome of resected HCC containing fat on pathology including SH-HCC (> 50% steatohepatitic component), NOS-HCC with < 50% steatohepatitic component (SH-NOS-HCC), and fatty NOS-HCC (no steatohepatitic component)., Material and Methods: From September 2012 to June 2021, 94 patients underwent hepatic resection for fat-containing HCC on pathology. Imaging features and categories were assessed using LIRADS v2018. Fat quantification was performed on chemical-shift MRI. Recurrence-free and overall survival were estimated., Results: Twenty-one patients (26%) had nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). The median intra-tumoral fat fraction was 8%, with differences between SH-HCC and SH-NOS-HCC (9.5% vs. 5% p = 0.03). There was no difference in major LI-RADS features between all groups; most tumors were classified as LR-4/5. A mosaic architecture on MRI was rare (7%) in SH-HCC, a fat in mass on CT was more frequently depicted (48%) in SH-HCC. A combination of NASH with no mosaic architecture on MRI or NASH with fat in mass on CT yielded excellent specificity for diagnosing SH-HCC (97.6% and 97.7%, respectively). The median recurrence-free and overall survival were 58 and 87 months, with no difference between groups (p = 0.18 and p = 0.69)., Conclusion: In patients with NASH, an SH-HCC may be suspected in L4/LR-5 observations with no mosaic architecture at MRI or with fat in mass on CT. Oncological outcomes appear similar between fat-containing HCC subtypes., (© 2024. Italian Society of Medical Radiology.)

Background: Pemigatinib is approved for patients with pretreated, locally advanced or metastatic CCA harboring FGFR2 rearrangements or fusions. We aim to assess the effectiveness and safety of pemigatinib in real-world setting., Material and Methods: A joint analysis of two multicentre observational retrospective cohort studies independently conducted in France and Italy was performed. All consecutive FGFR2-positive patients affected by CCA and treated with pemigatinib as second- or further line of systemic treatment in clinical practice, within or outside the European Expanded Access Program, were included., Results: Between July 2020 and September 2022, 72 patients were treated with pemigatinib in 14 Italian and 25 French Centres. Patients had a median age of 57 years, 76% were female, 81% had ECOG-PS 0-1, 99% had intrahepatic CCA, 74% had ≥ 2 metastatic sites, 67% had metastatic disease at diagnosis, while 38.8% received ≥ 2 previous lines of systemic treatment. At data cut-off analysis (April 2023), ORR and DCR were 45.8% and 84.7%, respectively. Median DoR was 7 months (IQR: 5.8-9.3). Over a median follow-up time of 19.5 months, median PFS and 1-year PFS rate were 8.7 months and 32.8%. Median OS and 1-year OS rate were 17.1 months and 60.6%. Fatigue (69.4%), ocular toxicity (68%), nail toxicities (61.1%), dermatologic toxicity (41.6%) hyperphosphataemia (55.6%), stomatitis (48.6%), and diarrhea (36.1%) were the most frequent, mainly G1-G2 AEs. Overall incidence of G3 AEs was 22.2%, while no patient experienced G4 AE. Dose reduction and temporary discontinuation were needed in 33.3% and 40.3% of cases, with 1 permanent discontinuation due to AEs., Conclusions: These results confirm the effectiveness and safety of pemigatinib in a real-world setting., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: No head-to-head trials compared the efficacy of transarterial radioembolization (TARE, also known as selective internal radiation therapy) to combination immunotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The analysis objective was to compare effectiveness outcomes of TARE using Y-90 resin microspheres and atezolizumab-bevacizumab (AB) in advanced unresectable HCC., Methods: Patient-level data from SARAH randomized controlled trial for TARE and aggregate real-world data from AB-real study were used in an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison. The basecase analysis used per-protocol data from SARAH; intention-to-treat data were used in sensitivity analyses. The following prognostic variables and effect modifiers were identified from literature: cause of disease, macrovascular invasion, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, alpha-fetoprotein level and albumin-bilirubin score. Weights were assigned to patients from SARAH to balance baseline characteristics across studies and reflect characteristics of AB-real patients. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and response rates (overall response rates [ORR]) were calculated and compared., Results: The analysis of OS and PFS included 140 patients receiving TARE and 131 for the analysis of response rates, compared to 202 receiving AB. Median OS was 15.0 and 14.9 months for TARE and AB, respectively (HR=0.980; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.658-1.461; p-value=0.922). Median PFS was 4.4 and 6.8 months for TARE and AB, respectively (HR=0.745; 95%CI: 0.544-1.022; p-value=0.068). ORR were 19.8% and 25% with TARE and AB, respectively (OR for AB=1.386, 95%CI: 0.746-2.668; p-value=0.306). Sensitivity analyses generated similar results., Conclusion: In HCC patients receiving treatment, TARE using Y-90 resin microspheres may achieve comparable effectiveness outcomes compared with AB., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest IA, VKB, PLC, SS and NA were full-time employees of Sirtex Medical at the time of manuscript preparation. MB received speaker fees from Bayer, MSD; Sirtex Medical, Roche, Advisory board fees from Bayer, MSD, Sirtex Medical, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Servier, Taiho, BMS. DJP received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, Astra Zeneca, Roche, IPSEN and travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche, Astra Zeneca, LiFT biosciences, DaVolterra, Exact Sciences, Mursla, Avamune, BMS; received research funding (to institution) from MSD, BMS, GSK. VV reports personal fees from Sirtex during the period the study was conducted. AD received educational support for congress attendance and consultancy fees from Roche and Astrazeneca., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)