Search

Introduction: It has been suggested that in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) of metabolic aetiology, the efficacy of immunotherapy may be reduced. The aim was to investigate the impact of metabolic‐associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and metabolic risk factors (MRF) on the outcomes of Atezolizumab‐Bevacizumab (AtezoBev). Methods: We collected data from 295 AtezoBev‐treated patients, starting in 2020. MASLD was defined by the current/past presence of MRF, namely BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2, type 2 diabetes, arterial hypertension or dyslipidaemia and no other cause of liver disease (daily alcohol ≤30 g in males and ≤20 g in females). The influence of baseline characteristics on progression (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed by uni/multivariate analysis using the Cox model. Results: Risk factors for cirrhosis were viral infection in 47%, excessive alcohol consumption in 45% and MASLD in 13%. In the whole cohort, 27% had 1 MRF, 23% had 2 MRF, 15% had 3 MRF and 6% had 4 MRF. Median PFS and OS were 6.5 and 15.6 months, respectively, and similar in patients with or without MASLD in Log rank analysis. The number of MRF or MALSD was not associated with PFS or OS in the univariate analysis. Factors associated with PFS in multivariate analysis included ALBI grade 3 (HR = 1.60, p =.03), AFP (HR = 1.01, p =.01) and metastasis (HR = 1.77, p <.001). During follow‐up, 10% of patients experienced immune‐related adverse events, with age and female gender, but not MRF or MASLD, as independent predictors. Conclusion: Our study suggests that the presence of MASLD or the number of MRF did not lead to worse outcomes in advanced HCC patients treated with AtezoBev. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: We aim to assess the role of radiological response to atezolizumab-bevacizumab in patients with HCC to predict overall survival., Approach and Results: We retrospectively included patients with HCC treated by atezolizumab-bevacizumab in 2 tertiary centers. A retrospective blinded analysis was performed by 2 radiologists to assess Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (RECIST 1.1) and modified RECIST (mRECIST) criteria at 12 weeks. Imaging response and treatment decisions in the multidisciplinary tumor board at 12 weeks were registered. Among 125 patients, 9.6% and 20.8% had a response, 39.2% and 35.2% had stable disease, and 51.2% and 44% had progression, according to RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST, respectively, with a substantial interobserver agreement (k coefficient=0.79). Metastasis was independently associated with a higher risk of progression. Patients classified as responders did not reach median survival, which was 16.2 and 15.9 months for patients classified as stable and 9.1 and 9.0 months for patients classified as progressors, in RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST criteria, respectively. We observed a wide variability in the identification of progression in the multidisciplinary tumor board in clinical practice compared with the blind evaluation by radiologists mainly due to discrepancy in the evaluation of the increase in size of intrahepatic lesions. The appearance of new extrahepatic lesions or vascular invasion lesions was associated with a worse overall survival ( p =0.032)., Conclusions: RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST criteria predict overall survival with more responders identified by mRECIST and the appearance of new extrahepatic lesion or vascular invasion was associated with a poor prognosis. A noticeable discrepancy was observed between patients classified as progressors at reviewing and the decision reached during the multidisciplinary tumor board., (Copyright © 2023 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)