Search

Background Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo-bev) has been recommended for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). High-dose external beam radiotherapy (RT) is recognized for its excellent local tumor control. The efficacy and safety of concurrent atezo-bev with RT for highly advanced HCC has been minimally explored. Methods In this preliminary retrospective study, we assessed patients with highly advanced HCC, characterized by Vp4 portal vein thrombosis or tumors exceeding 50% of liver volume, who received concurrent atezo-bev and RT (group A). Group A included 13 patients who received proton radiation at a dose of 72.6 GyE in 22 fractions, and one patient who received photon radiation at a dose of 54 Gy in 18 fractions. This group was compared with 34 similar patients treated atezo-bev alone as a control (group B). The primary objectives were to evaluate the objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety. Results Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except for a higher incidence of Vp4 portal vein thrombosis in group A (78.6% vs. 21.4%, P  = .05). Group A achieved a higher ORR (50.0% vs. 11.8%, P  < .01) and a longer OS (not reached vs. 5.5 months, P  = .01) after a median follow-up of 5.2 months. Multivariate analysis indicated that concurrent RT independently favored longer OS (hazard ratio: 0.18; 95% CI, 0.05-0.63, P  < .01). Group A did not increase any grade adverse events (78.6% vs. 58.8%, P  = .19) or severe adverse events of grade ≥ 3 (14.3% vs. 14.7%, P  = .97) compared to group B. Conclusions The concurrent high-dose external beam radiotherapy appears to safely enhance the effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for highly advanced patients with HCC. Further studies are warranted to confirm these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab(A + B) have been used for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) as first‐line therapy. Real‐world studies comparison of efficacy and safety in these two regimens are limited, we therefore conduct this study to investigate these issues. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients received lenvatinib (n = 46) and A + B (n = 46) as first‐line systemic therapy for unresectable HCC in a tertiary medical center. Objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST). Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was performed for baseline clinical features balance. Results: A total of 92 patients with median age of 63.8 year‐old, 78.3% male, 85.9% viral hepatitis infected, 67.4% BCLC stage C were enrolled. The median treatment and follow‐up duration were 4.7 months and 9.4 months, respectively. There was no significant difference in ORR (26.1% vs. 41.3%, p = 0.1226), PFS (5.9 vs. 5.3 months, p = 0.4066), and OS (not reached vs. not reached, p = 0.7128) between the lenvatinib and A + B groups. After IPW, the results of survival and response rate were also compared. Subgroup analysis suggested that using lenvatinib was not inferior to A + B in regards of PFS, including those with elder, Child‐Pugh class B, beyond up‐to‐seven, or portal vein invasion VP4 patients. Among the lenvatinib treated patients, multivariate analysis showed patients elder than 65‐year‐old was an independent predictor associated with shorter PFS (adjust HR: 2.085[0.914–4.753], p = 0.0213). The incidence rates of adverse events were similar between two groups (76 vs. 63%, p = 0.1740). Both of two regimens had similarly few impact on liver function by comparison of baseline, third month, and sixth month albumin‐bilirubin index and Child‐Pugh score. Conclusions: The efficacy and safety of lenvatinib are similar to A + B as a first‐line systemic therapy for unresectable HCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the best second-line treatment after first-line treatment with sorafenib is unclear. This study aimed to compared the efficacy of second-line regorafenib (a tyrosine kinase inhibitor) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with advanced HCC after sorafenib therapy. This retrospective study included 89 patients with HCC treated with sorafenib, and then regorafenib (n = 58) or an ICI (n = 31). Treatment response, overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of the 2 groups were compared, and factors associated with post-treatment mortality or disease progression were evaluated. During follow-up period, compared to regorafenib, treatment with an ICI results in a slight increase in a 20% decrease of AFP (35.7% vs. 31.8%), complete response rate (6.5% vs. 0%), objective response rate (16.1% vs. 6.9%), median overall survival (13.3 vs. 5 months), and median PFS (3.0 vs. 2.6 months). Combined locoregional treatment (LRT) (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15-0.99) during second-line treatment was associated with a decreased risk of post-treatment mortality. After propensity scoring matching, combined LRT during second-line treatment had longer post-treatment OS than patients without combined LRT. A 20% decrease of AFP (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.31-0.94) was associated with a decreased risk of post-treatment disease progression. In conclusions, second-line treatment with regorafenib or ICI prolongs OS in patients with advanced HCC treated with sorafenib. Combined LRT during second-line treatment is associated with decreased post-treatment mortality. A 20% decrease of AFP level may be predictive of a lower rate of disease progression., Competing Interests: None., (AJCR Copyright © 2024.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab are promising agents for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We tried to guide the treatment based on recent developed CRAFITY score combining with on-treatment AFP response. Eighty-nine patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab regardless of as a first-line therapy or not for unresectable HCC were enrolled for analyses. Radiologic evaluation was based on modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST). The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 25.0% and 65.5%, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that low CRAFITY score (AFP<100 ng/ml or CRP<10 mg/l) and satisfactory AFP response at 6 weeks (≥75% decrease or ≤10% increase from baseline) were independent factors determining good overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR]=0.143, P=0.002 & HR=0.337, P=0.031), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR=0.419, P=0.022 & HR=0.429, P=0.025) and good responder (odds ratio [OR]=1.763, P=0.044 & OR=3.881, P=0.011). Patients were further divided into three classes by combination of CRAFITY score and AFP response at 6 weeks [The CAR (CRAFITY score and AFP-Response) classification)]: low CRAFITY score with satisfactory AFP response at 6 weeks (class I), either high CRAFITY score or unsatisfactory AFP response at 6 weeks (class II) and high CRAFITY score together with unsatisfactory AFP response at 6 weeks (class III). ORR was 35.0%, 18.2%, and 0% in class I, II and III patients, respectively (overall P=0.034). Patients in the class I had the best OS and PFS, followed by class II and class III (median OS: not reached vs. 11.1 vs. 4.3 months, log-rank P<0.001; median PFS: 7.9 vs. 6.6 vs. 2.6 months, log-rank P=0.001). Combination CRAFITY score and AFP response at 6 weeks with AUROC predicts OS and tumor response to be 0.809 and 0.798, respectively, better than either CRAFITY score (0.771 & 0.750) or AFP response at 6 weeks (0.725 & 0.680) alone. In conclusions, the CAR classification which combining CRAFITY score and AFP response at 6 weeks provides a practical guidance for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab therapy in unresectable HCC patients., Competing Interests: None., (AJCR Copyright © 2022.)