Search

Introduction: The impact of etiology on response to immunotherapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is being debated, with contrasting findings between early and recent post hoc analyses of IMbrave-150 and metanalyses of clinical trials of PD-1/PD-L1 blockers. As a results, it is not clear whether the first-line systemic treatment atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B) is equally effective in viral and nonviral patients., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 885 HCC patients treated with the first-line A + B from multiple centers from Eastern and Western countries, 53.9% having viral and 46.1% nonviral etiology. Baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics were analyzed with uni- and multivariate models to explore potential differences on overall survival (OS), time-to-progression (TTP), disease control rates (DCRs) based on etiology and to identify putative prognostic factors in etiology subgroups. Treatment toxicities and access to the second-line treatments and outcomes were also reported and compared between etiologies., Results: Overall, no statistically significant differences were found in median OS (mOS: viral 15.9 months; nonviral 16.3 months), TTP (mTTP: viral 8.3 months; nonviral 7.2 months), and DCRs (viral 78.1%; nonviral 80.8%) based on etiology. Prognostic factors of survival and progression were mainly shared between viral and nonviral etiologies, including alpha-fetoprotein, aspartate transaminase, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and ALBI score. Exploratory analyses highlighted a possible stronger association of immunological factors, i.e., NLR and eosinophil count, to treatment outcomes in viral patients. The toxicity profile, the access to and type of the second-line treatments and their outcome in terms of OS almost overlap in the two etiology subgroups., Conclusion: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab efficacy does not vary according to underlying etiology of HCC in a multicenter, real-world population, matching recent post hoc findings from the IMbrave-150 trial. Preliminary analyses suggest that some prognostic factors differ between viral and nonviral patients, potentially due to biological and immunological differences. Prospective and comparative trials stratifying by etiology are warranted to validate these findings and guide clinical practice., Competing Interests: Andrea Casadei-Gardini has received grants and personal fees from MSD, Eisai, Bayer and is an advisor for MSD, Eisai, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca and GSK. Atsushi Hiraoka received lecture’s fees from Chugai, Lilly, AstraZeneca. Fabian Finkelmeier has received travel support from Ipsen, and speaker’s fees from AbbVie, MSD, Ipsen, Eisai and Fresenius. Gianluca Masi is an advisor for Roche, MSD, Eisai. Giuseppe Cabibbo is a consultant for Roche, AstraZeneca, Eisai, MSD. Hidenori Toyoda has received grants and personal fees from Gilead, AbbVie, Eisai, Fujifilm, Teruma, Kowa, Takeda. Ho Yeong Lim is an advisor for Roche, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Bayer. Hong Jae Chon has advisory role for Roche, Eisai, Bayer, ONO, MDS, BMS, Sanofi, Servier, AstraZeneca, Silajen, Menarini, GreenCross Cell; received speaker’s fee and research grants from Roche, Eisai, Bayer, BMS, Sanofi, Dong-A ST, BORYUNG, Inno.N, Hanmi, YUHAN. Josè Presa is an advisor for Gilead, AbbVie, Roche, AstraZeneca, Giszi, Advaus. Mario Scartozzi received grants and personal fees from MSD, Merck, Servier, Novartis, AstraZeneca. Masatoshi Kudo received lecture’s fees from Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, Takeda Pharmaceutical; is an advisor for F. Hoffmann-La Roche, AstraZeneca, Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eisai; and received grants from Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Chugai Pharmaceutical, GE Healthcare Japan Corporation, Eisai, AbbVie, EA Pharma. Massimo Iavarone received grants and personal fees from MSD, Gilead, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Roche, Ipsen, Eisai. Takeshi Hatanaka received lecture’s fees from Eisai. The other coauthors have no conflict of interest to disclose., (© 2024 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Introduction: Lenvatinib is indicated for the forefront treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC), but its use may be limited by the risk of esophagogastric varices (EGV) bleeding. This study assessed the prevalence, predictors, and complications of EGV in aHCC patients treated with lenvatinib., Methods: In this multicenter international retrospective study, cirrhotic patients treated with lenvatinib for aHCC, were enrolled if upper-gastrointestinal endoscopy was available within 6 months before treatment. Primary endpoint was the incidence of EGV bleeding during lenvatinib therapy; secondary endpoints were predictors for EGV bleeding, prevalence, and risk factors for the presence of EGV and high-risk EGV at baseline, as well as impact of EGV bleeding on patients' survival., Results: 535 patients were enrolled in the study (median age: 72 years, 78% male, 63% viral etiology, 89% Child-Pugh A, 16% neoplastic portal vein thrombosis [nPVT], 56% Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer-C): 234 had EGV (44%), 70 (30%) were at high risk and 59 were on primary prophylaxis. During lenvatinib treatment, 17 patients bled from EGV (3 grade 5), the 12-month cumulative incidence being 3%. The only baseline independent predictor of EGV bleeding was the presence of baseline high-risk EGV (hazard ratio: 6.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.23-21.57, p = 0.001). In these patients the 12-month risk was 17%. High-risk varices were independently associated with Child-Pugh B score (odds ratio [OR]: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.08-4.17, p = 0.03), nPVT (OR: 2.54; 95% CI: 1.40-4.61, p = 0.002), and platelets <150,000/μL (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.35-4.50, p = 0.003)., Conclusion: In hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with lenvatinib, the risk of EGV bleeding was mostly low but significant only in patients with high-risk EGV at baseline., Competing Interests: M. Iavarone: speaking/teaching, consultant, and advisory board for Bayer, Gilead Sciences, BMS, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD, BTG-Boston Scientific, AbbVie, Guerbet, EISAI, Roche, and AstraZeneca; C. Soldà: consulting/advisory role for MSD and EISAI; speakers’ bureau for Roche and MSD; C. Yoo: received honoraria from Servier, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Celgene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Debiopharm, Ipsen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Boryung Pharmaceuticals, Merck Serono, Mundipharma, Roche, and Janssen; and received research grants from Servier, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, Ipsen, Boryung Pharmaceuticals, Ildong Pharmaceutical, and Chong Kun Dang Pharm.; F. Piscaglia: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bracco, EISAI, Esaote, Exact Sciences, IPSEN, MSD, Roche, Samsung, and Tiziana Life Sciences; P. Lampertico: advisory board/speaker bureau for BMS, Roche, Gilead Sciences, GSK, AbbVie, MSD, Arrowhead, Alnylam, Janssen, SPRING Bank, MYR, Eiger, Aligos, Antios, and Vir., (© 2023 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background/aim: There is no known report regarding the relationship of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) treatment with muscle volume loss (MVL) in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC) patients. This study aimed to elucidate the clinical relationship between MVL and Atez/Bev., Materials/methods: From September 2020 to December 2021, 229 u-HCC patients treated with Atez/Bev and with muscle volume data obtained by computed tomography at the baseline available were analyzed (median age, 74 years; males, 186 (81.2%); ECOG PS 0/1, 221 (96.5%); HCV:HBV:alcohol:others = 81:33:40:75; Child-Pugh A, 212 (92.6%); modified albumin-bilirubin (mALBI) grade 1:2a:2b = 79:60:90; BCLC 0:A:B:C = 1:24:87:117; median observation period, 6.8 months). Japan Society of Hepatology criteria were used for definition of MVL and prognostic factors were retrospectively evaluated., Results: Multivariate Cox-hazard analysis of prognostic factors for progression-free survival (PFS) showed elevated alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) (≥100 ng/mL) (HR 1.848, 95% CI 1.264-2.702, p = 0.002), mALBI grade (≥2a) (HR 1.563, 95% CI 1.035-2.359, p = 0.034), and MVL (HR 1.479, 95% CI 1.020-2.144, p = 0.039) as significant factors. For overall survival (OS), significant factors included elevated AFP (≥100 ng/mL) (HR 3.564, 95% CI 1.856-6.844, p < 0.001), mALBI grade (≥2a) (HR 3.451, 95% CI 1.580-7.538, p = 0.002), and MVL (HR 2.119, 95% CI 1.150-3.904, p = 0.016). Patients with MVL (MVL group, n = 91) showed worse PFS than those without (non-MVL group, n = 138) (median PFS 5.3 vs. 7.6 months, p = 0.025), while the MVL group showed worse OS ( p = 0.038), though neither reached the median survival time., Conclusion: MVL may be a clinical factor related to poor prognosis in patients receiving Atez/Bev treatment for u-HCC., Competing Interests: Atsushi Hiraoka, MD, PhD: lecture fees; Chugai and Eli Lilly. Takashi Kumada, MD, PhD: lecture fees; Eisai. None of the other authors have potential conflicts of interest to declare. Masatoshi Kudo, MD, PhD − Advisory role: Eiasi, Ono, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche; Lecture fees: Eisai, Bayer, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, EA Pharma; Research funding: Gilead Sciences, Taiho, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Takeda, Otsuka, EA Pharma, Abbvie, Eisai. Prof. Kudo is the Editor-in-Chief of Liver Cancer and Dr. Nouso an Editorial Board Member of Liver Cancer. None of the other authors have potential conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2022 by The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

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., Competing Interests: Sadahisa Ogasawara received grant support from Eisai, Bayer, and Eli Lilly, advisory fees from Eisai, Bayer, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly, and honoraria from Eisai, Bayer, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Eli Lilly. Yoshihiko Ooka received honoraria from Eisai. Naoya Kato received grant support from Eisai, Bayer, Takeda, and Eli Lilly, advisory fees from Eisai, Bayer, and Eli Lilly, and honoraria from Eisai, Bayer, and Eli Lilly. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2021 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background/aim: An effective postprogression treatment of lenvatinib (LEN) against unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC) has not been established. We aimed to elucidate the clinical role of continuing LEN beyond progression of disease (PD)., Methods: From March 2018 to October 2020, 99 u-HCC patients, in whom PD was confirmed (male:female = 78:21, median age 72 years, Child-Pugh A = 99, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage A:B:C = 2:43:54, LEN as first-line = 55), were enrolled (stopped LEN at PD [A group], n = 26; continued LEN beyond PD [B group], n = 73). Radiological response was evaluated with RECIST 1.1. Clinical features and prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) were retrospectively investigated using inverse probability weighting (IPW) calculated by propensity score., Results: Median time to progression, best response, and modified albumin-bilirubin grade (mALBI) at both baseline and PD did not show significant difference between the groups. Postprogression treatment in the A group was best supportive care in 17, sorafenib in 4, regorafenib in 3, ramucirumab in 1, and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy in 1. After adjusting with IPW, the B group showed better prognosis in regard to OS after PD and OS after introducing LEN than the A group (10.8/19.6 vs. 5.8/11.2 months, p < 0.001, respectively). In IPW-adjusted Cox hazard multivariate analysis, significant prognostic factors for OS after PD were mALBI 2b/3 at PD (HR 1.983, p = 0.021), decline of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) from baseline at PD (HR 3.180, p < 0.001), elevated alpha-fetoprotein (≥100 ng/mL) at introducing LEN (HR 2.511, p = 0.004), appearance of new extrahepatic metastasis (HR 2.396, p = 0.006), positive for hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) before PD (any grade) (HR 0.292, p < 0.001), and continuing LEN beyond PD (HR 0.297, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: When ECOG PS and hepatic reserve function permit, continuing LEN treatment beyond PD, especially in u-HCC patients showed HFSR during LEN treatment, might be a good therapeutic option, at least until a more effective drug as a postprogression treatment after LEN failure is developed., Competing Interests: Atsushi Hiraoka, MD, PhD: lecture fees from Bayer, Eisai, and Otsuka. Takashi Kumada, MD, PhD: lecture fees from Eisai. Masatoshi Kudo, MD, PhD: advisory role with Eisai, Ono, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Roche; lecture fees from Eisai, Bayer, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and EA Pharma; and research funding from Gilead Sciences, Taiho, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Takeda, Otsuka, EA Pharma, AbbVie, and Eisai. None of the other authors have potential conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2021 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: The present study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and verify the possibility of lenvatinib for the expanded indication from the REFLECT trial in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in real-world practice, primarily focusing on the population that was excluded in the REFLECT trial., Methods: We retrospectively collected data on patients with advanced HCC who were administered lenvatinib in 7 institutions in Japan., Results: Of 152 advanced HCC patients, 95 and 57 patients received lenvatinib in first-line and second- or later-line systemic therapies, respectively. The median progression-free survival in Child-Pugh class A patients was nearly equal between first- and second- or later-line therapies (5.2 months; 95% CI 3.7-6.9 for first line, 4.8 months; 95% CI 3.8-5.9 for second or later line, p = 0.933). According to the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, the objective response rate of 27 patients (18%) who showed a high burden of intrahepatic lesions (i.e., main portal vein and/or bile duct invasion or 50% or higher liver occupation) at baseline radiological assessment was 41% and similar with that of other population. The present study included 20 patients (13%) with Child-Pugh class B. These patients observed high frequency rates of liver function-related adverse events due to lenvatinib. The 8-week dose intensity of lenvatinib had a strong correlation with liver function according to both the Child-Pugh and albumin - bilirubin scores., Conclusion: Lenvatinib had potential benefits for patients with advanced HCC with second- or later-line therapies and a high burden of intrahepatic lesions. Dose modification should be paid increased attention among patients with poor liver function, such as Child-Pugh class B patients., Competing Interests: S.O. and N.K.: received grant support, advisory fee and honoraria from Eisai. Y.O. received honoraria from Eisai. The other authors who took part in this study indicated that they did not have anything to declare regarding funding or conflict of interest with respect to this study., (Copyright © 2020 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background/aim: Post-progression treatment following tyrosine-kinase inhibitor (TKI) failure in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC) is important to prolong post-progression survival (PPS), which has a good correlation with overall survival (OS). This study aimed to elucidate the clinical features of progressive disease (PD) in patients treated with lenvatinib (LEN)., Materials/methods: From March 2018 to June 2019, 156 u-HCC patients with Child-Pugh A were enrolled (median age: 71 years, Child-Pugh score 5:6 = 105:51, BCLC A:B:C = 8:56:92, modified albumin-bilirubin grade (mALBI) 1:2a:2b = 59:42:55, past history of sorafenib:regorafenib = 57:17). Clinical features were retrospectively evaluated., Results: The median observation period was 8.5 months. Median OS was not obtained, while median time to decline to Child-Pugh B (CPB) was 11.4 months, median time to progression (TTP) was 8.4 months, and the period of LEN administration was 7.3 months. When we compared predictive values for time to decline to CPB based on Child-Pugh score and mALBI, values for Akaike information criterion (AIC) score and c-index of mALBI were superior as compared to Child-Pugh score (AIC: 592.3 vs. 599.7) (c-index: 0.655 vs. 0.597). Of the 73 patients with PD, 32 (43.8%) showed no decline to CPB or death. After excluding 3 without alpha-fetoprotein data at PD determination, only 14 (20.0%) of 70 showed REACH-2 eligibility. Non-mALBI 1/2a at the start of LEN was a significant risk factor for decline to CPB during LEN treatment (HR 2.552, 95% CI: 1.577-4.129; p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Introduction of TKI therapy including LEN for u-HCC patients with better hepatic function (mALBI 1/2a: ALBI score ≤-2.27), when possible, increases the chance of undergoing post-progression treatment, which can improve PPS., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest of Dr. Takashi Kumada (2018): lecture − Eisai. Conflicts of interest of Prof. Masatoshi Kudo, MD, PhD (2018): lecture − Bayer, Eisai, MSD; grant − EA Pharma, Eisai, Gilead, Takeda, Otsuka, Taiho; advisory consulting − Eisai, Ono, MSD, BMS. Conflicts of interest of Dr. Koichi Takaguchi (2018): lecture − AbbVie., (Copyright © 2019 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)