Search

Background: Although the efficacy of atezolizumab has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials, its long‐term efficacy and association with adverse events in real‐world practice are unknown. This study was designed to shed light on these issues. Methods: In this multicenter retrospective study, data were collected from patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in seven institutions in Japan. The authors focused on the efficacy and adverse events related to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition. Results: A total of 123 patients were enrolled in this study. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) for the first‐line treatment group was 8.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.1–9.9), whereas the median PFS for the second‐ or later‐line treatment group was 4.1 months (95% CI, 2.6–5.7), which was significantly worse than that of the first‐line treatment group (p =.005). Twenty‐seven patients had interrupted bevacizumab treatment. Proteinuria accounted for the largest proportion of bevacizumab treatment interruptions. The cumulative incidence rate of bevacizumab interruption due to anti‐VEGF–related adverse events was significantly higher in patients with hypertension and/or diabetes mellitus than in those without (p =.026). The landmark analysis showed that patients experienced bevacizumab interruption by 24 weeks from treatment initiation had poorer PFS than those who did not (p =.013). Conclusions: The PFS of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first‐line treatment mostly replicates that of a global phase 3 trial. Interrupted bevacizumab treatment was more common in patients with hypertension and/or diabetes mellitus, which may be associated with worsening long‐term PFS. Plain language summary: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has been the standard front line systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.With the growing incidence of fatty liver due to metabolic syndrome as a background liver disease for hepatocellular carcinoma, the rate of comorbid hypertension and diabetes mellitus has been increasing accordingly.The present study demonstrated the cumulative incidence rate of bevacizumab interruption due to anti‐VEGF–related adverse events was significantly higher in patients with hypertension and/or diabetes mellitus.The landmark analysis clarified that interruption of bevacizumab might be a risk of impaired efficacy of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab over the long term in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. This report demonstrated that the cumulative incidence rate of bevacizumab interruption due to anti‐VEGF–related adverse events was significantly higher in patients with comorbid hypertension and/or diabetes mellitus during atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Interruption of bevacizumab might be a risk of impaired efficacy of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab over the long term in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]