Back to Search Start Over

Does first‐line treatment have prognostic impact for unresectable <scp>HCC</scp> ?—Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib

Authors :
Atsushi, Hiraoka
Takashi, Kumada
Toshifumi, Tada
Masashi, Hirooka
Kazuya, Kariyama
Joji, Tani
Masanori, Atsukawa
Koichi, Takaguchi
Ei, Itobayashi
Shinya, Fukunishi
Kunihiko, Tsuji
Toru, Ishikawa
Kazuto, Tajiri
Hironori, Ochi
Satoshi, Yasuda
Hidenori, Toyoda
Chikara, Ogawa
Takashi, Nishimura
Takeshi, Hatanaka
Satoru, Kakizaki
Noritomo, Shimada
Kazuhito, Kawata
Atsushi, Naganuma
Hisashi, Kosaka
Hiroshi, Shibata
Tomoko, Aoki
Takaaki, Tanaka
Hideko, Ohama
Kazuhiro, Nouso
Asahiro, Morishita
Akemi, Tsutsui
Takuya, Nagano
Norio, Itokawa
Tomomi, Okubo
Taeang, Arai
Michitaka, Imai
Yohei, Koizumi
Shinichiro, Nakamura
Kouji, Joko
Hiroko, Iijima
Masaki, Kaibori
Yoichi, Hiasa
Masatoshi, Kudo
Source :
Cancer Medicine. 12:325-334
Publication Year :
2022
Publisher :
Wiley, 2022.

Abstract

A comparison of therapeutic efficacy between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) and lenvatinib treatment given as first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC) in regard to progression-free survival (PFS) overall survival (OS) has not been reported. We aimed to elucidate which of those given as initial treatment for u-HCC has greater prognostic impact on PFS and OS of affected patients, retrospectively.From 2020 to January 2022, 251 u-HCC (Child-Pugh A, ECOG PS 0/1, BCLC-B/C) treated were enrolled (Atez/Bev-group, n = 194; lenvatinib-group, n = 57). PFS and OS were analyzed following adjustment based on inverse probability weighting (IPW).There was a greater number of patients with macro-vascular invasion in Atez/Bev-group (22.7% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.022). In lenvatinib-group, the frequencies of appetite loss (38.6% vs. 19.6%, p = 0.002), hypothyroidism (21.1% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.004), hand foot skin reaction (19.3% vs. 1.0%, p 0.001), and diarrhea (10.5% vs. 4.6%, p = 0.012) were greater, while that of general fatigue was lower (22.8% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.008). Comparisons of therapeutic best response using modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (mRECIST) did not show significant differences between the present groups (Atez/Bev vs. lenvatinib: CR/PR/SD/PD = 6.1%/39.1%/39.1%/15.6% vs. 0%/48.0%/38.0%/14.0%, p = 0.285). In patients of discontinuation of treatments, 48.2% switched to lenvatinib, 10.6% continued beyond PD, 8.2% received another systemic treatment, 5.9% underwent transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE), 3.5% received hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), and 1.2% underwent surgical resection in Atez/Bev-group, while 42.2% switched to Atez/Bev, 4.4% continued beyond PD, 4.4% received another systemic treatment, 2.2% nivolumab, 6.7% received TACE, and 2.2% received HAIC in lenvatinib-group. Following adjustment with inverse probability weighting (IPW), Atez/Bev-group showed better PFS (0.5-/1-/1.5-years: 56.6%/31.6%/non-estimable vs. 48.6%/20.4%/11.2%, p 0.0001) and OS rates (0.5-/1-/1.5-years: 89.6%/67.2%/58.1% vs. 77.8%/66.2%/52.7%, p = 0.002).The present study showed that u-HCC patients who received Atez/Bev as a first-line treatment may have a better prognosis than those who received lenvatinib.

Details

ISSN :
20457634
Volume :
12
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Cancer Medicine
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....47ee53a704c432b099ecba7ba469e8e9
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4854