Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib or sorafenib in non-viral unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: an international propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence suggests that non-viral hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) might benefit less from immunotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients with non-viral advanced HCC, treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib, or sorafenib, in 36 centers in 4 countries (Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, and UK). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib, and OS and PFS with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib. For the primary and secondary endpoints, we carried out the analysis on the whole population first, and then we divided the cohort into two groups: non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)/non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) population and non-NAFLD/NASH population. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety patients received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, 569 patients received lenvatinib, and 210 patients received sorafenib. In the whole population, multivariate analysis showed that treatment with lenvatinib was associated with a longer OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.95; P = 0.0268] and PFS (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.51-0.86; P = 0.002) compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. In the NAFLD/NASH population, multivariate analysis confirmed that lenvatinib treatment was associated with a longer OS (HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.26-0.84; P = 0.0110) and PFS (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.38-0.82; P = 0.031) compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. In the subgroup of non-NAFLD/NASH patients, no difference in OS or PFS was observed between patients treated with lenvatinib and those treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. All these results were confirmed following propensity score matching analysis. By comparing patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib, no statistically significant difference in survival was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis conducted on a large number of advanced non-viral HCC patients showed for the first time that treatment with lenvatinib is associated with a significant survival benefit compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, in particular in patients with NAFLD/NASH-related HCC.

Liposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil/leucovorin versus FOLFIRINOX as the second-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: a multicenter retrospective study of the Korean Cancer Study Group (KCSG).

BACKGROUND: There is no clear consensus on the recommended second-line treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer who have disease progression following gemcitabine-based therapy. We retrospectively evaluated the clinical outcomes of liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) plus fluorouracil/leucovorin (FL) and FOLFIRINOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) in patients who had failed on the first-line gemcitabine-based therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2015 to August 2019, 378 patients with MPC who had received nal-IRI/FL (n = 104) or FOLFIRINOX (n = 274) as second-line treatment across 11 institutions were included in this retrospective study. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups, except age and first-line regimens. With a median follow-up of 6 months, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.7 months with nal-IRI/FL versus 4.6 months with FOLFIRINOX (P = 0.44). Median overall survival (OS) was 7.7 months with nal-IRI/FL versus 9.7 months with FOLFRINOX (P = 0.13). There was no significant difference in PFS and OS between the two regimens in the univariate and multivariate analyses. The subgroup analysis revealed that younger age (<70 years) was associated with better OS with FOLFIRINOX. In contrast, older age (≥70 years) was associated with better survival outcomes with nal-IRI/FL. Adverse events were manageable with both regimens; however, the incidence of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and peripheral neuropathy was higher in patients treated with FOLFIRINOX than with nal-IRI/FL. CONCLUSIONS: Second-line nal-IRI/FL and FOLFIRINOX showed similar effectiveness outcomes after progression following first-line gemcitabine-based therapy. Age could be the determining factor for choosing the appropriate second-line therapy.