Hyperprogressive disease during atezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma from Japanese real-world practice.

BACKGROUND: Hyperprogressive disease (HPD) is a phenomenon with greatly accelerated tumor growth and clinical deterioration rates compared to pre-therapy, in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). The aim of this study is to clarify the reality of HPD in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who were treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) using tumor dynamics. METHODS: Medical records of consecutive patients with advanced HCC who were treated with Atez/Bev were retrospectively reviewed. HPD was defined as a more than two- or fourfold increase in tumor growth rate (TGR) or tumor growth kinetics rate (TGKR) before and after treatment. Overall survival (OS) and baseline characteristics with or without HPD were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients were included in the analysis. When HPD was defined as a twofold of TGR or TGKR, 8 patients (8/85, 9.4%) had HPD and 11 had PD without HPD. A total of 5 patients (5/85, 5.9%) were diagnosed with HPD and 14 with PD without HPD when HPD was defined as a fourfold of TGR or TGKR. No significant difference was observed in the baseline characteristics between HPD and non-HPD. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of HPD in patients with advanced HCC treated with Atez/Bev was lower than those treated with nivolumab monotherapy. The HPD mechanism in ICI combined with antibodies targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) remains to be elucidated.

Use of ramucirumab for various treatment lines in real-world practice of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Ramucirumab was shown to be effective as a second-line treatment after sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with alpha-fetoprotein levels > 400 ng/mL in a worldwide phase 3 trial. Ramucirumab is used in patients pretreated with various systemic therapies in clinical practice. We retrospectively examined the treatment outcomes of ramucirumab administered to advanced HCC patients after diverse systemic therapies. METHODS: Data were collected from patients with advanced HCC who received ramucirumab at three institutions in Japan. Radiological assessments were determined according to both Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1 and modified RECIST and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 was used to assess adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 37 patients treated with ramucirumab between June 2019 and March 2021 were included in the study. Ramucirumab was administered as second, third, fourth, and fifth-line treatment in 13 (35.1%), 14 (37.8%), eight (21.6%), and two (5.4%) patients, respectively. Most patients (29.7%) who received ramucirumab as a second-line therapy were pretreated with lenvatinib. We found grade 3 or higher adverse events only in seven patients and no significant changes in the albumin-bilirubin score during ramucirumab treatment in the present cohort. The median progression-free survival of patients treated with ramucirumab was 2.7 months (95% confidence interval, 1.6-7.3). CONCLUSION: Although ramucirumab is used for various lines of treatment other than second-line immediately after sorafenib, its safety and effectiveness were not significantly different from the findings of the REACH-2 trial.

Clinical effects and emerging issues of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma from Japanese real-world practice.

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.

Carbon-ion radiotherapy versus radiofrequency ablation as initial treatment for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

AIM: Carbon-ion radiotherapy (C-ion RT) has shown potential as a curative treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, no reports have compared the effectiveness of C-ion RT and radiofrequency ablation (RFA). This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes between C-ion RT and RFA for patients with early-stage HCC. METHODS: Medical records of consecutive patients with HCC (single lesion ≤5 cm or two to three lesions ≤3 cm) who received either C-ion RT or RFA as initial treatment were retrospectively reviewed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for clinical factors between both groups. RESULTS: A total of 560 patients were included, among whom 69 and 491 received C-ion RT and RFA, respectively. After PSM (C-ion RT, 54 patients; RFA, 95 patients), both groups were well balanced. Carbon-ion radiotherapy had significantly lower cumulative intrasubsegmental recurrence rate after PSM compared to RFA (p = 0.004) (2-year, 12.6% vs. 31.7%; 5-year, 15.5% vs. 49.6%, respectively). However, no significant difference in cumulative local recurrence rate, stage progression-free survival, or overall survival (OS) was observed between both groups. In the RFA group, 6 of 491 patients (1.2%) showed grade 3 adverse events, whereas no grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in the C-ion RT group. CONCLUSION: Carbon-ion radiotherapy provided a lower cumulative intrasubsegmental recurrence rate, but a comparable cumulative local recurrence rate, stage progression-free survival, and OS compared to RFA. Thus, C-ion RT appears to be one of the effective treatment options for early-stage HCC when RFA is deemed not indicated.

Posttreatment after Lenvatinib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

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.

Potential of Lenvatinib for an Expanded Indication from the REFLECT Trial in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

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.

Sequential therapy with sorafenib and regorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study in Japan.

Background Conversion from sorafenib to regorafenib is primarily an evidence-based treatment strategy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of sequential therapy with sorafenib and regorafenib in patients with advanced HCC by analysis of outcomes in clinical practice with the aim to complement phase III findings. Methods The medical records of patients with advanced HCC receiving regorafenib were retrieved to collect data on sorafenib administration at seven Japanese institutions. Radiological responses and adverse events were evaluated using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0, respectively. Results Before March 2018, 44 patients were administered regorafenib for advanced HCC. The median sorafenib treatment duration was 8.4 months. The most common adverse events were similar to those reported by the RESORCE trial. The median overall survival (OS) was 17.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.4-22.9), and 17 of 37 patients (45.9%) discontinued regorafenib and received sequential systemic therapy after regorafenib. These patients had significantly longer OS than those who were treated by the best supportive care or sub-optimal therapy (not reached versus 8.7 months [95% CI 5.8-11.7]; P < 0.001). Conclusion The results based on Japanese clinical practices verified the tolerability of regorafenib in advanced HCC. Major regorafenib-associated adverse events were similar to those related to sorafenib. OS was significantly longer than expected, which might be associated with the sequential systemic therapies after regorafenib, mainly lenvatinib.

Japanese patient preferences regarding intermediate to advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treatments.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate Japanese patient preferences regarding features of intermediate or advanced (Progressed) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatments: transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), and oral anti-cancer therapy. Methods: Patients with HCC, recruited from clinical sites and a patient panel in Japan, completed a cross-sectional web-based survey. Preferences were quantified using best-worst scaling, where patients identified the best and worst among 13 treatment features. Direct elicitation was used to identify preference for TACE, HAIC, or oral therapy, including the likelihood of trying each. Additional items asked for the willingness to try an oral medication that delays progression by six months but has an 8% or 21% risk of severe hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR). Results: The sample (N=119; 29 early stage; 90 Progressed) most preferred "oral medication", "artery branches plugged", and "prevents formation of new blood vessels", and least preferred "risk of liver damage" and "risk of catheter-related complications". Overall, 51%, 40%, and 8% preferred oral therapy, TACE, and HAIC, respectively (p<0.05), and the mean likelihood of trying each were 59%, 52%, and 35%, respectively (p<0.001). Patients with sorafenib or TACE experience most preferred what they had received; however, both groups were equally willing to try the other treatment. Patients preferring oral therapy favored "oral medication" over "artery branches plugged", "surgery is repeated as required when the cancer grows again", and "risk of liver damage", compared to those preferring TACE (p<0.05). Sixty-eight percent would probably try therapy with an 8% risk of severe HFSR, compared to 50% with a 21% risk. Conclusion: Treatment type, mode of action, and risks may drive HCC patient preferences. Such features likely should be incorporated into physician-patient interactions regarding treatment decision-making.

Suspicion of superior mesenteric artery syndrome in a patient with severe gastric dilatation after catheter ablation.

Catheter ablation is a widely used treatment for atrial fibrillation. Gastric hypomotility due to periesophageal vagal plexus injury is a consequence of the extracardiac penetration of ablative energy. Some affected patients develop severe gastric dilatation requiring hospitalization. However, most previous reports have stated the cause of the subject's condition to be "unknown" or described the symptoms using obscure terms, such as "paralytic" or "gastroparesis." For example, one report stated that a few sites of severe gastric dilatation were secondary to "pyloric spasms;" however, no illustrations were provided in the paper. "Superior mesenteric artery syndrome" is a suspected cause of such dilatation.