Lenvatinib versus Sorafenib Second-Line Therapy in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Progressed to Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab: A Retrospective Real-World Study.

INTRODUCTION: The most frequently used first-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Upon progression after this treatment, the standard of care in many countries is sorafenib, due to the lack of reimbursement for other drugs. Several randomized trials are currently underway to clarify the best second-line therapy in patients with HCC. This real-world study aimed to compare outcomes reached by lenvatinib and sorafenib second-line therapy in this setting. METHODS: The overall cohort included 891 patients with HCC from 5 countries treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in first-line setting between October 2018 and April 2022. At the data cut-off (May 2022), 41.5% of patients were continuing a first-line treatment, 5.5% were lost at follow-up, and 53.0% of patients had progressive disease after first-line therapy. 51.5% of patients with progressive disease received a second-line treatment, while 48.5% did not receive any subsequent therapy. Between patients receiving second-line treatment, 11.1% of patients underwent transarterial chemoembolization, 21.0% received sorafenib, 35.4% underwent lenvatinib, and 32.5% were treated with other drugs. RESULTS: Lenvatinib second-line subgroup achieved a median overall survival (mOS) of 18.9 months, significative longer (p = 0.01; hazard ratio [HR]: 2.24) compared to sorafenib subgroup that reached a mOS of 14.3 months. The multivariate analysis highlighted albumin-bilirubin 1 grade (p < 0.01; HR: 5.23) and lenvatinib second-line therapy (p = 0.01; HR: 2.18) as positive prognostic factors for OS. The forest plot highlighted a positive trend in terms of OS in favor of patients treated with lenvatinib second-line regardless of baseline characteristics before first-line therapy. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that, in patients with HCC progressed to first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib second-line therapy is associated to an improved survival compared to sorafenib.

Disease Etiology Impact on Outcomes of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab: A Real-World, Multicenter Study.

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.

Clinical usefulness of newly developed prognostic predictive score for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for hepatocellular carcinoma.

AIMS: The aim of the present study was to elucidate detailed parameters for prediction of prognosis for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) treatment. METHODS: A total of 719 patients (males 577, median age 74 years) treated with Atez/Bev between September 2020 and January 2023 were enrolled. Factors related to overall survival (OS) were extracted and a prognostic scoring system based on hazard ratio (HR) was created. OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were retrospectively examined, and the prognostic ability of the newly developed system was compared to CRAFITY score using concordance index (c-index) and Akaike information criterion (AIC) results. RESULTS: Cox-hazards multivariate analysis showed BCLC classification C/D (HR 1.4; 1 point), AFP ≥100 ng/mL (HR 1.4; 1 point), mALBI 2a (HR 1.7; 1 point), mALBI 2b/3 (HR 2.8; 2 points), and DCP ≥100 mAU/mL (HR 1.6; 1 point) as significant factors. The assigned points were added and used to develop the IMmunotherapy with AFP, BCLC staging, mALBI, and DCP evaluation (IMABALI-De) scoring system. For IMABALI-De scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, OS was not applicable (NA), NA, 26.11, 18.79, 14.07, and 8.32 months, respectively (p < .001; AIC 2788.67, c-index 0.699), while for CRAFITY scores of 0, 1, and 2, OS was 26.11, 20.29, and 11.32 months, respectively (p < .001; AIC 2864.54, c-index 0.606). PFS periods for those IMABALI-De scores were 21.75, 12.89, 9.18, 8.0, 5.0, and 3.75 months, respectively (p < .001; AIC 5203.32, c-index 0.623) and for the CRAFITY scores were 10.32, 7.68, and 3.57 months, respectively (p < .001; AIC 5246.61, c-index 0.574). As compared with CRAFITY score, IMABALI-De score had better AIC and c-index results for both OS and PFS. CONCLUSION: The present results indicated that the proposed IMABALI-De score may be favorable for predicting prognosis of uHCC patients receiving Atez/Bev therapy.

Comparison of six hepatocellular carcinoma prediction models in Japanese patients after sustained virologic response undergoing rigorous surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: While several predictive models for the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been proposed, including those for patients with chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection who have achieved sustained virologic response (SVR), the best model may differ between regions. We compared the ability of six reported models to stratify the risk of post-SVR HCC in Japan, where rigorous surveillance and early detection of HCC is common. METHODS: A total of 6048 patients with no history of HCC who achieved SVR by oral direct-acting antiviral drugs were enrolled in this nationwide study. Patients continued HCC surveillance every 6 months after SVR. The incidence of post-SVR HCC was compared between risk groups using the aMAP score, FIB-4 index, Tahata model, GAF4 criteria, GES score, and ADRES score. RESULTS: During the observation period with a median duration of 4.0 years after SVR, post-SVR HCC developed in 332 patients (5.5%). All six models performed significantly at stratifying the incidence of HCC. However, Harrell's C-index was below 0.8 for all models (range, 0.660-0.748), indicating insufficient stratification ability. CONCLUSION: Although all six proposed models demonstrated a good ability to predict the development of post-SVR HCC, their ability to stratify the risk of post-SVRHCC was unsatisfactory. Further studies are necessary to identify the best model for assessing the risk of post-SVR HCC in regions where early detection of HCC is common.

Regional Differences in Clinical Presentation and Prognosis of Patients With Post-Sustained Virologic Response Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Widespread use of direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis C virus infection has been paralleled with increased numbers of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after achieving sustained virologic response (post-SVR HCC) worldwide. Few data compare regional differences in the presentation and prognosis of patients with post-SVR HCC. METHODS: We identified patients with advanced fibrosis (F3/F4) who developed incident post-SVR HCC between March 2015 and October 2021 from 30 sites in Europe, North America, South America, the Middle East, South Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. We compared patient demographics, liver dysfunction, and tumor burden by region. We compared overall survival by region using Kaplan-Meier analysis and identified factors associated with survival using multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Among 8796 patients with advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis who achieved SVR, 583 (6.6%) developed incident HCC. There was marked regional variation in the proportion of patients detected by surveillance (range: 59.5%-100%), median maximum tumor diameter (range, 1.8-5.0 cm), and the proportion with multinodular HCC (range, 15.4%-60.8%). The prognosis of patients highly varied by region (hazard ratio range, 1.82-9.92), with the highest survival rates in East Asia, North America, and South America, and the lowest survival rates in the Middle East and South Asia. After adjusting for geographic region, HCC surveillance was associated with early stage detection (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0/A, 71.0% vs 21.3%; P < .0001) and lower mortality rates (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.18-0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical characteristics, including early stage detection, and prognosis of post-SVR HCC differed significantly across geographic regions. Surveillance utilization appears to be a high-yield intervention target to improve prognosis among patients with post-SVR HCC globally.

Comparison of prognostic impact of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib in patients with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The study goal was to compare the outcomes of patients with intermediate-stage (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer [BCLC]-B) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo/Bev) or lenvatinib (LEN) as first-line systemic therapy. METHODS: A total of 358 patients with BCLC-B HCC treated with Atezo/Bev (n = 177) or LEN (n = 181) as first-line systemic therapy were included. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival (PFS) times in the Atezo/Bev and LEN groups were 10.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.8-12.6) and 7.3 months (95% CI, 6.3-8.5), respectively (p = .019). In the propensity score-matched cohort, the median PFS times in the Atezo/Bev (n = 151) and LEN (n = 151) groups were 10.2 months (95% CI, 7.0-12.3) and 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.9-8.1), respectively (p = .020). Restricted mean survival times of PFS were significantly higher in the Atezo/Bev group than in the LEN group at landmarks of 12 and 18 months (p = .031 and .012, respectively). In a subgroup analysis of patients with HCC beyond the up-to-seven criteria, the median PFS times in the Atezo/Bev (n = 134) and LEN (n = 117) groups were 10.5 months (95% CI, 7.0-11.8) and 6.3 months (95% CI, 5.5-7.3), respectively (p = .044). CONCLUSIONS: The use of Atezo/Bev as first-line systemic therapy in patients with BCLC-B HCC is expected to result in good PFS.

Comparative analysis of the therapeutic outcomes of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib for hepatocellular carcinoma patients aged 80 years and older: Multicenter study.

AIM: Elderly patients are believed to have a reduced immune capacity, which may make immunotherapy less effective. The aim of this study was to compare the therapeutic outcome of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) and lenvatinib (LEN) for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients aged 80 years and older. METHODS: From March 2018 to July 2022, 170 and 92 elderly patients who received LEN and Atez/Bev as first-line treatment, respectively, were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: The median ages of the Atez/Bev and LEN groups were 83.0 (8.01-86.0) and 83.0 (82.0-86.0) years (p = 0.3), respectively. Men accounted for approximately 70% of the patients in both groups. The objective response rate was 35.9% in the LEN group and 33.7% in the Atez/Bev group (p = 0.8), whereas the disease control rates in the LEN and Atez/Bev groups were 62.9% and 63.0%, respectively (p = 1.0). The median progression-free survival (PFS) in the LEN and Atez/Bev groups was 6.3 and 7.2 months, respectively, which were not significantly different (p = 0.2). The median overall survival (OS) was 17.9 months in the LEN group and 14.0 months in the Atez/Bev group. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.7). In multivariate analyses, the choice of treatment (LEN vs. Atez/Bev) showed no association with PFS or OS. The Atez/Bev group had a significantly higher rate of postprogression treatment (59.0% vs. 35.7%, p = 0.01) and a lower rate of discontinuation due to adverse events (69 [40.6%] vs. 19 [20.7%], p < 0.001) compared to the LEN group. CONCLUSIONS: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed comparable effectiveness to LEN in HCC patients aged 80 years and older. Given the results of postprogression treatment and discontinuation due to adverse events, Atez/Bev could serve as a first-line treatment even for elderly HCC patients.

α-FAtE: A new predictive score of response to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (AB) and lenvatinib can be alternatively used as first-line systemic treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, no direct comparison of the two regimens has been performed in randomized clinical trials, making the identification of baseline differential predictors of response of major relevance to tailor the best therapeutic option to each patient. Baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics of real-world AB-treated HCC patients were analyzed in uni- and multivariate analyses to find potential prognostic factors of overall survival (OS). Significant variables were incorporated in a composite score (α-FAtE) and it was tested for specificity and sensitivity in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and in multivariate analysis for OS. The score was applied in uni- and multivariate analyses for OS of a comparable lenvatinib-treated HCC population. Finally, comparison between treatments was performed in patients with low and high α-FAtE scores and predictivity estimated by interaction analysis. Time-to-progression (TTP) was a secondary endpoint. OS of AB-treated HCC patients was statistically longer in those with α-fetoprotein <400 ng/mL (HR 0.62, p = .0407), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) <125 IU/L (HR 0.52, p = .0189) and eosinophil count ≥70/µL (HR 0.46, p = .0013). The α-FAtE score was generated by the sum of single points attributed to each variable among the above reported. In ROC curve analysis, superior sensitivity and specificity were achieved by the score compared to individual variables (AUC 0.794, p < .02). Patients with high score had longer OS (HR 0.44, p = .0009) and TTP (HR 0.34, p < .0001) compared to low score if treated with AB, but not with lenvatinib. Overall, AB was superior to lenvatinib in high score patients (HR 0.55, p = .0043) and inferior in low score ones (HR 1.75, p = .0227). At interaction test, low α-FAtE score resulted as negative predictive factor of response to AB (p = .0004). In conclusion, α-FAtE is a novel prognostic and predictive score of response to first-line AB for HCC patients that, if validated in prospective studies, could drive therapeutic choice between lenvatinib and AB.

Comparing the impact of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib on the liver function in hepatocellular carcinoma patients: A mixed-effects regression model approach.

AIM: This retrospective study compared the impact of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) and lenvatinib (LEN) on the liver function in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: We included 526 patients who received Atez/Bev and 731 who received LEN March 2018 and July 2022 in this study. We conducted a 1:1 propensity-score-matched analysis and identified 324 patients in each group for inclusion in the present analysis. Nonlinear mixed-effects regression models were employed, allowing for the evaluation and inclusion of cases where treatment was interrupted due to disease progression, adverse events, or loss to follow-up. These models were used to compare the ALBI score between the Atez/Bev and LEN groups. RESULTS: Following propensity score matching, the mean ALBI scores in the Atez/Bev and LEN groups were -2.41 ± 0.40 and -2.44 ± 0.42 at baseline, and -2.17 ± 0.56 and -2.19 ± 0.58 at 12 weeks, respectively. Although the ALBI score significantly worsened during treatment in both groups (p < 0.001), there was no significant difference in the rate of ALBI score deterioration between the groups (p = 0.06). Subgroup analyses showed that LEN-treated patients with BCLC advanced stage (p = 0.02) and those who initially received the full dose (p < 0.001) had a significantly greater worsening of ALBI score compared to Atez/Bev. CONCLUSIONS: Using a nonlinear mixed-effects regression approach, which allowed for the inclusion of cases with treatment interruption, we found no significant difference in the trend of liver function deterioration between the Atez/Bev and LEN groups. Caution should be exercised for LEN-treated patients with BCLC advanced stage or those receiving the full dose of LEN.

Usefulness of Tumor Marker Score for Predicting the Prognosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the ability of a previously reported tumor marker (TM) score involving alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), fucosylated AFP (AFP-L3), and des gamma-carboxy prothrombin (DCP) as TMs in predicting the prognosis and therapeutic efficacy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients administered atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) as first-line treatment. MATERIALS/METHODS: The study period covered September 2020 to December 2022 and involved 371 HCC patients treated with Atez/Bev. The values of the TMs AFP, AFP-L3, and DCP were measured upon introducing Atez/Bev. Elevations in the values of AFP (≥100 ng/mL), AFP-L3 (≥10%), and DCP (≥100 mAU/mL) were considered to indicate a positive TM. The number of positive TMs was summed up and used as the TM score, as previously proposed. Hepatic reserve function was assessed using the modified albumin-bilirubin grade (mALBI). Predictive values for prognosis were evaluated retrospectively. RESULTS: A TM score of 0 was shown in 81 HCC patients (21.8%), 1 in 110 (29.6%), 2 in 112 (29.9%), and 3 in 68 (18.3%). The median overall survival (OS) times for TM scores 0, 1, 2, and 3 were not applicable [NA] (95% CI NA-NA), 24.0 months (95% CI 17.8-NA), 16.7 months (95% CI 17.8-NA), and NA (95% CI 8.3-NA), respectively (p < 0.001). The median progression-free survival (PFS) times for TM scores 0, 1, 2, and 3 were 16.5 months (95% CI 8.0-not applicable [NA]), 13.8 months (95% CI 10.6-21.3), 7.7 months (95% CI 5.3-8.9), and 5.8 months (95% CI 3.0-7.6), respectively (p < 0.001). OS was well stratified in mALBI 1/2a and mALBI 2a/2b. PFS was well stratified in mALBI 2a/2b, but not in mALBI 1/2a. CONCLUSIONS: The TM score involving AFP, AFP-L3, and DCP as TMs was useful in predicting the prognosis and therapeutic efficacy in terms of OS and PFS in HCC patients administered Atez/Bev as first-line treatment.

Efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients with esophageal-gastric varices.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A), though is known to increase bleeding risk as an adverse event (AE). This study examined whether atezolizumab/bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) can be used for patients with esophageal-gastric varices (EGV). METHODS: From October 2020 to December 2022, 506 uHCC patients (median 74 years) underwent an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy examination were enrolled, after exclusion of those with portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT). Patients with EGV (≧ F1) were defined as EGV positive, and the cohort was divided into non-EGV (n = 355) and EGV (n = 151). Before introducing Atez/Bev, endoscopic treatment was performed, when necessary. Prognosis was evaluated, retrospectively. RESULTS: The EGV group had significantly worse hepatic function, lower platelet count, elevated alpha-fetoprotein, and lower rate of extrahepatic metastasis, and lower rate of first-line use (each P < 0.05) than the other. However, progression-free survival (PFS) was also not a significantly difference between the EGV and non-EGV groups in analyses with (PFS rate at 6/12/18 months: 60%/38%/30% vs. 65%/46%/34%, P = 0.29) or without inverse probability weighting adjustment [median: 10.6 months (95% CI 8.3-14.0) vs. 10.5 months (95% CI 7.8-13.7), P = 0.79]. As for AEs, diarrhea was more frequent in the EGV group (≧ G3: 2.0% vs. 0.3%, P = 0.036), while no significant difference was noted for EGV hemorrhage (≧ G3: 1.3% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.345). Of 28 patients who underwent endoscopic treatments before introducing Atez/Bev, none showed EGV-associated hemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS: Atez/Bev might be an effective therapeutic option in patients with EGV, when appropriate endoscopic treatment for EGV is performed.

Effect of butyrate-producing enterobacteria on advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treatment with atezolizumab and bevacizumab.

AIM: Multiple studies have revealed the correlation between gut microbiome and the response to checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in patients with cancer, and oral administration of butyrate-producing enterobacteria has been reported to enhance the efficacy of CPIs. However, the effects of enterobacteria on patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are not well understood. METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter study, we enrolled 747 patients with advanced HCC, treated with atezolizumab and bevacizumab combination therapy. Tumor response, survival, and adverse effects were compared between 99 patients who ingested drugs containing butyric acid-producing enterobacteria (butyric acid group) and the remaining patients (control group). RESULTS: Objective response and disease control rates in butyric acid group (29.7% and 77.8%, respectively) were higher than those in the control group (26.4% and 72.7%, respectively). However, the differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.543 and p = 0.222, respectively). No difference in median survival time was observed between the two groups (20.0 months and 21.4 months, respectively; p = 0.789), even after matching the backgrounds of the patients with propensity scores (p = 0.714). No adverse effects occurred upon the administration of butyrate-producing bacteria. However, proteinuria (41.4% vs. 30.9%; p = 0.041), fever (17.2% vs. 10.2%, p = 0.036), and diarrhea (15.2% vs. 6.2%; p = 0.001) occurred more frequently in the butyric acid group. CONCLUSION: Butyrate-producing bacteria does not enhance the efficacy of atezolizumab-bevacizumab combination therapy in patients with HCC.

Comparison between Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab and Lenvatinib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Child-Pugh Class B in Real-World Clinical Settings.

INTRODUCTION: Systemic treatment is generally recommended for Child-Pugh (CP) A status patients with an unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). This study aimed to elucidate differences regarding therapeutic efficacy between lenvatinib (LEN), a multi-molecular target agent, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev), a newly developed immune-combined therapeutic regimen for CP-B patients affected by uHCC. METHODS: From April 2018 to July 2022, 128 patients with uHCC treated with Atez/Bev (n = 29) or LEN (n = 99) as the initial systemic treatment were enrolled (median age 71 years; males 97; CP score 7:8:9 = 94:28:6; median albumin-bilirubin score -1.71). Therapeutic response was evaluated using RECIST, version 1.1. Clinical features and prognosis were retrospectively examined. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the Atez/Bev and LEN groups in regard to best response (CR:PR:SD:PD = 0:5:12:7 vs. 5:22:25:20, p = 0.415), progression-free survival (PFS) (median 5.0 [95% CI: 2.4-7] vs. 5.5 [95% CI: 3.4-7.9] months, p = 0.332), or overall survival (OS) (5.8 [95% CI: 4.3-11] vs. 8.8 [95% CI: 6.1-12.9] months, p = 0.178). Adverse events (any grade/≥ grade 3) were observed in 72.4%/17.2% (n = 21/5) of patients treated with Atez/Bev and 78.8%/25.3% (n = 78/25) of those treated with LEN (p = 0.46/0.46). DISCUSSION: This retrospective study found no significant differences regarding PFS or OS between CP-B patients given Atez/Bev or LEN as initial systemic treatment for uHCC.

Relationship of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab Treatment with Muscle Volume Loss in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients: Multicenter Analysis.

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.

Geriatric nutritional risk index as an easy-to-use assessment tool for nutritional status in hepatocellular carcinoma treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

AIM: The present study focused on Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI), which is based on bodyweight and serum albumin, and known as an easy-to-use nutritional assessment tool in clinical settings, to elucidate the prognostic predictive ability of GNRI in patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: A total of 525 HCC patients treated with Atez/Bev, based on their classification of unsuitable status for curative treatments and/or transarterial catheter chemoembolization, were enrolled (Child-Pugh A:B:C = 484:40:1, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0:A:B:C:D = 7:25:192:283:18). Prognosis was evaluated retrospectively using GNRI. RESULTS: Atez/Bev was used in 338 of the present cohort as first-line systemic chemotherapy (64.4%). Median progression-free survival based on GNRI indicating normal, mild decline, moderate decline, and severe decline was 8.3, 6.7, 5.3, and 2.4 months, respectively, whereas median overall survival was 21.4, 17.0, 11.5. and 7.3 months, respectively (both p < 0.001). The concordance index (c-index) values of GNRI for predicting prognosis (progression-free survival/overall survival) were superior to those of Child-Pugh class and albumin-bilirubin grade (0.574/0.632 vs. 0.527/0.570 vs. 0.565/0.629). As a subanalysis, muscle volume loss was observed in 37.5% of 256 patients with computed tomography data available. Along with GNRI decline, frequency of muscle volume loss became progressively larger (normal vs. mild vs. moderate vs. severe = 17.6% vs. 29.2% vs. 41.2% vs. 57.9%, p < 0.001), and a GNRI value of 97.8 was predictive of its occurrence (AUC 0.715, 95% CI 0.649-0.781; specificity/sensitivity = 0.644/0.688). CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that GNRI is an effective nutritional prognostic tool for predicting prognosis and muscle volume loss complication in HCC patients treated with Atez/Bev.

Hepatocellular organellar abnormalities following elimination of hepatitis C virus.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The future development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients after sustained virologic response (SVR) is an important issue. The purposes of this study were to investigate pathological alterations in organelle of the liver of SVR patients and to characterize organelle abnormalities that may be related to carcinogenesis after SVR. METHODS: The ultrastructure of liver biopsy specimens from patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) and SVR were compared to cell and mouse models and assessed semi-quantitatively using transmission electron microscopy. RESULTS: Hepatocytes in patients with CHC showed abnormalities in the nucleus, mitochondria, endoplasmic reticulum, lipid droplet, and pericellular fibrosis, comparable to those seen in hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected mice and cells. DAA treatment significantly reduced organelle abnormalities such as the nucleus, mitochondria, and lipid droplet in the hepatocytes of patients and mice after SVR, and cured cells, but it did not change dilated/degranulated endoplasmic reticulum and pericellular fibrosis in patients and mice after SVR. Further, samples from patients with a post-SVR period of >1 year had significantly larger numbers of abnormalities in the mitochondria and endoplasmic reticulum than those of <1 year. A possible cause of organelle abnormalities in patients after SVR could be oxidative stress of the endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria associated with abnormalities of the vascular system due to fibrosis. Interestingly, abnormal endoplasmic reticulum was associated with patients with HCC for >1 year after SVR. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that patients with SVR exhibit a persistent disease state and require long-term follow-up to detect early signs of carcinogenesis.

Lenvatinib as Second-Line Treatment after Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Clinical Results Show Importance of Hepatic Reserve Function.

INTRODUCTION: Lack of an established methodology for post-progression systemic treatment following atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) administration is an important clinical issue. The present study aimed to elucidate the potential of lenvatinib as a second-line treatment option after Atez/Bev failure. METHODS: From 2020 to 2022, 101 patients who received lenvatinib as second-line treatment were enrolled (median 72 years, males 77, Child-Pugh A 82, BCLC-A:B:C:D = 1:35:61:4), while 29 treated with another molecular targeting agent (MTA) during the period as second-line treatment were enrolled as controls. The therapeutic efficacy of lenvatinib given as second-line treatment was retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival/median overall survival for all patients was 4.4/15.7 months and for those with Child-Pugh A was 4.7 months/not-reached. When prognosis was compared with patients who received another MTA, there was no significant difference for PFS (3.5 months, p = 0.557) or OS (13.6 months, p = 0.992), and also no significant differences regarding clinical background factors. mRECIST findings showed that objective response and disease control rates in patients treated with lenvatinib were 23.9% and 70.4%, respectively (CR:PR:SD:PD = 3:14:33:21), while those shown by RECIST, ver. 1.1, were 15.4% and 66.2%, respectively (CR:PR:SD:PD = 1:10:36:24). Adverse events (any grade ≥10%) were appetite loss (26.7%) (grade 1:2:3 = 2:15:10), general fatigue (21.8%) (grade 1:2:3 = 3:13:6), protein in urine (16.8%) (grade 1:2:3 = 0:4:13), and hypertension (13.9%) (grade 1:2:3 = 1:8:5). CONCLUSION: Although lenvatinib treatment might not provide a pseudo-combination immunotherapy effect following Atez/Bev failure, lenvatinib when used as second-line treatment after Atez/Bev failure might be expected to be comparable as compared to its use as first-line treatment.

Impact of first-line systemic therapy with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The study goal was to compare the outcomes of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo/Bev) as either first- or later-line systemic therapy. METHODS: A total of 430 patients with HCC treated with Atezo/Bev at 22 institutions in Japan were included. Patients treated with Atezo/Bev as first-line therapy for HCC were defined as the first-line group (n = 268) while those treated with Atezo/Bev as second- or later-line therapy were defined as the later-line group (n = 162). RESULTS: The median progression-free survival times in the first- and later-line groups were 7.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.7-9.2) and 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.0-7.7) (P = 0.021). Regarding treatment-related adverse events, hypertension of any grade was more common in the first-line group than in the later-line group (P = 0.025). Analysis adjusted by inverse probability weighting, including patient and HCC characteristics, showed that the later-line group (hazard ratio, 1.304; 95% CI, 1.006-1.690; P = 0.045) was significantly associated with progression-free survival. In patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B, the median progression-free survival times in the first- and later-line groups were 10.5 months (95% CI, 6.8-13.8) and 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.0-9.4) (P = 0.021). Among patients with a history of lenvatinib therapy, the median progression-free survival times in the first- and later-line groups were 7.7 months (95% CI, 6.3-9.2) and 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.0-7.7) (P = 0.022). CONCLUSION: The use of Atezo/Bev as first-line systemic therapy in patients with HCC is expected to prolong survival.

Association of proton pump inhibitor and antibiotic use with the clinical outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma patients receiving atezolizumab and bevacizumab: A multicenter analysis.

AIM: This retrospective study aimed to investigate the impact of proton pump inhibitor treatment (PPI) and antibiotic treatment on the therapeutic outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients receiving atezolizumab and bevacizumab (Atez/Bev). METHODS: The present study included a total of 441 HCC patients who were treated with Atez/Bev in 20 Japanese institutions from September 2020 to April 2022. We adopted the inverse probability of treatment weight to adjust for imbalance in the baseline characteristics of patients with and without PPI treatment as well as patients with and without antibiotic treatment. RESULTS: The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients with and without PPI treatment did not differ to a statistically significant extent. In the weighted cohort, the difference in PFS and OS between the patients with and without PPI did not reach statistical significance (median PFS, 7.0 vs. 6.5 months, p = 0.07; 1-year survival rate 66.3% and 73.8%, p = 0.9). The PFS and OS in patients with antibiotic treatment were worse in comparison to patients without antibiotic treatment (median PFS, 3.8 vs. 7.0 months, p = 0.007; 1-year survival rate 58.8% and 70.3%, p = 0.01). In the weighted cohort, the PFS and OS of the two groups did not differ to a statistically significant extent (median PFS, 3.8 vs. 6.7 months, p = 0.2; 1-year survival rate, 61.8% and 71.0%, p = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic outcomes of Atez/Bev in HCC patients did not differ between patients with and without PPI treatment or between patients with and without antibiotic treatment.

Survival outcomes from atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus Lenvatinib in Child Pugh B unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

INTRODUCTION: The best first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and Child-Pugh (CP) class B remains unknown. The aim of the present study was to perform a real-world analysis on a large sample of patients with unresectable HCC with CP B treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab Vs Lenvatinib. METHODS: The study population included patients affected by advanced (BCLC-C) or intermediate (BCLC-B) HCC patients not suitable for locoregional therapies from both the Western and Eastern world (Italy, Germany, Republic of Korea and Japan), who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or Lenvatinib as first-line treatment. All the study population presented a CP class of B. The primary endpoint of the study was the overall survival (OS) of CP B patients treated with Lenvatinib compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Survival curves were estimated using the product-limit method of Kaplan-Meier. The role of stratification factors was analyzed with log-rank tests. Finally, an interaction test was performed for the main baseline clinical characteristics. RESULTS: 217 CP B HCC patients were enrolled in the study: 65 (30%) received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, and 152 (70%) received lenvatinib. The mOS for patients receiving Lenvatinib was 13.8 months (95% CI: 11.6-16.0), compared to 8.2 months (95% CI 6.3-10.2) for patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab Vs Lenvatinib: HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.0, p = 0.0050). No statistically significant differences were highlighted in terms of mPFS. The multivariate analysis confirmed that patients receiving Lenvatinib as first-line treatment have a significantly longer OS compared to patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (HR 2.01; 95% CI 1.29-3.25, p = 0.0023). By evaluating the cohort of patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, we found that Child B patients with ECOG PS 0, or BCLC B stage or ALBI grade 1 were those who had benefited from the treatment thus showing survival outcomes no significantly different compared to those receiving Lenvatinib. CONCLUSION: The present study suggests for the first time a major benefit from Lenvatinib compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in a large cohort of patients with CP B class HCC.