Baseline ALBI score and early variation of serum AFP predicts outcomes in patients with HCC treated by atezolizumab-bevacizumab.

BACKGROUND: The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (AtezoBev) is the current first-line treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Our aim was to evaluate the prognostic role of alpha-foetoprotein (AFP) early response and its combination with albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) in these patients. METHODS: Patients with HCC under AtezoBev with AFP > 20 ng/ml were included in three centres. The optimal threshold of AFP variation after 3 weeks of treatment was identified for overall survival (OS) and radiological response (RR) using RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST and its ability to predict progression-free survival (PFS) and OS was tested using univariate and multivariate analysis in derivation and validation cohorts. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients with AFP values >20 ng/ml were included. Fifty-eight patients were male with a median age of 63.5 years; 73% had cirrhosis and HCC stage was classified as BCLC B (18.7%) or C (81.3%). In the derivation cohort (n = 38), a decline in AFP ≥ 20% at 3 weeks (AFP early response) was associated with RR using mRECIST criteria (OR: 13.09 95% CI: 1.44-19.34 p = .02), PFS (HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.19-0.93, p = .03) and OS (HR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.15-0.83, p = .01). AFP early response was confirmed as predictor of RR (p = .02 for mRECIST) and OS (p = .03) in the validation cohort (n= 37). In the whole cohort, the combination of ALBI and AFP early response was significantly associated with OS (p = .046) and PFS (p = .012) with a poor prognosis in patients belonging to the ALBI2-AFP non-responders class. CONCLUSION: AFP early response at 3 weeks predicts oncological outcomes in HCC patients treated with AtezoBev and combination with ALBI grade refines prognostic discrimination.

A history of variceal bleeding is associated with further bleeding under atezolizumab-bevacizumab in patients with HCC.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab-bevacizumab is the new standard for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) but its impact on portal hypertension (PHT) is unknown. We aimed to identify predictive factors of acute variceal bleeding (AVB) and to monitor PHT parameters under treatment. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study including all cirrhotic patients treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab since 2020. We performed monitoring of PHT using upper endoscopy at inclusion and at 6 months and hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) at inclusion, 3 and 6 months after the beginning of treatment. We also included a retrospective series of patients treated with sorafenib. Time-to-events data were estimated by Kaplan-Meier with the log-rank test, along with Cox models. RESULTS: Forty-three patients treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab were included (male 79.1%, Child-Pugh A 86%). At baseline, 48.8% were treated with curative anticoagulation, 16.3% already experienced AVB and 25.6% had large oesophageal varices (EV). Sorafenib group characteristics were similar. Vascular invasion was present in 60.5% and median was HVPG 8.5 mm Hg. No significant modification in HVPG and EV size was observed at 6 months in the whole cohort but also when considering vascular invasion and radiological response. 14% presented AVB within a median time of occurrence of 3 months, without bleeding-related death. In multivariate analysis, history of AVB (HR = 10.58, p = .03) was associated with AVB. AVB incidence was higher in atezolizumab-bevacizumab compared to sorafenib group (21% vs. 5% at 1 year, p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Atezolizumab-bevacizumab treatment was associated with a higher risk of AVB compared to sorafenib. A history of AVB was associated with AVB during follow-up, which questions the use of bevacizumab in this setting.

Portal hypertension is associated with poorer outcome and clinical liver decompensation in patients with HCC treated with Atezolizumab-Bevacizumab.

BACKGROUND: Portal hypertension (PHT) often complicates hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment and prognosis. We aimed to assess PHT's impact on AtezoBev outcomes and identify predictors of acute variceal bleeding (AVB) and clinical ascites occurrence. METHODS: A prospective cohort of 200 HCC patients treated with AtezoBev was studied alongside a retrospective cohort of 123 patients treated with Sorafenib. We assessed factors influencing progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), AVB and clinical ascites development, focusing on PHT parameters, and comparing outcomes within and between the two cohorts (time-dependent Cox model and adjusted survival curves). RESULTS: Among the AtezoBev cohort, 10% experienced AVB, 24% had high-risk esophageal varices (EV) and 46% vascular invasion. Median PFS and OS in the AtezoBev cohort was 5.13 and 12.2 months. AVB (HR=1.81;[95%CI:1.03-3.17]) and clinical ascites occurrence (HR=2.29;[95%CI:1.52-3.45]) were independently associated with mortality. AVB incidence was 12% at 12 months in AtezoBev patients and EV, history of AVB<6months and vascular invasion were independently associated with AVB. The Sorafenib cohort had shorter median PFS and OS, with similar AVB incidence and only EV were associated with AVB. CONCLUSIONS: PHT-related events significantly affect not only liver decompensation but also OS in AtezoBev-treated patients. We suggest a more widespread use of NSBB to prevent liver decompensation, with intensified prophylaxis for high-risk patients.

Baveno VI and VII criteria are not suitable for screening for large varices or clinically significant portal hypertension in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Baveno VI and VII criteria are used in patients with cirrhosis to rule out large size oesophageal varices (EV) and rule in/out clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH). AIM: To evaluate their diagnostic performance in these patients. METHODS: We retrospectively included all patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis and HCC who had endoscopy, liver stiffness measurement (LSM) and platelet count within 6 months. They were classified according to the BCLC stage. Favourable Baveno VI criteria were defined by LSM < 20 kPa and platelets > 150 G/L (to rule out large EV), favourable Baveno VII criteria if LSM ≤ 15 kPa and platelets ≥ 150 G/L (to rule out CSPH, which was defined by a HVPG ≥ 10 mm Hg. RESULTS: We included 185 patients; 46% were BCLC-0/A, 28% BCLC-B and 26% BCLC-C. EV were present in 44% (23% large), and HVPG ≥ 10 mm Hg in 42% (mean 8 mm Hg). In patients with favourable Baveno VI criteria, 8% of the whole cohort (Se 93%, NPV 92%), 11% of BCLC-0-A (Se 89%, NPV 89%) and 10.0% of BCLC-C patients (Se 91%, NPV 90%) had large EV. Among patients with HVPG < 10 mm Hg, 6% had large EV and 17% small. CSPH was present in 23% of patients with favourable Baveno VII criteria among the whole cohort, and in 25% of those with BCLC-0/A. The specificity of LSM ≥ 25 kPa to rule in CSPH was 48%. CONCLUSIONS: Favourable Baveno VI criteria are not appropriate to rule out the presence of high-risk EV, or Baveno VII criteria to rule CSPH in/out in patients with HCC.